The Ninja Files: Interlude - When Predators Send Lawyers

An Update by Joeziel Vazquez

CEO & Board Certified Credit Consultant (BCCC, CCSC, CCRS)

17 Years Experience

Published: February 6 2026

Reading Time: 49 minutes

If you're reading this, you probably noticed something: Part 2 of The Ninja Files was supposed to publish on January 27, 2026—two and a half weeks ago. It didn't.

Let me tell you why—and let me address the rumors that have been swirling through the credit repair industry like wildfire.

The Rumor: "Joeziel Got Scared"

The gossip started almost immediately after Part 1 dropped on January 9, 2026.

Whispers in Facebook groups. Private messages to sources. DMs to people who'd talked to me.

The story being spread? That I'd been served with a cease and desist letter. That Bruce Cornelius of MyFreeScoreNow (MFSN) had lawyered up. That I was backing down. That Part 2 would never come.

Some versions claimed I was "in legal trouble." Others suggested I'd realized I "went too far" and was scrambling to retract. A few even implied I'd made everything up and was now facing the consequences.

Let me be absolutely clear about something:

I have not received a cease and desist letter from Bruce Cornelius or MFSN.

Not one word. Not one email. Not one letter from an attorney threatening legal action over anything I wrote about Bruce or MFSN in Part 1.

And you want to know why I haven't?

Because Bruce Cornelius doesn't have the balls to send me one.

Why Bruce Won't Send a C&D

Let me explain how cease and desist letters work in defamation cases.

When you send a C&D claiming someone defamed you, you have to specify what statements are false. You have to explain why they're false. You have to provide evidence that contradicts the allegedly defamatory statements.

Because here's the thing: truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

If what I published is true, Bruce has no case. And sending a C&D letter just to intimidate me when he knows he has no case? That's potentially abuse of process. That opens him up to counter-claims.

So what did I write about Bruce and MFSN in Part 1?

1. SmartCredit terminated their partnership with MFSN - This is true. Multiple industry sources confirmed it. SmartCredit has not denied it.

2. The termination was due to MFSN sharing consumer passwords with credit repair companies - This is what multiple credible sources told me. I reported it as such. Bruce has not publicly denied this. SmartCredit has not contradicted it.

3. Bruce blocked me when I asked for comment - This is demonstrably true. I have screenshots. He blocked me instead of responding to my inquiry about the password sharing allegations.

4. MFSN's platform has been used to promote "sweep" practices - This is observable fact. Posts promoting identity theft sweeps and human trafficking sweeps have appeared on MFSN-connected Facebook groups. These posts are visible to anyone in those groups.

Every single thing I wrote about Bruce and MFSN in Part 1 is either:

• Documented fact (SmartCredit termination, Bruce blocking me)

• Accurately reported information from credible sources (password sharing)

• Observable reality (sweep practice promotion on Facebook)

Bruce can't send me a C&D claiming defamation because he'd have to argue that these things aren't true. And if he argues they aren't true, I get to conduct discovery. I get to depose him under oath. I get to subpoena SmartCredit. I get to subpoena the credit repair companies that allegedly received the shared passwords.

Bruce doesn't want that. Trust me.

So no, I haven't received a C&D from Bruce. And I don't think I will.

But I did receive one from someone else.

We'll get to that.

The Real Reason for the Delay: The Flood

Part 2 was supposed to publish January 27, 2026. That was the plan. That was what I promised.

The article was supposed to detail the Mustard heist—how Devin Shaw perfected his infrastructure theft tactics before ever meeting Jeff and Lucia Corral. I have Damien's complete testimony. I have the smoking gun evidence. I have the crying video manipulation story.

Part 2 is written. It's sitting in my drafts folder, nearly complete.

So why didn't it publish two and a half weeks ago? Why the radio silence?

Because after Part 1 went live on January 9th, my inbox exploded.

I'm not talking about a few messages. I'm talking about a deluge of screenshots, testimonies, evidence, and stories that I'm still trying to organize and verify.

People who'd been silent for years suddenly found their voices. Victims who thought they were alone realized they weren't. Witnesses who'd seen things but didn't know who to tell finally had someone listening.

And what they sent me... it's worse than I thought.

Much worse.

For the past two and a half weeks, I've been drowning in evidence. Hundreds of screenshots. Dozens of conversations. Voice memos. Documents. Bank records. Text message threads going back years.

The pattern I documented in Part 1—infiltrate, isolate, steal, destroy—isn't just Devin, Jeff, and Lucia. It's bigger. The network is more extensive. The body count is higher. The connections run deeper.

I've received evidence of:

• Additional victims I didn't know about

• Systematic harassment campaigns more coordinated than what I documented

• Financial fraud beyond simple business theft

• Connections to other industry players I hadn't linked to the scheme

• A web of entities and aliases that makes the Ninja brand look like amateur hour

And I've received something else: evidence that powerful people in this industry knew what was happening and looked the other way.

That's what's taking time. Not fear. Not legal threats. Due diligence.

Two and a half weeks might seem like a long delay. In journalism, it's nothing. Not when you're verifying claims from a dozen new sources. Not when you're cross-referencing timelines across multiple victims. Not when you're building a case that has to be bulletproof because you know the subjects will challenge every word.

Because when you're about to publish evidence that industry gatekeepers enabled systematic fraud—when you're about to name names of people who knew and stayed silent—when you're about to document a network that's bigger than three individuals—you better have your facts absolutely nailed down.

And that takes time.

Every screenshot verified. Every timeline cross-checked. Every testimony corroborated. Every claim backed by documentation.

That's what the last two and a half weeks have been: methodical, painstaking verification of an avalanche of evidence.

Yesterday: The Facebook Confrontation

While I've been methodically working through evidence for Parts 2-6, something happened yesterday—February 6, 2026—that deserves documentation. Because it perfectly illustrates the pattern of aggression, intimidation, and retaliation I've been documenting throughout this investigation.

It started with Robert Quinonez.

Robert is married to Liza Quinonez, a prominent figure in MyFreeScoreNow (MFSN) circles. In Part 1, I documented that Liza had encouraged Lucia Corral to "get em" after Lucia posted threatening messages about confronting competitors at industry events.

The evidence was straightforward: On September 25, 2025, Lucia posted on Facebook: "The universe knows when it's time for liars to face the music. It's time to Face me and face the truth, there's no running now." A week later, on October 2, 2025, Lucia posted: "Networking events in DC & Dallas this week! I'll see YOU there 😘"

Liza Quinonez responded to these threatening posts with: "Get em...."

I documented this in Part 1 as an example of how industry figures enabled and encouraged Lucia's aggressive behavior toward competitors.

Yesterday, Robert Quinonez decided he had a problem with that.

Robert's Challenge

Robert commented on my article's Facebook post:

"do you even have critical thinking skills. You took a two word response to a post and declared that she encouraged Lucia to fight Vivi. That in its self is false. Where do you even come to that conclusion from two words on a comment from Lucia Corral post. And if someone told you that, this is what those two words meant, then as alleged journalist that requires fact check. How do you jump to conclusions with no parachute? What you wrote about my wife on your blog was and is a straight lie and a narrative that you are creating as a fact. You have never spoken to my wife to corroborate that Story tale."

I replied:

"Robert the story wasn't about your wife I posted the screenshots of what she said. The comments from her own profile show what I said there was no need to fact check what your wife said because it was public domain. Your wife did post what she posted so tell me where I was wrong?"

I included the screenshot showing Lucia's threatening posts and Liza's "Get em...." response.

Robert responded: "again tell me where she says anything about fighting or mentions vivi name? You are a liar"

This is a common tactic in these situations: demanding that I prove someone used the exact literal word "fight" as if the absence of that specific word means no encouragement of confrontation occurred. Robert was trying to isolate two words ("Get em") from all context—the threatening posts by Lucia, the announcement of specific event locations where targets would be present, the timing, and Liza's demonstrated communication style.

He was also claiming I needed to call Liza to "fact check" her public statements, which fundamentally misunderstands how journalism works. When someone makes public statements, those statements are on the record. You don't need permission to quote and analyze public posts.

My Comprehensive Response

I responded with a detailed breakdown of how critical thinking actually works:

"Robert, let me walk you through what critical thinking actually looks like when applied to your wife's public statements. This isn't about twisting words. This is about reading comprehension and pattern recognition—skills that apparently need spelling out.

Critical thinking requires examining evidence in totality, not in isolation. You're demanding I find the word 'fight' as if language only functions through explicit literal statements. That's not critical thinking. That's deliberately ignoring how human communication works to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion.

Let's apply actual analytical framework to the evidence:

The Primary Text

September 25, 2025: Lucia Corral posts 'The universe knows when it's time for liars to face the music. It's time to Face me and face the truth, there's no running now.'

This is not abstract philosophical musing. 'Face me' is a direct challenge. 'No running now' implies confrontation is imminent and unavoidable. This language establishes hostile intent toward specific targets.

The Contextual Layer

October 2, 2025: Lucia posts 'Networking events in DC & Dallas this week! I'll see YOU there' with a kissing emoji.

She's not announcing casual attendance at industry events. She's connecting the earlier threat ('face me') to specific locations where the implied targets will be present. The 'YOU' isn't general—it's directed at whoever she believes needs to 'face the music.'

The Response Pattern

Industry figures respond to these posts. Jerry Lee Martin responds with a thinking emoji. Lamar Tyree Hale responds with eyes emoji. Your wife Liza Quinones responds 'Get em....'

Now let's analyze what 'Get em' means in this specific context:

'Get' is an action verb implying acquisition, capture, or confrontation. 'Em' is plural, referring to the people Lucia has been calling out. The ellipsis suggests emphasis and encouragement to complete the implied action.

In the context of Lucia's threatening posts about 'facing' people at specific events, 'Get em' is not encouragement for productive dialogue. It's not suggesting Lucia should 'get' them to understand her perspective through calm conversation. The word 'get' following threats of confrontation has one clear meaning in colloquial English—to confront, to handle, to deal with physically or aggressively.

Your Wife's Communication Style

Your wife just posted calling me a 'little bitch' for documenting her public statements. She claims to have 'no hair on her tongue'—her own description of speaking directly without filter or restraint.

This is critical evidence, Robert. Someone who proudly states they speak their mind without filter is telling you they don't use coded language. They say what they mean. So when your wife—who operates without restraint in her own words—says 'Get em' in response to confrontational posts about 'facing' people at industry events, she's not being subtle. She's being direct. That's her standard, not mine.

The Defensive Pattern

When someone in the MFSN Facebook group asked questions about Ninja Outsourcing, your wife called it 'hating' and 'unprofessional and low class.'

This creates a clear pattern: encouraging Lucia to 'get' competitors is acceptable professional behavior, but asking questions about business practices is hating. Aggressive confrontation gets support. Legitimate inquiry gets shut down.

The Totality Standard

You're asking where your wife explicitly says 'fight.' That's not how critical thinking works. Critical thinking examines behavior patterns, communication context, and demonstrated intent across multiple data points.

Data point one: Lucia makes threatening posts about 'facing' people with 'no running.' Data point two: Lucia announces she'll be at specific events where those people will be present. Data point three: Your wife—who speaks directly without filter by her own admission—responds 'Get em....' Data point four: Your wife defends Ninja Outsourcing and attacks those who question them. Data point five: Your wife responds to my documentation by calling me a 'little bitch' and challenging me to contact her directly.

Critical thinking means synthesizing these data points into a coherent conclusion. The conclusion: Your wife was encouraging Lucia to confront—physically or aggressively—the competitors Lucia was calling out. This conclusion is supported by the language used, the timing of the statements, your wife's self-described communication style, and her demonstrated pattern of responding to conflict with aggression.

Why Your Argument Fails

You're demanding explicit literal language while your wife operates in direct colloquial speech. You're asking me to ignore context while defending someone who just demonstrated exactly how she communicates under pressure—with insults and confrontation challenges.

You're trying to create reasonable doubt by isolating two words from their surrounding context. That's not critical thinking. That's the opposite. Critical thinking requires examining those two words within the full scope of available evidence.

The evidence shows: threatened confrontation, announced locations, encouragement to 'get em,' defense of the threatening party, attack on those who question, and demonstrated pattern of aggressive communication. That's not a collection of unrelated events. That's a clear behavioral pattern pointing to a single conclusion.

Your wife encouraged Lucia to confront her competitors. She didn't need to use the word 'fight' because 'Get em' in the context of threatened physical confrontation at named locations carries the same meaning. Everyone reading those posts understood this. The only person pretending not to understand is you, because understanding would require acknowledging what your wife actually did.

The Professional Standard

You want to talk about journalism requiring fact-checking and verification. I documented public statements accurately. I placed them in proper context. I drew conclusions supported by the totality of evidence. That's journalism.

What's not journalism is calling sources to ask them to confirm interpretations of their public statements that they'll obviously deny. 'Did you mean fight when you said get em?' is not a meaningful journalistic question when the evidence speaks for itself.

Your wife made public statements. Those statements exist in a specific context. The context makes the meaning clear. Her subsequent behavior confirms that meaning. Her self-description as someone who speaks directly without filter validates that she meant exactly what everyone understood her to mean.

You're not defending your wife's honor, Robert. You're defending the indefensible by demanding impossible standards of proof while ignoring the mountain of contextual evidence that makes her intent obvious to anyone applying actual critical thinking skills.

The fact that you're fighting this hard over something this clear tells me you know exactly what she meant. You just don't want it documented."

Robert's Concession

Robert's response: "im not reading this lmfao... Just stop being a bitch and call my wife. You can even record it and post it if you want."

Think about that for a moment.

Robert spent multiple comments demanding I demonstrate critical thinking skills. I provided a comprehensive analytical framework examining his wife's statements in context. His response? He refused to read it and called me a bitch.

I responded:

"Robert, the fact that you're not reading comprehensive analysis while simultaneously demanding I provide evidence of critical thinking tells me everything I need to know about your actual interest in this conversation.

You spent multiple comments insisting I lack critical thinking skills and demanding I prove my journalistic standards. I provided a detailed analytical framework examining your wife's statements in context, applying the very critical thinking methodology you claimed was missing. Your response? 'I'm not reading this lmfao.'

So you don't want evidence. You don't want analysis. You don't want critical thinking. You want me to stop documenting your wife's public behavior, and when I won't, you resort to calling me a bitch and admitting you're not engaging with the substance of the argument.

That's not a rebuttal, Robert. That's a concession.

You can record the call to your wife if you want. I don't need it. She already gave me everything I need by calling me a 'little bitch' on a public post and you just reinforced it by admitting you're not actually interested in the evidence you demanded. You're both performing exactly as expected—aggressive when confronted, dismissive when provided substantive response, and utterly uninterested in accountability for public statements.

The article stands. The documentation stands. Your refusal to engage with the analysis just confirms you know exactly what your wife meant and you're mad it got documented. Enjoy the screenshots."

Liza Quinonez Enters

Two minutes after my exchange with Robert ended, Liza Quinonez posted publicly on Facebook:

"I love how people put words in my mouth. I said what I said and if you take offense or want to twist my words then call me directly I have no hair on my tongue. My phone number is public info. Vazquez Joeziel since you want to be a 'credentialed' journalist call both sides. Instead of writing bullshit blogs and lies. Take a screenshot if this you little bitch!"

This is perfect. This is exactly what I needed.

Because Liza just proved my entire point about her communication style.

She claims she has "no hair on her tongue"—meaning she speaks her mind directly, without filter or coded language. She says what she means.

So when someone who proudly declares they speak directly without filter posts "Get em...." in response to threatening messages about confronting competitors at specific events, they mean exactly what everyone understood them to mean. You can't claim to be a direct, unfiltered communicator AND claim your words need special interpretation.

And her response to being documented? Calling me a "little bitch."

Not: "Here's what I actually meant by 'Get em.'"Not: "Let me clarify the context you're missing."Not: "I was encouraging peaceful dialogue."

Just: aggressive insults and a demand that I call her directly so she can presumably yell at me off the record.

This is someone who responds to criticism with aggression and confrontation. Which validates my interpretation of "Get em" as encouragement for aggressive action, not peaceful professional discourse.

The irony is exquisite: Liza is demonstrating—in real time, on a public post—exactly the communication style that makes "Get em" mean what everyone understood it to mean.

Today: The Cease and Desist Letter(s)

This evening, I received a cease and desist letter.

Not from Bruce Cornelius. Not from MFSN.

From an attorney representing Jeff Inniss and Lucia Corral.

And here's the interesting part: I'm not the only one who received it.

Multiple people who've spoken to me during this investigation also received C&D letters today. Same attorney. Same day. Coordinated delivery.

The letters demand that we:

• Stop publishing information about Jeff and Lucia

• Retract statements made in Part 1

• Cease our "defamatory" investigation

Ill post the C&D letter here for the public to read (And Jeff's ex, the mother of his children as I'm sure she will get a kick out of this.

2026-02-06 Defamation Retraction Letter J. Vasquez.pdf

Download PDF • 7.98MB

The Cease and Desist Letter Arrives

Hours after the Facebook confrontation with Robert and Liza Quinonez, I received a cease and desist letter.

The letter came from Sul Lee Law Firm in Dallas, Texas, sent via email to admin@credlocity.com on February 6, 2026—the same day as the public argument.

The timing was obvious. I published my investigation on January 9, 2026. For nearly a month—28 days—no legal threats. Then on February 6, I get into a public argument with Robert and Liza Quinonez where Liza calls me a "little bitch," and within hours I receive a cease and desist letter from attorneys representing Ninja Premium Outsourcing.

The letter demanded I retract my article by February 16, 2026, claiming defamation. It cited Texas law even though I wrote and published the article from Pennsylvania—a jurisdictional overreach that suggests the attorneys either don't understand basic conflict of laws principles or are hoping I won't.

The letter claimed my statements are "categorically false" but notably does not dispute any specific facts in my article. They don't say "Vivi was never our partner." They don't say "we never locked her out." They don't say "Jeff never grabbed Nicole Ashley's hand." They just claim defamation without providing contradicting evidence or identifying which statements are allegedly false.

But here's the most absurd part: the letter included a claim that I engaged in unauthorized practice of law.

The "Unauthorized Practice of Law" Claim

The cease and desist letter included as "Exhibit D" screenshots of a Facebook exchange where someone named Kenneth T. Embry had commented on a post by Branden Singer. Kenneth had written:

"Branden Singer I totally understand your sentiment, but do you think it's wise? Is it call these people frauds? They could possibly want to sue you for defamation… and let's not mention the disparaging remarks about CRC. I totally understand what you're saying, but you also might want to make sure that you don't get yourself into some legal hot water unnecessarily."

I had responded to Kenneth:

"Kenneth T. Embry I would have to disagree. They are frauds they can't sue for defamation and if they do in every state 'the absolute truth is a defense' to a defamation lawsuit. As for CRC he wrote which I agree with and I think any court would agree that 'The fastest way to get a chargeback to an event.. [is to] invite these two as speakers' that's not defamation that's legally an observation as there was no disparagement regarding CRC. Nevertheless CRC's attorneys know and understand if they sue the open themselves up to discovery and that's not something they would want. So I would say this is a safe post. And Branden Singer is pretty safe."

The cease and desist letter claims this Facebook comment constitutes unauthorized practice of law.

Let me be very clear: This claim is legally absurd.

Why This Is Not Unauthorized Practice of Law

Unauthorized practice of law requires three elements:

1. Holding oneself out as an attorney or offering legal services

2. Establishing an attorney-client relationship (express or implied)

3. Providing specific legal advice tailored to an individual's particular legal situation

My Facebook comment met none of these criteria.

What I actually did was state a general principle of defamation law that is public knowledge and taught in every first-year law school torts class: "the absolute truth is a defense to a defamation lawsuit."

This is black letter law—settled, fundamental legal doctrine that anyone can state without practicing law.

This is equivalent to saying:

• "Murder is illegal"

• "The First Amendment protects free speech"

• "You have the right to remain silent"

• "Contracts require consideration"

None of these statements constitute legal advice. They are statements of established legal fact.

The Common Sense Test:

If stating general legal principles constitutes unauthorized practice of law, then:

• Every journalist who writes about legal issues would be practicing law without a license

• Every news anchor explaining a court decision would be committing a crime

• Every civics teacher discussing constitutional rights would need a law license

• Every person who says "you should get a lawyer" would be practicing law

This is obviously ridiculous.

What Distinguishes Legal Information from Legal Advice:

Legal information (protected speech):

• General statements of law applicable to everyone

• Explanation of legal concepts

• Description of how laws work in general

• Public education about legal rights

Legal advice (requires license):

• Analysis of a specific person's unique legal situation

• Recommendation of specific legal action for an individual client

• Creation of attorney-client relationship

• Offering legal services for compensation

My Comment Was Legal Information, Not Legal Advice:

I did not:

• Offer to represent Kenneth, Branden, or anyone else

• Analyze anyone's specific legal situation in detail

• Recommend specific legal action they should take

• Charge or offer to charge for legal services

• Create any expectation of confidentiality or attorney-client relationship

• Hold myself out as an attorney

I did:

• State a general principle of defamation law (truth is a defense)

• Explain why I believed the post was protected (opinion based on publicly known legal doctrine)

• Offer my perspective as a journalist and industry observer, not as legal counsel

This was a casual Facebook discussion about whether criticizing someone publicly could lead to a defamation lawsuit. I responded with general information about how defamation law works—the same information available in any legal textbook, Wikipedia article, or five-minute Google search.

If this constitutes legal advice, then every person who has ever said "I don't think they can sue you for that" in a conversation would be guilty of unauthorized practice of law.

The Real Purpose of This Allegation

Sul Lee Law Firm included this allegation not because they genuinely believe it has merit, but because:

• It's an additional threat designed to intimidate me into silence

• It suggests I'm engaging in illegal activity (practicing law without a license)

• It attempts to discredit my journalism by framing my legal analysis as improper

• It distracts from the fact that they can't refute the substantive allegations in my article

The bottom line: Saying "truth is a defense to defamation" on Facebook is not unauthorized practice of law. It's civic education. It's journalism. It's free speech.

This allegation is a transparent intimidation tactic, and it reveals the weakness of their actual defamation claims. When you can't challenge the truth of the reporting, you attack the reporter's right to explain why the reporting is protected.

February 6, 2026: A Case Study in the Pattern

Let's look at what happened on February 6, 2026 as a case study in exactly the behavior I documented in Part 1:

12:00 AM - 12:57AM: Robert Quinonez challenges my documentation of his wife's public statements

• Demands I prove she used the exact word "fight"

• Claims I need to call her to "fact check" her public posts

• Accuses me of lacking critical thinking skills

12:59 AM - 1:33 AM: I provide comprehensive analysis of context and communication patterns

• Detail how "Get em" means in the context of threatening posts

• Explain how Liza's self-described communication style ("no hair on my tongue") proves she means what she says

• Apply actual critical thinking methodology to the evidence

1:40 AM: Robert refuses to read the analysis

• "im not reading this lmfao"

• Calls me a "bitch"

• Admits he's not interested in the evidence he demanded

9:56 PM: Liza Quinonez posts public response

• Calls me a "little bitch"

• Claims I'm "twisting her words"

• Demonstrates exactly the aggressive communication style I documented

• Proves my point about how she communicates directly without filter

Same Day, Hours Later: Cease and desist letter arrives

• From Sul Lee Law Firm representing Ninja Premium Outsourcing

• Doesn't dispute specific facts, just claims "categorically false"

• Includes absurd allegation of unauthorized practice of law

• Demands retraction within 10 days

The Pattern:

1. Confrontation when documentation surfaces

2. Aggression instead of substantive response

3. Refusal to engage with evidence

4. Insults and intimidation when analysis is provided

5. Legal threats to silence criticism

This is exactly what I documented happening to victims throughout the investigation:

• Vivi was locked out, then defamed to clients when she questioned what happened

• Nicole Ashley was physically grabbed when she asked Jeff to stop using her name

• Megan was intimidated at an industry event when she had concerns

• Ashley Deal was told to "face" Lucia when she asked for her money back

The response to being held accountable is always the same: aggression, intimidation, and attempts to silence.

February 6, 2026 just gave me a real-time example of that pattern playing out against me.

What This Tells Us

The cease and desist letter arriving the same day as the public confrontation tells us several things:

First: The timing proves this is retaliation for continued documentation, not a good-faith legal concern. If they genuinely believed my article was defamatory, they would have sent the C&D in January when it was published. They waited until I refused to be intimidated by public confrontation.

Second: The coordination between Liza/Robert's public aggression and the legal letter arriving hours later suggests communication and planning. Someone got angry that I wouldn't back down from documenting Liza's public statements, and the lawyers got called in.

Third: The weakness of the legal claims (no specific facts disputed, absurd unauthorized practice of law allegation, jurisdictional confusion) suggests this is about intimidation, not legitimate legal remedy.

Fourth: Their response to my journalism—insults, refusal to engage with evidence, legal threats—is exactly what you'd expect from people who can't refute the substance of the allegations.

If I was wrong about what Liza meant by "Get em," she could have simply said: "Here's what I actually meant." She didn't. She called me a little bitch and threatened to yell at me over the phone.

If I was wrong about the facts in Part 1, the cease and desist letter could have said: "Here are the specific false statements with evidence of their falsity." It didn't. It just claimed everything was false without proving anything.

That's not how innocent people respond.

That's how guilty people respond when they can't dispute the truth but want to make the truth-teller suffer for telling it.

Someone reached out to me today—someone who means well, who's concerned about me—and said: "Joeziel, you need to take the high road here. When they go low, you go high."

Let me be very clear about something:

I am not Michelle Obama.

That beautiful Black queen has decided that when they go low, she goes high. I respect that choice. It's dignified. It's powerful. It's her way.

But me?

When someone goes low, I will drag that shit to hell.

I didn't start this investigation to be polite. I didn't document systematic fraud, exploitation of disabled business owners, harassment campaigns, and physical intimidation so I could take the "high road" when the perpetrators send lawyers to silence their victims.

The "high road" is what predators count on. They go low—they steal, they defame, they intimidate, they threaten—and they expect you to go high. To be reasonable. To be diplomatic. To back down in the name of civility.

That's how they've operated for years. That's how they've gotten away with it.

Not anymore.

You want to send me a cease and desist letter? Fine. I'll publish my response and explain exactly why it won't work.

You want to coordinate legal threats to multiple victims on the same day to scare them into silence? I'll document it as evidence of consciousness of guilt and intimidation tactics.

You want to sue me? Please do. I've been preparing for that possibility since before Part 1 published, and I'm eager to depose you under oath.

The high road is for people who have something to lose by fighting dirty. I don't. Everything I've published is true. Everything I will publish is true. And truth doesn't care about civility.

So when they went low by sending those C&D letters, I didn't go high.

I went lower. And I'm dragging this whole operation into the light where everyone can see it.

Let me be very clear about what this C&D letter represents:

It's an intimidation tactic.

Jeff and Lucia are trying to silence their victims. They're trying to scare people who spoke to me into recanting. They're trying to shut down this investigation before Parts 2-6 can expose the full scope of what they've done.

It won't work.

Meanwhile: SmartCredit Confirms What Bruce Won't

While Jeff and Lucia were busy sending legal threats, something far more interesting happened.

I received email confirmation from Consumer Direct (operating as SmartCredit) confirming the termination of their relationship with MFSN.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Bruce Cornelius blocked me when I asked about the password sharing allegations. He's stayed silent. He hasn't denied it. He hasn't issued any public statement. He's just hoping if he ignores me hard enough, I'll go away.

But SmartCredit—the company that actually terminated the relationship—confirmed it happened.

I can't share all the details of their communication right now (I'm respecting their confidentiality and legal processes), but I can tell you this: the termination happened, and it was for cause.

Part 4 will include the full story of what SmartCredit discovered, why they terminated MFSN, and what it means for the hundreds or thousands of consumers whose passwords may have been shared without their knowledge or consent.

Bruce can keep hiding. It won't change the facts.

Experian Weighs In

I also spoke directly with Experian on Tuesday.

I can't reveal everything from that conversation—some of it involves ongoing processes and confidential business practices—but I learned some things that are extremely relevant to the MFSN investigation and to Part 4.

What I can tell you: Experian takes data security seriously. They have standards for who gets access to consumer credit information. And they have policies about companies that violate those standards.

The rest will be in Part 4.

But Bruce, if you're reading this: you should probably be concerned about what Experian told me. Very concerned.

Array: The Next Shoe to Drop?

I'm also waiting on information from Array, another popular whitelabel credit monitoring service.

Why does this matter?

Because industry rumors suggest MFSN has been scrambling to find a replacement partner after SmartCredit terminated them. Some sources say they approached Array. Others say they're trying to get direct licensing from the credit bureaus (which would be... interesting, given the circumstances).

Array's response—or lack thereof—will tell us a lot.

If they confirm MFSN approached them, and if they confirm they declined due to the SmartCredit termination and data security concerns, that's another major blow to MFSN's credibility.

If they confirm they're working with MFSN despite knowing about the termination, that raises serious questions about Array's own due diligence and commitment to consumer data protection.

And if they don't respond? That silence will be telling too.

The information I'm expecting from Array may help shed light on things that have been claimed publicly by Bruce and his team at MFSN—claims about their business practices, their partnerships, their data security standards.

We'll see if those claims hold up under scrutiny.

Part 4 will have the answers.

The Walls Are Closing In

Let's take stock of what's happened in the two and a half weeks since Part 1 published on January 9, 2026:

What the Subjects Did:

• Bruce blocked me instead of responding to questions (Day 1)

• Industry rumors started spreading that I'd been served with a C&D from Bruce (Week 1)

• Gossip that I was "in legal trouble" or "backing down" (Week 2)

• Robert Quinonez confronted me on Facebook (Yesterday)

• Jeff and Lucia sent coordinated C&D letters to multiple people (Today)

• Whisper campaigns trying to discredit the investigation

What Actually Happened:

• Flood of new evidence from additional victims and witnesses (ongoing, daily)

• SmartCredit confirmed the termination of their MFSN relationship (formal written confirmation received)

• Experian provided information relevant to MFSN's practices and industry standards (direct phone conversation)

• Array is reviewing information about MFSN's claims and practices (inquiry submitted, awaiting response)

• Federal complaints filed with FTC and CFPB (formal complaints submitted)

• Meta/Facebook asked to address platform being used to promote illegal practices (media inquiry sent)

• Credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, TransUnion) notified about MFSN's potential licensing attempts (all three contacted)

• The investigation expanded to document additional victims not mentioned in Part 1

• Pattern documented across more businesses and longer timeframe than originally known

• Industry gatekeepers' knowledge and complicity documented

• Financial trails through multiple entities mapped out

Two and a half weeks. That's what it took for the subjects to go from "ignoring it will make it go away" to "send the lawyers."

The subjects thought sending legal threats would slow me down.

Instead, every entity I've contacted—regulators, credit bureaus, platforms, partners—has responded with either confirmations, investigations, or relevant information that strengthens the case.

Bruce thought blocking me would make me go away.

Instead, SmartCredit confirmed what he won't address.

Jeff and Lucia thought C&D letters would intimidate victims into silence.

Instead, more people are reaching out with evidence.

The walls are closing in. And no amount of legal threats or damage control will stop it.

Why the C&D Won't Stop This Investigation

I've consulted with attorneys who specialize in media law and First Amendment issues. Here's what they told me:

1. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

Everything I published about Jeff and Lucia in Part 1 is either:

• Direct testimony from victims (protected journalistic reporting)

• Documented evidence (police reports, witness statements, public records)

• My professional analysis based on 17 years of industry experience (protected opinion)

2. Public figures face a higher bar for defamation.

Jeff and Lucia operate publicly in the credit repair industry. They advertise their services. They appear at industry events. They promote themselves on social media. That makes them public figures for purposes of their business activities.

Public figures must prove "actual malice" to win defamation claims—meaning I published knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.

I've done the opposite: I've meticulously verified everything, given them opportunities to respond, and documented my sources.

3. Journalism about matters of public concern is protected.

Consumer fraud in the credit repair industry is unquestionably a matter of public concern. Systematic business theft that has victimized multiple people is a matter of public concern. The FTC and CFPB complaints I filed make this a matter of regulatory interest.

Courts consistently protect journalism about public concern topics, even when the subjects don't like what's being published.

4. Prior restraint is unconstitutional.

Jeff and Lucia's attorney is essentially asking me to stop publishing before they've even filed a lawsuit, let alone proven defamation. That's called "prior restraint" and it's prohibited by the First Amendment except in the most extreme circumstances (none of which apply here).

5. The Streisand Effect is real.

By sending cease and desist letters to multiple people on the same day, Jeff and Lucia have created news. They've made the story bigger. They've validated that the investigation has them worried.

If they'd stayed quiet, Part 2 would publish and most people would read it and move on. Now? Now people are asking: "What are Jeff and Lucia trying to hide? Why are they sending lawyers after journalists and victims?"

They just made this investigation infinitely more interesting.

What Happens Next

Here's what I'm going to do:

Immediate Actions:

1. Respond to the C&D letter through my attorney - Not because I'm backing down, but because that's how you handle legal threats professionally.

2. Document the C&D campaign - The fact that multiple people received these letters on the same day is evidence of coordinated intimidation. That's relevant to the investigation and will be included in Part 4.

3. Reach out to the other C&D recipients - Some of them are victims who already spoke to me. Some might be scared now. They need to know they're not alone and that these letters are intimidation tactics.

4. Notify the FTC and CFPB - I filed formal complaints with both agencies about MFSN, Jeff, and Lucia. The fact that subjects of those complaints are now sending legal threats to silence critics is relevant to those investigations.

Publication Timeline:

• Part 2: "The Mustard Heist" - Publishing TBD. This was already written before the C&D arrived. Nothing in the C&D changes the facts of what Devin Shaw did to Damien and Mustard.

• Part 3: "The CreditFixxr Infiltration" - Publishing TBD. Khabir's testimony is documented. The 72% client loss is documented. The $50,000 income lie is documented.

• Part 4: "The Industry Gatekeepers" - Now expanded to include:

  • Bruce Cornelius and MFSN's password sharing

  • The promotion of illegal "sweep" practices on Facebook

  • Robert Quinonez's intervention and his role in this ecosystem

  • The coordinated C&D campaign and what it reveals about the subjects' panic

  • Industry figures who enabled this pattern

• Part 5: "Tax Ninja Pros and Following the Money" - The financial trail through multiple entities.

• Part 6: "The Evidence, The Law, and What Happens Next" - Complete evidence compilation, legal analysis, and victim resources.

Every single part will publish. On schedule or slightly delayed as I verify the mountain of new evidence I've received.

A cease and desist letter doesn't change facts. It doesn't make evidence disappear. It doesn't make victims' testimonies false.

All it does is prove that the subjects of this investigation are worried.

Good. They should be.

A Message to Other Victims

If you received a cease and desist letter today—or if you're thinking about talking to me but you're scared of receiving one—here's what you need to know:

You have rights.

The First Amendment protects your right to tell your story. Truth is a defense to defamation. You cannot be successfully sued for telling the truth about what happened to you.

Yes, they can send threatening letters. Yes, they can even file frivolous lawsuits. But here's the thing about frivolous lawsuits: they get dismissed. And in many states, if someone sues you frivolously to silence you, you can counter-sue for malicious prosecution or abuse of process.

You are not alone.

Part 1 documented seven victims. Since publication, I've heard from more. Each person who speaks up makes it harder for the perpetrators to claim this is just "one disgruntled former partner."

The pattern is the proof.

When multiple people across multiple years across multiple businesses all describe the exact same playbook—infiltrate, isolate, steal, destroy—that's not coincidence. That's not a misunderstanding. That's a systematic scheme.

Silence is what they're counting on.

Every cease and desist letter. Every threatening phone call. Every whisper campaign about "legal trouble." Every attempt to make you feel like you're the problem for speaking up.

It's all designed to keep you quiet.

Because if you stay quiet, they can move on to the next victim.

A Message to Jeff, Lucia, and Their Attorney

I'm going to address this directly, since I know you're reading.

Your cease and desist letter won't work.

Not because I'm particularly brave. Not because I have unlimited legal resources. But because I've done my homework. Every fact is verified. Every source is credible. Every statement is defensible.

You want to sue me for defamation? Go ahead. File the lawsuit.

Here's what happens when you do:

Discovery.

I get to depose you under oath. I get to subpoena your business records. I get to subpoena every victim's testimony. I get to request documentation of every business relationship, every client you've ever had, every entity you've operated.

I get to ask you, under penalty of perjury:

• Did you share access to Vivi's business systems without her knowledge?

• Did you tell her clients that she was engaged in "illegal actions"?

• Did you physically intimidate Nicole Ashley at the Vegas event?

• Did you grab Megan's hand at the New York event?

• Did you tell Ashley Deal you'd provide mentorship and then keep her $1,800 anyway?

• Did you leave CreditFixxr claiming a family emergency and then appear at a tax conference with Ninja logos one week later?

You want to go there? Really?

Because I have seven victims who are willing to testify under oath. I have witnesses. I have police reports. I have business records. I have screenshots.

What do you have? A C&D letter claiming I defamed you without specifying a single false statement.

So here's my response to your cease and desist:

I will not retract anything I published in Part 1. Every statement is true or protected opinion.

I will not stop this investigation. Parts 2-6 will publish on schedule.

I will not be intimidated into silence.

If you want to sue me, sue me. But understand that litigation is a two-way street. And I've been preparing for this possibility since before Part 1 even published.

Your move.

A Message to Bruce Cornelius and MFSN

You've been quieter. No cease and desist letter. No public confrontation. Just blocking me and hoping I'll go away.

Let me tell you what's coming in Part 4:

• Complete documentation of the SmartCredit termination and why it happened

• Evidence of the password sharing practice that got you terminated

• Documentation of how your Facebook platform has been used to promote illegal "sweep" practices

• Analysis of your role as an industry gatekeeper who enabled systematic fraud

• The questions I sent to Meta/Facebook about whether your platform violates Community Standards

• The formal complaints I filed with the FTC and CFPB about your practices

You can keep hiding. You can keep blocking journalists who ask uncomfortable questions.

But Part 4 publishes in [X days]. And blocking me on Facebook won't stop that.

A Message to the Industry

Some of you have reached out privately to tell me you support what I'm doing. That you're glad someone is finally exposing these practices. That you've seen or heard things over the years that made you uncomfortable but you didn't know what to do.

Thank you.

Some of you have stayed silent. You know what's been happening. You've heard the stories. But you're worried about becoming targets yourselves, or you have business relationships with the people I'm investigating, or you just don't want to get involved.

I understand. I don't judge you.

But understand this: silence enables predators.

Every time someone looks the other way while a business owner is systematically destroyed, the predators get bolder. Every time someone hears about harassment or intimidation and says nothing, the victims feel more alone. Every time someone knows about illegal practices and doesn't report them, consumers get hurt.

This investigation isn't just about Devin, Jeff, and Lucia. It's not even just about Bruce and MFSN.

It's about an industry that has tolerated this behavior for too long. An industry where victims are afraid to speak out because they know nobody will believe them or help them. An industry where gatekeepers profit from looking the other way.

That has to change.

And some of you—those who've watched this happen, who knew and said nothing—you need to ask yourselves: Which side of history do you want to be on when this is over?

The Finish Line

I'm not stopping. I'm not slowing down. I'm not backing off.

Part 1 was the foundation. It established the pattern, introduced the key players, and documented the core scheme.

Parts 2-6 will build on that foundation until the full scope of this systematic fraud is undeniable.

The cease and desist letters? They're evidence. They show consciousness of guilt. They show panic. They show that the subjects of this investigation know exactly what's coming and they're desperate to stop it.

Too late.

The Mustard victims have spoken. The CreditFixxr victims have spoken. Vivi has spoken. Megan has spoken. Nicole Ashley has spoken. Ashley Deal has spoken.

The FTC has been notified. The CFPB has been notified. State Attorneys General are being notified. Meta/Facebook is being asked to address the promotion of illegal practices on their platform.

The evidence is compiled. The timeline is documented. The pattern is clear.

And no amount of threatening legal letters will change the facts.

Part 2: "The Mustard Heist" publishes TBD.

In it, you'll learn:

• How Devin Shaw perfected the infrastructure theft playbook before meeting Jeff and Lucia

• The complete story of the crying video manipulation

• Why Damien says "He plays the game right, he plays it like Epstein"

• The $150,000-$200,000 revenue lie

• How Devin told Vivi that his previous victims had stolen from him

And you'll understand why Jeff and Lucia sent those cease and desist letters.

Because once you see how Devin operated before they joined him, you'll understand exactly what kind of operation they became part of.

See you in Part 2.

Joeziel Vazquez is CEO of Credlocity Business Group LLC and a Board Certified Credit Consultant with 17 years of experience in the credit repair industry. His investigative journalism contributed to the CFPB's enforcement action against Lexington Law, resulting in a $26 million settlement and the company's shutdown. He has not been intimidated by cease and desist letters before, and he won't start now.

---

LEGAL NOTICE:

This article contains the author's response to cease and desist letters sent by attorneys representing subjects of an ongoing investigation. The author maintains that all statements published in Part 1 and this interlude are true, based on credible evidence, protected opinion, or protected journalism about matters of public concern.

The author welcomes any legal challenge to these statements, as litigation would provide the opportunity to present comprehensive evidence through the discovery process and testimony under oath.

---

FOR VICTIMS:

If you received a cease and desist letter and want to talk:Email: admin@credlocity.com Subject: "C&D Recipient"

If you have information about this investigation:Email: admin@credlocity.comSubject: "Ninja Investigation - Evidence"

You are not alone. And you have rights.

---

This investigation is dedicated to every person who has been told their story doesn't matter, that they deserved what happened to them, or that speaking out will only make things worse. Your stories matter. You didn't deserve it. And speaking out is how we stop them from hurting the next person.

- Joeziel "Joey" VazquezFounder & CEO, Credlocity Business Group LLCIn recovery since March 3, 2015Philadelphia, PA

STAY INFORMED: Subscribe to Credlocity's investigation updates at www.credlocity.com or follow our investigative journalism series for consumer protection news.

REPORT FRAUD: If you've been victimized by credit repair fraud, report it immediately to the FTC at https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/

NEED HELP? If you need assistance with credit repair from an ethical, board-certified company, visit Credlocity's credit repair services or try our 30-day free trial.