Josh (Joshua) Ellis Exposed: Fake Lead Generation, False Claims & Impersonation Scam Uncovered
When I first encountered Josh Ellis (joshellisresults[.]com), I thought he was just another pushy marketer. But after digging deeper, it became clear that something far more deceptive was happening.
Not only does his AI-generated video raise major red flags, but his business practices—from fake case studies to impersonation attempts—point toward something far more troubling.
This blog will break down the evidence, expose the inconsistencies, and warn others about engaging with Josh Ellis.
Red Flag #1 – Is Josh Ellis Even a Real Person?
I watched Josh Ellis’s YouTube video, titled Up To 20 High Intent Appointments Per Month, and something felt off. His voice, his mannerisms—everything about the videos seemed unnatural. So I took a closer look.
The first thing that struck me was how scripted and robotic his speech was. The cadence and pacing were too perfect, lacking the natural pauses and variations you’d expect from a real person. This strongly suggests that Josh Ellis may not even be a real person—but rather an AI-generated figurehead used to push a scammy service.
Key Signs of AI-Generated Content in His Videos:
No authentic facial expressions or natural speech patterns – The delivery lacks any human emotion.
Overuse of generic marketing phrases – The script is packed with common sales buzzwords with no real substance.
No background or personal information – There’s no LinkedIn, no history, no actual proof of business success.
Identical scripts across multiple videos – His so-called explanations are just copy-pasted sales pitches.
If you’re considering doing business with someone, but they can’t even prove they exist as a real person, that should be your first major red flag.
Red Flag #2 – Misleading Marketing & Overpromised Results
Josh’s sales pitch is filled with exaggerated claims that should make anyone skeptical. Let’s break down some of the bold (and unverified) statements in his AI-generated videos:
1. “We reach out to 100,000 prospects each month.”
Where is the proof? There is no way to verify this claim, and considering that he has no real track record, it’s highly unlikely.
The infrastructure required to reach 100,000 prospects monthly would be massive, involving teams of employees and robust technology—none of which he can prove exists.
2. “We have professional copywriters crafting high-converting sales messages.”
Who are these copywriters? No names, no LinkedIn profiles, no agency connections—just another claim with no substance.
If he truly had professional copywriters, why are his videos filled with repetitive, generic marketing fluff rather than well-researched insights?
3. “We build the infrastructure so you don’t have to.”
He claims that his service provides complete lead generation, but never explains how it actually works.
Where are the case studies? If his system is so successful, why doesn’t he showcase real clients?
4. “We guarantee at least 5-20 high-intent appointments per month.”
How does he guarantee this? There’s no clarity on how these leads are sourced or verified.
He claims no ad spend, no sales team, and no referrals—so where are these leads magically coming from?
Businesses that rely on cold email and automated outreach typically do not guarantee a set number of meetings.
5. “Our system is performance-based, and we only charge per appointment booked.”
This is a common scam tactic—lure people in with “risk-free” promises, then upsell them on unnecessary services.
If this were true, he wouldn’t need to fabricate testimonials or impersonate businesses.
The entire pitch is designed to create urgency while providing zero real information. This is a classic marketing scam tactic—making big promises with no evidence to back them up.
Red Flag #3 – Fabricated References & Impersonation Attempts
One of the biggest red flags is Josh Ellis impersonating legitimate businesses to appear more credible.
A business owner who engaged with him, Mark Richardson (name changed for privacy), did some due diligence before signing up for Josh’s services. What he uncovered was shocking:
Josh provided fake references from supposed “past clients.”
One of those references was Sensible Business Solutions (a genuine and innocent company), but when the real company was contacted, they confirmed that Josh had no legitimate connection to them.
It turns out he had even set up a fake domain (sensiblemelbourne[.]com) and impersonated one of their employees to make it seem like he had worked with them.
Direct Quote from Sensible Business Solutions:
“Yes, this is an impersonation attempt. We do not own the rights to the domain sensiblemelbourne[.]com, and we do not operate under the email services being used.”
This means that Josh Ellis was deliberately fabricating success stories to scam businesses into signing up with him.
Attempted Content Removal & Legal Threats
Josh Ellis not only tried to intimidate me with legal threats but also attempted to have content exposing him removed from YouTube.
Matthew Edwards & Mars Digital
Josh originally approached me by claiming he was doing lead generation for Matthew Edwards from Mars Digital (marsdigital[.]co[.]nz). After I exposed his tactics, they attempted to take down my video, which is yet another red flag—legitimate businesses don’t try to silence criticism; they address concerns transparently.
His Own Words Expose Him:
“Kindly understand that your public posts related to this matter amount to libel (unsubstantiated, untrue defamation and assertions)…”
Translation: I don’t like being exposed, so I’m going to throw around legal threats with no substance.
“Would you like to discuss this situation, or would you prefer that the issue is elevated to a third party?”
Translation: Do what I want, or I’ll try to scare you with some vague legal nonsense.
A real professional wouldn’t immediately jump to legal threats—they’d provide evidence that their business is legitimate. Instead, Josh tries to intimidate critics while hiding behind a free Gmail account.
Final Verdict – Avoid Josh Ellis
Josh Ellis is either a completely fake persona, an AI-generated front for a scam, or a deceptive marketer running a dishonest business.
If someone claims huge results but can’t prove anything, RUN.
Sensible Business Solutions were victims of his impersonation tactics, and they had nothing to do with his deceptive behavior. The true scam here is Josh Ellis himself.
Stay sharp, stay skeptical, and always do your due diligence.
– Danny de Hek, The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger
Update: Josh Ellis Tries to Silence the Truth with Legal Threats
On 17 May 2025, I received yet another message from Josh Ellis—this time informing me that he had contacted Netsafe and was initiating a Harmful Digital Communications Court Order through the Ministry of Justice in an attempt to have this blog and my LinkedIn Post taken down.
Here’s what Josh wrote:
“Hey I’ve been in touch with Netsafe about removing the defamatory article you wrote and posted about me on LinkedIn and your website… To save you the time and headache, I thought I would ask you one last time to please remove the article… Ultimately it doesn’t matter to me either way – I just need to give them a yes or no to proceed and there’s no cost involved from my end.”
— Josh Ellis, 17 May 2025
Rather than address the verifiable evidence, fabricated case studies, and impersonation of real companies covered in the article, Josh continues to rely on veiled legal threats in an attempt to bury the truth.
Here’s my reply:
“Thanks for the update and for letting me know where things stand. I genuinely appreciate you reaching out before going through the painful formal process. That said, I stand by what I’ve published. The information in the blog and LinkedIn article is factual, evidence-based, and accurate to the best of my knowledge, much of it supported by your own public claims and actions. If anything is incorrect, you’ve had multiple opportunities to present proof or clarify details—and instead, you’ve chosen deflection, denial, and vague threats.”
“So if you feel you need to proceed with the court process, then by all means—you might as well go through with it. I’ll respond accordingly through the appropriate legal channels and look forward to presenting the full picture in a forum where facts and evidence matter.”
— Danny de Hek, The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger
Let the record show: I won’t be bullied into silence. If anything, this only validates the purpose of this blog. I’ll continue to shine a light on deceptive marketing practices, unsubstantiated claims, and individuals who attempt to manipulate others with threats instead of truth.
The Court Summons: How the Case Against Me Began
On 7 October 2025, I received an email from Brad McKiernan, Deputy Registrar of the Queenstown District Court, notifying me that Joshua Ellis had filed a complaint against me under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015. The case was registered as CIV-2025-059-000176 – Ellis v De Hek.pdf.
Because of the nature of my investigative work, formal service proved difficult. Eventually, the Ministry of Justice contacted me directly by email and sent through the court bundle, which included 1-1.pdf, 2-1.pdf, 3-1.pdf, and the case file titled CIV-2025-059-000176 Ellis v De Hek. The documents accused me of publishing “false and harmful communications” — referring specifically to my exposé, “Josh Ellis Exposed: Fake Lead Generation, False Claims & Impersonation Scam Uncovered.”
Over the following weeks, the timeline of filings became increasingly unusual. After I submitted my affidavit and complete set of exhibits on 21 October 2025, Mr Ellis began lodging additional material almost daily. On 22 October, I received his Josh Ellis Statement.pdf, a highly emotional letter to the judge in which he portrayed himself as a victim of online harassment, described his deteriorating mental health, and admitted that he had falsified a reference for a potential client — the very act my original investigation had exposed.
The next day, 23 October, I filed my Respondent’s Reply to Applicant’s Submissions.pdf, keeping my response concise and factual so as not to burden the Court. Then, on 28 October 2025 at 2:30 p.m., less than 24 hours before the hearing, another round of documents appeared — a repeat of the same Josh Ellis Statement.pdf together with a 111-page “Supporting Documents.pdf” file. This late submission consisted mostly of unrelated or misleading material and appeared to be an attempt to overwhelm the Court.
By 4:00 p.m. that same day, I had already filed my Response to Supporting Documents.pdf, requesting that this eleventh-hour filing be given no weight. The following morning, 29 October 2025, I appeared via Zoom before the Queenstown District Court fully prepared to defend my reporting and the public interest work that led to this case.
The Affidavit – Fighting for Truth and Public Interest
On 21 October 2025 I filed an 87-page affidavit with exhibits A–J.pdf. The goal was simple: show the Court that my reporting was truthful, responsible, and in the public interest, based on verifiable documents and independent checks—not speculation.
What the affidavit set out:
Purpose: warn NZ businesses about impersonation and fabricated references being used to sell marketing services, and encourage basic due diligence.
Good-faith process: publish only issue-focused facts; invite the applicant to clarify or correct; avoid private/personal details; and clearly mark honest opinion drawn from disclosed facts.
Core evidence pillars (with exhibits):
Impersonation confirmed by source companies
– Emails between Company A and Sensible Business Solutions (AU) confirm sensiblemelbourne[.]com was not owned by Sensible AU and was used in an impersonation attempt (Exhibit A).
– The “Sensible Melbourne” case-study file and staff list presented to Company A were fabricated (Exhibit B).
– The Company A ↔ Applicant email chain shows how those false references were introduced (Exhibit C).Independent technical forensics
– IFW Global and DomainTools reports confirm sensiblemelbourne[.]com was registered 15 May 2024 via NameCheap with privacy masking and no legitimate link to Sensible AU (Exhibits G, H).Applicant’s marketing claims tested and documented
– Full transcript of the applicant’s video, “Up To 20 High Intent Appointments Per Month,” plus Annex A summarising unverified/exaggerated claims (appointments guarantees, “100,000 prospects/month,” “no monthly fee,” unnamed “professional copywriters,” etc.) (Exhibit F / Annex A).
– On 16 October 2025 I sent a formal Request for Clarification and Proof of Claims; no evidence was produced in reply (Exhibit J).Process history and context
– Netsafe/MoJ communications documenting the HDC pathway into these proceedings (Exhibit E).
– Direct correspondence between the applicant and me (Exhibit F) showing I consistently sought verification and accuracy.
Legal position in the affidavit (summary):
The publication is truthful, issue-focused, and reasonable under the HDCA principles.
No evidence of serious harm (HDCA s22) has been shown.
Any restriction must be narrow and proportionate, consistent with NZBORA s14 freedom of expression.
Relief sought (pragmatic, not punitive):
No interim takedown.
Particulars from the applicant identifying each allegedly harmful statement/URL and the proof of serious harm.
Timetabled exchange and, if needed, a judicial conference/mediation to consider targeted remedies (e.g., right of reply or context notes) rather than blanket removal.
In short, the affidavit demonstrates that my reporting stands on documents, confirmations, and independent technical evidence, and that I acted responsibly and in good faith throughout—exactly what the public should expect from investigative work that protects businesses from deception.
The Hearing: CIV-2025-059-000176 Ellis v De Hek
On 29 October 2025, the long-anticipated hearing under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 took place in the District Court at Queenstown, with both parties appearing by Zoom before the presiding judge.
The session opened with formalities — confirming that Joshua Ellis was pursuing his application, and that I opposed it. The judge asked whether either side would call witnesses. Both of us confirmed that it would be limited to our own evidence.
Ellis immediately asked that the Court order the removal of “the incriminating article from Mr de Hek’s website and also from LinkedIn.” I refused. I explained that I stood by my reporting as an honestly held opinion based on disclosed facts, adding:
“Everything I’ve said is supported by evidence. I’ve invited Mr Ellis several times to provide proof of his claims. He hasn’t responded.”
At one point, the judge tried to find middle ground — suggesting that if Ellis could verify his marketing claims, I might consider publishing a reply or amendment. I confirmed I had already offered exactly that:
“If he can back up what he says in his own video, I’ll happily publish his response. What I won’t do is delete a factual investigation.”
Ellis became increasingly emotional, repeatedly describing his distress and financial loss, insisting “there’s nothing more that can be taken away from me.” The judge remained calm but firm, explaining that no decision could be made that day and that any future hearing would examine the evidence in full.
When Ellis accused me of “holding him ransom,” the judge stepped in again:
“Mr Ellis, Mr de Hek has made it clear he won’t take the article down unless ordered to by the Court. He may be ordered to in due course, but that’s a decision for later.”
As the hearing went on, the atmosphere shifted. Ellis began pleading for personal understanding, even asking “man to man, can you help me?” — while I reaffirmed my duty as an investigative journalist:
“I spend 80 hours a week fighting scammers online. I’m not a vigilante, but this work protects people. I will not back down unless the Court orders me to.”
The judge eventually drew the discussion to a close, noting:
“Enough is enough for both of you. No further evidence is to be filed. You’ll both be required to appear in person for the hearing. Costs are reserved.”
Just before adjournment, Ellis made a troubling remark that prompted immediate judicial intervention. When he began talking about “American people” and concern for my safety, I raised the point that it sounded like a threat. The judge responded firmly:
“I’m not going to have threats made against Mr de Hek. That’s not appropriate.”
The session ended with thanks from both sides. The judge confirmed the matter would be listed for a full-day hearing at a later date — leaving it to Ellis to decide whether to continue or withdraw the claim.
Summary: Next Gen Lead Gen — Same Claims, Different Name
After months of preparation, affidavits, and a tense courtroom exchange, it’s fair to ask whether Joshua Ellis has truly changed his ways. The email address and Phone Number listed on his court submission, josh@nglg.io, led me to his newly registered company website — Next Gen Lead Gen (nglg[.]io), created on 29 May 2025.
On the surface, the brand appears polished. But beneath the glossy marketing language, it’s clear that Ellis is still operating in the same lead-generation space — this time under a rebranded name, promising automation, effortless results, and “hands-off” client acquisition systems.
Here’s what stands out from his homepage — and why it raises familiar red flags:
1. Reliance on Cold Emailing (“Automatically process & deliver cold email leads”)
Ellis openly advertises a system designed to send and respond to unsolicited emails. Under both New Zealand’s Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 and global anti-spam frameworks, this kind of mass outreach requires strict consent and compliance procedures. None are mentioned anywhere on the site.
2. False Sense of Legitimacy (“Turn any ‘interested’ reply into a live sales opportunity”)
The marketing narrative suggests near-instant sales conversions from cold leads — an unrealistic promise that echoes the unverified claims presented in his earlier promotional video, now part of the court record.
3. Automation Without Accountability
His “Done-For-You” automation system uses OpenAI, Make.com, and GoHighLevel to parse replies, generate summaries, and auto-forward potential leads. While technically feasible, this structure conveniently hides behind third-party platforms — avoiding direct responsibility for spam compliance, privacy breaches, or data misuse.
4. Manipulative Sales Psychology (“I save 15 hours each week” / “It’s self-liquidating”)
The copy uses classic MLM-style framing — justifying inflated setup fees by suggesting the cost will “pay for itself” through imagined efficiency gains. These are not verifiable ROI claims; they’re marketing theatre designed to appeal to small-agency owners desperate for quick wins.
5. Questionable Value Proposition (“AI-powered summaries for quick context”)
The entire offer hinges on repackaging existing, publicly available automation tools — nothing proprietary or original. Yet it’s positioned as a premium one-time build “worth thousands,” echoing the same overpromising behaviour already scrutinised in court.
6. Upsell Pathways Disguised as ‘Opportunities’ (“Creates new revenue opportunities… upsell clients”)
Rather than serving genuine business needs, the copy focuses on how agencies can charge more — not how they can deliver measurable value. The language promotes margin-chasing, not integrity.
7. Lack of Transparency
Nowhere on the website does Ellis disclose a company number, physical address, terms of service, privacy policy, or data-processing statement — all required under New Zealand business and privacy law for services involving personal data.
In short, Next Gen Lead Gen appears to be a rebranded continuation of the same cold-email lead-generation model that triggered this entire dispute. The pattern remains consistent: sweeping promises, opaque methods, and zero independent verification.
The question practically answers itself — can a leopard change its spots?
The court case may not yet be over, but the evidence speaks loudly. Whether called LeadGen, NextGen, or NGLG, the model hasn’t evolved — only the name has.
Who Is the Real Joshua (Josh) Ellis?
During the 29 October 2025 court appearance, Joshua Ellis told the judge that LinkedIn was a major part of his professional identity and that he splits his time living “half the year in New Zealand and the other half in Taiwan.” Yet, his own LinkedIn profile lists his location as the United States, not New Zealand or Taiwan.
Before he blocked me from viewing his account, I archived a Full PDF copy. It showed a carefully constructed professional image that doesn’t appear to align with verifiable reality. Ellis presents himself as an experienced international marketing executive with a long career in digital media, including supposed roles at Yahoo (San Jose), Custom Media KK (Tokyo), Incisive Media (Hong Kong), and Fairfax Media (New Zealand) before founding Next Gen Lead Gen (NGLG.io) in 2019. None of these positions can be independently confirmed through corporate records, archived staff pages, or credible third-party listings.
His education claims follow the same pattern of inflation. Ellis lists an MBA (Online) from James Madison University (2020-2022), a Bachelor of Business from San Francisco State University (2006-2010), and a Dale Carnegie Training certificate (2014-2015). Public alumni directories show no trace of those degrees, and timelines overlap in ways that make full-time study and the international employment he describes impossible.
Most tellingly, the same LinkedIn profile contains only four published articles—all recycled or AI-generated marketing material that mirrors existing content from HubSpot, BenchmarkONE, and GMass. The posts promote cold-email automation, AI video avatars, and “personalisation at scale,” contradicting the ethical marketing persona Ellis tried to project in court.
Together, these inconsistencies paint a clear picture: Joshua Ellis has spent years manufacturing a digital résumé designed to appear credible while concealing the true nature of his activities. What he presents as “lead generation” looks more like the repackaging of other people’s work and a string of unverifiable credentials built to impress potential clients—and, when challenged, to mislead a courtroom.
These details matter because they reveal a consistent pattern. What Joshua Ellis says about himself rarely aligns with documented evidence. From impersonating companies to inflating his career history, and now trying to weaponise the court system to silence legitimate reporting, every move points to the same goal — to protect a false image rather than confront the truth. With the court now considering the next step, the public deserves to understand exactly who is behind the name he’s so desperate to clear.
Why This Matters
This case was never about ego, revenge, or silencing criticism. It was about truth, accountability, and public protection. When individuals use fabricated case studies, deceptive marketing, or impersonation to win clients, they undermine trust in the entire business community. I’ve spent years exposing scams and misinformation that prey on good people trying to earn an honest living.
Whether it’s an unregistered marketing agency promising “guaranteed leads,” a Ponzi disguised as a crypto investment, or a rebranded operation hiding behind automation tools — the pattern is always the same: big claims, no evidence, and pressure to comply in silence.
The Ellis v de Hek case serves as a reminder that integrity still matters. Standing up for verified facts isn’t defamation — it’s journalism. And as long as people continue to exploit others with dishonest marketing tactics, I’ll continue to shine a light on it.
Disclaimer: How This Investigation Was Conducted
This investigation relies entirely on OSINT — Open Source Intelligence — meaning every claim made here is based on publicly available records, archived web pages, corporate filings, domain data, social media activity, and open blockchain transactions. No private data, hacking, or unlawful access methods were used. OSINT is a powerful and ethical tool for exposing scams without violating privacy laws or overstepping legal boundaries.
About the Author
Danny de Hek, also known as The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger, is a New Zealand-based investigative journalist specializing in exposing crypto fraud, Ponzi schemes, and MLM scams. His work has been featured by Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Guardian Australia, ABC News Australia, and other international outlets.
Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.
My work exposing crypto fraud has been featured in:
Bloomberg Documentary (2025): A 20-minute exposé on Ponzi schemes and crypto card fraud
News.com.au (2025): Profiled as one of the leading scam-busters in Australasia
OpIndia (2025): Cited for uncovering Pakistani software houses linked to drug trafficking, visa scams, and global financial fraud
The Press / Stuff.co.nz (2023): Successfully defeated $3.85M gag lawsuit; court ruled it was a vexatious attempt to silence whistleblowing
The Guardian Australia (2023): National warning on crypto MLMs affecting Aussie families
ABC News Australia (2023): Investigation into Blockchain Global and its collapse
The New York Times (2022): A full two-page feature on dismantling HyperVerse and its global network
Radio New Zealand (2022): “The Kiwi YouTuber Taking Down Crypto Scammers From His Christchurch Home”
Otago Daily Times (2022): A profile on my investigative work and the impact of crypto fraud in New Zealand
Comments
Post a Comment