THE STORY IN 30 SECONDS
Four facts establish the timeline.
FORTUNE HI-TECH MARKETING
Federal and state authorities sued Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing in 2013, alleging it operated as an unlawful pyramid scheme.
VIEW CASE →THE COMPANY IS SHUT DOWN
The federal litigation ultimately resulted in Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing being permanently closed.
VIEW FTC RECORD →WOODSON GARDNER APPEARS IN THE RECORD
An FTC court filing identifies Woodson Gardner as a National Sales Manager and cites statements attributed to her.
SEE THE CITATIONS →WOODSON GARDNER IS WOODSON BRADLEY
The historical records use the surname Gardner. She is now known as Woodson Bradley.
VIEW SOURCE →
THE NUMBERS
BEHIND THE CASE
SO WHERE DOES
WOODSON GARDNER APPEAR?
In the government’s own court filing.
The references below link directly to the underlying document.
THE FIRST REFERENCE
WHY THIS MATTERS
The government filing identifies Gardner by name and role while discussing recruitment bonuses.
SOURCE
Federal Trade Commission
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order
Page 12
THE SECOND REFERENCE
WHY THIS MATTERS
The reference appears in the government’s discussion of earnings promotion and representations around the business.
SOURCE
Federal Trade Commission
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order
Page 15
THE THIRD REFERENCE
WHY THIS MATTERS
This reference appears in the government’s discussion of FHTM’s claimed anti-pyramid safeguards.
SOURCE
Federal Trade Commission
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order
Page 34
WHAT THE RECORD
DOES — AND DOESN’T — SAY
DOCUMENTED
- The FTC, Illinois, Kentucky and North Carolina brought the federal case against Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing.
- The government alleged that FHTM operated an illegal pyramid scheme.
- Woodson Gardner is identified in the filing as a National Sales Manager.
- Gardner appears in three cited references in the government’s memorandum.
NOT CLAIMED
- Woodson Bradley was not a defendant in the FTC case.
- She was not criminally charged in connection with this case.
- The government did not seek monetary relief against her personally.
- This site does not claim that she knew FHTM was operating illegally.
THE VOTING RECORD
IS PUBLIC.
Official North Carolina General Assembly roll calls show Woodson Bradley’s recorded actions on several significant public-safety measures.
The record matters — and so do the distinctions between voting No, not voting and being excused absent.
IRYNA’S LAW
WHEN IRYNA’S LAW REACHED ITS SENATE SECOND-READING VOTE, BRADLEY DIDN’T CAST A VOTE.
The official Senate roll call records Woodson Bradley as an excused absence on the bill’s second-reading vote.
The measure passed the Senate 28–8.
VIEW OFFICIAL SECOND-READING ROLL CALL ↗Earlier in the bill’s consideration, Bradley was present and voted No on Amendment 3.
She also voted No on Amendment 5 before later being recorded as excused absent.
AMENDMENT 3 ROLL CALL ↗ AMENDMENT 5 ROLL CALL ↗The official record does not show Bradley casting a No vote on HB 307’s second reading. It shows an excused absence. Her recorded No votes occurred earlier during consideration of amendments to the legislation.
PREVENT SEXUAL EXPLOITATION/
WOMEN AND MINORS
BRADLEY VOTED AGAINST OVERRIDING THE GOVERNOR’S VETO.
The official Senate roll call records Bradley voting No on the veto override of HB 805. The override passed 30–19.
THE CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN
ENFORCEMENT ACT
BRADLEY VOTED AGAINST THE VETO OVERRIDE.
Bradley was present for the Senate’s veto-override vote and was officially recorded as voting No.
The override passed 30–19.
FIREARM LAW
REVISIONS
BRADLEY VOTED NO TWICE.
Bradley voted No on HB 193’s June 25 second reading. The bill passed that vote 29–17.
She later voted No on the July 29 veto override. The override passed 29–19.
VIEW SECOND-READING ROLL CALL ↗ VIEW VETO-OVERRIDE ROLL CALL ↗
READ THE VOTES
FOR WHAT THEY SAY.
THE RECORD SHOWS
- Bradley was an excused absence on HB 307’s September 22 second-reading vote.
- She voted No on earlier HB 307 amendments that day.
- She voted No on the HB 805 veto override.
- She voted No on the HB 318 veto override.
- She voted No on HB 193 second reading and later voted No on its veto override.
THE RECORD DOES NOT SHOW
- A No vote by Bradley on HB 307’s September 22 second-reading roll call.
- That an excused absence is the same thing as a No vote.
- That Bradley opposed every public-safety measure considered during the session.
- That a bill title, by itself, explains every policy provision contained in the legislation.
DON’T TAKE A CAMPAIGN’S
WORD FOR IT.
Read Woodson Bradley’s official North Carolina Senate roll-call record yourself.
VIEW BRADLEY’S OFFICIAL VOTING RECORD ↗CHECK OUR WORK.
Every major claim should lead back to its source.
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Complete Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing case file. ⌄
FEDERAL COURT FILING Government memorandum containing the references. ⌄
FTC SETTLEMENT MATERIALS Settlement and financial findings. ⌄
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY Woodson Bradley’s official Senate voting record. ⌄
HB 307 — IRYNA’S LAW Official September 22, 2025 Senate roll calls. ⌄
HB 805 Prevent Sexual Exploitation/Women and Minors. ⌄
HB 318 The Criminal Illegal Alien Enforcement Act. ⌄
HB 193 Firearm Law Revisions. ⌄
QUESTIONS?
Did Woodson Bradley vote No on Iryna’s Law’s September 22 Senate vote?
No. The official second-reading roll call records Bradley as an excused absence. Earlier that day, however, she was present and voted No on amendments to HB 307.
Did Bradley vote against the HB 805 veto override?
Yes. The official July 29 Senate roll call records Bradley voting No on the veto override of HB 805.
Did Bradley vote against the HB 318 veto override?
Yes. The official July 29 Senate roll call records Bradley voting No.
What was Bradley’s vote on HB 193?
Bradley voted No on HB 193’s June 25 second reading and later voted No on the July 29 veto override.
Was Woodson Bradley charged with a crime?
No. The FTC matter discussed here was a civil enforcement action, and Bradley was not a defendant.
Was she a defendant in the FTC case?
No. The filing refers to Woodson Gardner but does not identify her as a defendant.
Why does the document say Woodson Gardner?
Gardner is the surname used in the historical records. She is now known as Woodson Bradley.
What was Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing?
Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing was a multilevel marketing company that became the subject of federal and state civil enforcement.
Can I read the original documents?
Yes. Direct government-source links are provided throughout this page.