Translate

Thursday, 11 January 2018

Investor Alert Issued Regarding Cryptocurrency Scams

The Department of the Secretary of State for North Carolina, (Elaine F Marshall) has just issued this 
Investor Alert regarding the growing trend of companies springing up to take advantage of the growing Cryptocurrency market.
https://www.sosnc.gov/documents/forms/securities/Investment_Schemes_Cryptocurrencies.pdf

And in particular, Bitconnect has been issued with a Cease and Desist Order:

https://www.sosnc.gov/divisions/securities/Admin_Action

'On January 9, 2018, the Securities Division of the North Carolina Department of Secretary of State issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist to Bitconnect, BitConnect LTD, BitConnect International PLC and BitConnect Trading LTD ("BitConnect"). BitConnect was ordered to cease and desist from offering for sale, soliciting offers to purchase or selling, in or from North Carolina, any securities unless and until such securities have been registered and BitConnect, and any person or entity under the direction or control of BitConnect, is properly registered as a securities dealer or salesman. The Temporary Order to Cease and Desist found that BitConnect. was not registered as a dealer or salesman of securities in North Carolina and offered investments called the BitConnect Lending Program and the BitConnect Staking Program. The Temporary Order to Cease and Desist also found that BitConnect had omitted to disclose material facts when offering these investments in North Carolina. These activities are in violation of the North Carolina Securities Act. The Temporary Order to Cease and Desist gives BitConnect thirty (30) business days in which to request an hearing. If no such request is made during that time, the Temporary Order to Cease and Desist shall become final. Click here to view the Temporary Order.

Further information to follow soon so watch this space...

Friday, 5 January 2018

USI TECH - GOING, GOING, GONE!


USI TECH are doing a runner! 
They've joined a long list of crashed PONZI's including Click Intensity, BeonPush, Triple Threat 3, Digadz, My Paying Ads... etc etc who've shut up shop with affiliates money and disappeared into the sunset with all their ill gotten gains.

This announcement has just been made by the company:

UPDATE ON USI-TECH:

Dear Customer,

You are active for our company in the US and/or Canada as a distributor offering our services. We were utterly dismayed to learn that a large number of our sales partners extensively advertise our services on their own websites as well as on social media in a manner which is a breach of contract as well as illegal, and which gives the appearance that our service portfolio violates both US and Canadian law. Despite the measures which we have already initiated, this behavior has even intensified in recent weeks and months. This has already resulted in actions by the respective authorities against various distributors, as well as the first preliminary injunctions in response to this advertising behavior.


The initiation of the above-mentioned official action and the court-ordered preliminary injunctions has also inevitably placed our company in a legally problematic situation. This is due to the fact that, in the event of any doubt, it cannot be ruled out that this illegal advertising by the distributors involved will cause the relevant authorities to suspect that our company itself is promoting this type of advertising activity, or at least tolerates it. This type of alarming view by the authorities would lead to unforeseeable damage for our company as well as our sales partners who observe applicable laws. We cannot subject our company or our reputable sales partners to this danger.

Consequently, we have decided to immediately discontinue our business activities as well as our sales in the US and Canada. Unfortunately, this also has a direct consequence for you as a sales partner since the cessation of our marketing operations means that we are forced to immediately terminate our contractual relationship with you.

Although we deeply regret this step both on a business and a personal level, effective immediately we hereby summarily cancel the existing contractual relationship with you as a distributor,

or, alternatively, hereby notify you of ordinary termination as of the next possible date.

In light of the above-announced termination, effective immediately you may no longer market goods, software or other services to our customers, and we will unfortunately no longer be able to accept applications for distributor agreements from third parties from you. In order not to jeopardize the termination of our contractual cooperation, for security reasons your sales partner account in our back office will also immediately be blocked.

Naturally, we will be paying out all commissions earned up to today's date. We expect to check your remaining unpaid commissions within the next 2 weeks, and as part of this process we will also check/offset/reclaim commission claims of various distribution partners for unlawful double payments/rebuys as well as for unlawful payments due to double-accounts (multiple registrations). Once we have concluded our audit and have determined commission claims, we will remit them to you taking into account the requirements of Section 14 of our Distributor Terms and Conditions. With respect to those sales partners whose illegal advertising behavior is responsible for this current situation, we reserve the right to assert claims for damages, which we will also enforce by offsetting them against commission claims.

We would also like to point out that, as a result of the above termination, effective immediately you must destroy and/or take offline all websites, landing pages, social media sites/chat groups (e.g., Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, WhatsApp, Telegram pp.) or other online or offline advertising materials relating to direct sales of our goods, software, other services and/or our direct sales concept. At the same time, you are obligated to immediately discontinue or cancel all current advertising and/or planned advertising, promotional events or other promotional efforts for our company. In addition, you must immediately terminate or discontinue the use of any registered internet domains, social media accounts, WhatsApp groups or comparable tools, as well as delete the associated login info and/or registrations inasfar as these internet domains, social media accounts, WhatsApp Groups or similar tools include our name, trademarks, product names or other characteristics of our company.

Compliance with the foregoing is also very important with respect to your own interests, e.g. in order to still any concerns on your part with respect to warnings or other actions for misleading or unlawful advertising by third parties or any official investigation of you, given that we have terminated our direct sales in the United States and Canada.

If you currently also use our products, software or other services as a customer, we will be promptly informing you separately regarding the continuation of our customer relationship with you.

We would like to conclude by thanking you for your commitment to our company and for your sales efforts. We extremely regret these recent negative developments caused by the behavior of dubious sales partners and wish you all the best professionally and personally.

Best regards

USI-TECH Management

Tuesday, 19 December 2017

FUTURENET- Scam Warning From Polish Authority


An official warning from Polands Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has been issued about FUTURENET:


'The President of UOKiK conducts proceedings in connection with the activities of the following entities:

1. FutureNet, FutureAdPro in the Marshall Islands - these are portals offering, in exchange for a fee, the purchase of advertising packages. According to the information on the company's website, you must buy the package and persuade other people to participate.

In a letter from the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) dated 13/02/2017 we received a signal about the functioning of the system called FutureAdPro, which may mislead consumers and constitute an unfair market practice by establishing and operating a pyramid promotional system.

On 28/06/2017, the President of UOKiK notified the public prosecutor's office about the possibility of committing a crime. Proceedings in the case are conducted by the District Prosecutor's Office in Wrocław (reference PO 2 Ds. 63.2016).'

FUTURENET is one of a long line of AdPack based PONZI scams that offer ridiculous returns. But in FUTURENETS case, they claim that if you INVEST $1000, you have the potential to earn $7.4 million!
The 'invest' part will help with FUTURENETS downfall as they aren't registered with any Financial Authority to offer 'investments'. 

Some background on FUTURENET is here: 

Monday, 4 December 2017

Charles Scoville - Baiting The SEC.


Charles Scoville is baiting the SEC and has a particular dislike to Daniel Wadley. 
He's just released another weird video explaining all about his 'new' business. 
His 'mentor' is helping him get established and people behind the scenes are helping him with servers etc. 

But where on earth is he getting the funds to start a new project? Especially since he's is still begging for 'donations' to pay for his legal fees.
And secondly, he must be deluded to think the SEC would let him run a lemonade stand, let alone a 'business' that takes peoples money.
This recent post explains in more detail how his 'new business will work: 



And despite a recent lull in his crazy religious rants, he's back to preaching god again:






But it's all a stunt:




Tuesday, 7 November 2017

Security and Exchange Commission Issue Ad Scam Ponzi Warning

*added 8th November - another warning has been issued specific to Traffic Monsoon

The Securities and Exchange Commission have issued a Press Release today about 'Paid to Click' Ad Scams.
It's basis is 'Fort Ad Pays', but also broadly covers all Ad (Pack) based  scams such as Traffic Monsoon and My Advertising Pays.
Lets hope this is the start of a major crack down on all these evil scams.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-208

Press Release

SEC Warns Investors About Paid-to-Click Scams

Agency Obtains Court Order to Stop “Ad Packs” Ponzi Scheme

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2017-208

Washington D.C., Nov. 7, 2017—

The Securities and Exchange Commission is warning investors to beware online “paid-to-click” scams that promise an easy payday by merely purchasing a membership or an advertising product up front and then clicking on a certain number of online ads each day.

The SEC’s investor alert explains that these online advertising programs may have little to no revenues besides membership fees or sales of “ad packs” and may be nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The SEC filed an enforcement case that was unsealed last week in federal court in Florida, alleging that roughly 99 percent of the purported “profits” paid to earlier investors came directly from the buy-in fees collected from newer investors. Meanwhile, according to the SEC’s complaint, the alleged perpetrator siphoned several million dollars out of investor funds to purchase a luxury home, automobiles, and private plane charters while also using the money to fund his other businesses.

According to the SEC’s investor alert, online advertising programs also can target those with something to advertise, promising to display a company’s ads on their network or guaranteeing traffic to a website by simply paying a membership fee or buying ad packs.

“Be skeptical if you are offered high returns for buying advertising products or clicking on online ads,” said Lori Schock, Director of the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy. “Some paid-to-click programs are actually Ponzi schemes.”

According to the SEC’s complaint filed against Miami-based Pedro Fort Berbel and his company Fort Marketing Group, they operated fraudulent internet advertising businesses under such names as Fort Ad Pays, The Business Shop, and MLM Shop. They allegedly solicited investors through online posts and videos claiming they could share in the companies’ profits and earn investment returns as high as 120 percent by purchasing an ad pack for as little as a dollar and clicking on four banner ads per day. The SEC alleges that Berbel and Fort Marketing Group raised more than $38 million from at least 150,000 investors.

“As alleged in our complaint, these companies had no viable source of revenue besides income from investor membership fees and the sale of ad packs, so this boiled down to an ad packs Ponzi scheme in which the promised investment returns to earlier investors were not possible without using funds from new investors,” said Eric I. Bustillo, Director of the SEC’s Miami Regional Office.

The SEC’s complaint charges Berbel and Fort Marketing Group with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act. They’re also charged with selling investments that are not registered with the SEC as required under the federal securities laws. The SEC encourages investors to check the backgrounds of people selling them investments. A quick search on the SEC’s investor.gov website shows that Berbel and Fort Marketing Group are not registered to sell investments.

The SEC obtained a court-ordered asset freeze against Berbel and his companies.

The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Sajjad Matin, Cecilia Danger, and Margaret Vizzi of the Miami Regional Office and supervised by Jessica Weissman. The SEC's litigation will be led by Wilfredo Fernandez and Andrew Schiff. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, Bureau of Financial Investigations. The investor alert was prepared by M. Owen Donley III and Holly Pal in the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy.'


* The following day, this alert was issued with reference to Traffic Monsoon:

*The SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy is warning investors about investment scams conducted through online paid-to-click (PTC) programs.
Getting paid to click on online ads may sound like an easy way to make money, but can also result in losing money. Online paid-to-click (PTC) programs often promise investors a share of the program’s profits in exchange for paying an upfront fee or buying products. For example, a PTC program may claim you can share in its profits if you buy “ad packs” or other advertising products. These PTC programs might promise you advertising services such as displaying your ads on their network or guaranteeing traffic to your website if you become a member or buy their ad packs. They might even promise to share their profits with investors who have nothing to advertise – simply buy the ad pack and share in the profits.
Before you purchase a membership or any advertising product from a PTC program, be aware that some PTC programs may be scams. For example, some PTC programs may be Ponzi schemes, where money from new investors is used to pay fake “profits” to earlier investors. Don’t let your guard down just because a PTC program claims it is not an investment scheme. Look out for these red flags:
  • Easy money. Be skeptical if you are offered high returns in exchange for merely purchasing products or for trivial tasks such as clicking on a certain number of online ads each day. Any investment opportunity that sounds too good to be true probably is.
  • Required upfront payments. Be wary if you are asked to pay money upfront to participate in a PTC program, even if it’s supposedly for a membership plan or product purchase. Why would a company require you to pay a membership fee or to buy a product, for the “opportunity” to click on ads?
  • No revenue from genuine products or services. Ask to see documents, such as financial statements audited by a certified public accountant (CPA), showing that the PTC program generates real revenue from selling products or services. If the PTC program has no revenue from customers other than its own members, any returns you receive are likely from other investors’ buy-in fees.
  • Virtual address. Verify that the business address listed for the PTC program is legitimate. For example, enter the address into an online search engine and be skeptical if the results suggest it is not a valid address or that the PTC program does not have legitimate operations at the location.
  • Withdrawal problems. If you have trouble withdrawing your money or are required to reinvest your profits, it may be because there is not enough money coming in from new investors to cover earlier investors’ withdrawal requests.
In two recent enforcement matters, the SEC charged companies for conducting Ponzi schemes through purported online advertising programs:
  • In SEC v. Traffic Monsoon, the SEC brought an enforcement action against a purported online advertising company and its operator for conducting a Ponzi scheme. The operator allegedly solicited investors through the company’s website and YouTube videos to purchase advertising products called “AdPacks.” According to the SEC’s complaint, each AdPack provided advertising benefits to the investor (20 clicks to the investor’s banner ad and 1,000 visitors to the investor’s website) and the ability to share in the company’s profits. The SEC alleged that more than 162,000 investors purchased approximately $207 million in AdPacks. More than 99% of the money that the company distributed to investors allegedly came from investors purchasing new AdPacks.
  • In SEC v. Pedro Fort Berbel, et al., the SEC charged a company and its principal officer with operating a Ponzi scheme through its purported online advertising businesses, MLM Shop, The Business Shop, and Fort Ad Pays. The defendants allegedly solicited investors through online posts and videos (in languages including English, Spanish, and French) on the defendants’ websites. In its complaint, the SEC alleged that these posts and videos claimed that investors could share in the businesses’ profits. The businesses allegedly required investors to purchase a plan or an advertising product. According to the SEC’s complaint, one of the businesses offered potential returns of 120% in exchange for purchasing an “Ad Pack” for as little as one dollar and clicking on four banner ads each day (or alternatively, investors could purchase a plan that did not require any action). The defendants allegedly raised $38 million from investors and kept at least $7 million for themselves to pay for a Florida private home, automobile expenses, and private plane charters, and to fund other businesses. Roughly 99% of the money generated by the defendants’ businesses allegedly came from other investors’ payments.
Additional Resources
View document in SPANISH – translated version,
available at https://www.investor.gov/alerta-para-los-inversionistas-tenga-cuidado-con-el-fraude-de-click.
View document in FRENCH – translated version,
available at https://www.investor.gov/alerte-aux-investisseurs-m%C3%A9fiez-vous-des-arnaques-la-r%C3%A9mun%C3%A9ration-au-clic.
Check out the background, including registration or license status, of anyone recommending or selling an investment, using the search tool on Investor.gov.
Report possible securities fraud to the SEC. Ask a question or report a problem concerning your investments, your investment account or a financial professional.
Visit Investor.gov, the SEC’s website for individual investors.
Receive Investor Alerts and Bulletins from the Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (“OIEA”) by email or RSS feed. Follow OIEA on Twitter @SEC_Investor_Ed. Like OIEA on Facebook at facebook.com/secinvestoreducation.

The Office of Investor Education and Advocacy has provided this information as a service to investors.  It is neither a legal interpretation nor a statement of SEC policy.  If you have questions concerning the meaning or application of a particular law or rule, please consult with an attorney who specializes in securities law.

Saturday, 4 November 2017

Crypto Currency SCAMS

Over the last few months, many people have contacted me to say they've joined various companies trading in various Crypto Currencies, and they've lost every penny. 

One minute the currency rises, the next minute, its gone. Traded away. 

And were not talking peanuts here, were talking thousands of pounds. 

No Refund. No Chargeback. No Legal protection. GONE.

The Ad Pack Scams that sprung up over the last few years are quickly being replaced with Crypto Currency Scams instead. 
And be in no doubt - they are all SCAMS. 

Whether they're trading in Crypto Currencies or selling you a 'new' Crypto currency,
the outcome is the same:
A tiny proportion of people will make money, but most people will eventually lose it.

Each one will have a variation of these terms:

'All trading involves risk. 
Only risk capital you're prepared to lose. 
Past performance does not guarantee future results...' 

...which is basically a scammers  'get out of jail' free card. 

If it seems too good to be true - it IS too good to be true. 


Tuesday, 31 October 2017

Tony and Lynne Booth - The Small Claims Court Case Judgement

* updated 2nd November 2017
The Judgement:

The Small Claims Court case held in Blackburn against Tony and Lynne has been dismissed by the Courts own motion.

Tony and Lynne’s Solicitor applied to the Court to have the case stuck off.

The plaintive, ‘P’ was advised by the Court that the strike off could be contested, and that a small pre-trial hearing would take place whereby ‘P’ could explain to the Judge why the ‘strike-off’ shouldn’t happen.

But unfortunately, for reasons unknown, ‘P’ never received a hearing date and the 'Order to Strike' was granted.

‘P’ was given a further seven days to contest the Judgement, but further costs were involved, which ‘P’ has (understandably) declined to do.

'P' is now considering the next move and we will update you with any further developments when or if they occur.

The Case:
It's unlikely that Tony and Lynne can ever be held accountable for any company losses since they never held Directorships at My Advertising Pays. But we can prove that they lied about the My Advertising Pays premises at Barnmeadow House, Barnmeadow Lane, Blackburn, and the staff they supposedly employed.

They never held a ten year lease at Barnmeadow House as claimed. They can’t provide any evidence of Employment for the (four) staff they claimed worked there. They have no Tax or National Insurance records, no evidence of Redundancy payments, no Employers Liability Insurance and no VAT records for the so called ‘services ’ they sold, because they don’t exist.

So, by definition, if we can prove they lied, then we can prove that My Advertising Pays was never a legitimate business, but an illegal Ponzi scam that they knowingly participated in.

Our whole dossier has been sent to the UK Police’s Economic Crime Unit, so if you haven’t already contacted ActionFraud Uk and made a formal complaint, please do so now.



You might also like to report Tony and Lynne to HMRC for Tax Evasion:

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/shortforms/form/TEH_IRF


* A very interesting piece of good news came in today regarding a Chargeback request to Barclaycard.

As a lot of you know, MAP Chargebacks have not been very successful because MAP/TAP are still trading. Many requests have been refused or the money refunded has been taken back.

The person who contacted us, 'A', had an initial request for a 3.5k Chargeback granted, but then Barclaycard said they were going to reverse that Chargeback decision and re-charged 'A' for the money.

Fast forward three months, and Barclaycard have today confirmed that the Chargeback money will be refunded again, will not be re-charged and the case is now closed.

And the reason for the change of heart?

We sent 'A' all the information presented to the Court in the recent Small Claims Court Case, and 'A' sent that on to Barclaycard.

So we can safely assume that Barclaycard thought that evidence was good enough to issue a Chargeback, even if the Court Case failed.

Banking Authorities share information about scams, so maybe it's worth another shot at asking for a Chargeback if you haven't already done so? Or consider re-applying, if your original Chargeback failed?


Wednesday, 18 October 2017

Charles Scoville - Appeal Documents


The Securities and Exchange Commission have filed Court papers in defence of an Appeal by Charles Scoville of Traffic Monsoon, to be heard by Judges on the Tenth Circuit. 
Considering the overwhelming evidence against Charles, it's inconceivable that the appeal will succeed. But due process has to be completed.

Below are some snips from the Court Documents that are of particular interest.
Note the Receiver has control of between $50 million and $60 million, so it looks like there's a good chance of a large % return to investors.  


















Monday, 2 October 2017

Charles Scoville - Delusions of Granduer, Part Two



'...because if you understand law then you would know that the only winning points the SEC have about TM is how people promoted TM wrong, and that has nothing to do with me or the company, because I made sure everyone was educated before purchase.. now, if people didn't take time to read their order before making a purchase, then that's their problem.. '

Once again Charles is saying that it was the people who promoted TM that were wrong, not him. So let's have a reminder of all the previous claims he made on the Traffic Monsoon website:



'You can get your money back,'says Charles.




'Each day you will receive a portion of money back until the AdPack expires.'says Charles.



'you will earn $1 per day...so it will take 55 days for an Adpack to expire.'


That sounds pretty definitive to me. And then he says it again, just to make sure: 

'When you purchase an AdPack combo advertising campaign for $50, ...you will continue to share in revenues up to $55.00. Reaching this maximum is not guaranteed... It's completely reliant upon sales of services...'



If profits are 'completely reliant upon sales of services...' then clicking on an advert within Charles closed loop website was completely pointless. It generates ZERO profits.
So it seems to me that Traffic Monsoon was sold by others in exactly the way he told them to sell it.

Charles latest post in full:


'Watch as I OWN the haters: If you're arguing against legal definitions, law books, and dictionaries and the reality that elements within the definitions don't match up with what my business actually is-- then it's pretty clear that you're either arguing because of an agenda or you're clueless. This position you're taking is deception to manipulate consumers away from being customers of my services to assist competition in having perception advantage over me.. or by the fact you're unable to match up elements in definitions of law piece by piece that match up things to meet the requirements in the definitions categories.

Arguing against someone who has such low intelligence to argue with a dictionary is a waste of time to read their opinions. Honestly. Any true business person or person who understands law would NEVER argue against these things well established. Seeing that you do, they will clearly see no value in your opinion.

Think about what you're arguing against. No one in their right mind would argue against a dictionary. Right? Did you read the full judge's opinion? The full one. Do you know preliminary injunction rules?

In preliminary injunction, the party who filed the lawsuit gets preference. The burden of proof is nearly at an impossible level upon the defense. The judge in the preliminary injunction (you can read the transcripts) recognized that my business offered adverting product and a non-investment. She also couldn't see any fraud. The SEC convinced the judge they believe they could find some if given proper time in discovery.

So, the judge seemed to see that the website, business, terms, etc were not setup to be a ponzi. But, she said if we ignore the disclaimers, the service, and the business-- then the economic reality is very similar to a ponzi-- and if the SEC can find evidence of me committing fraud in some way, it could impact a jury decision, but the appeals court might see it differently at this stage. She seemed uncertain about what the circuit courts might think. You can see all this also through the transcripts in the hearings. You really should dig deeper than you do. Basically if she ignores all the disclaimers, ad service, and business itself-- and looks just at the money coming in from purchases for ad service and going out for surfing rewards, then she was following court rules for her to give preference to the SEC since they filed the lawsuit.

So to argue agains the truth (which all who truly dig can see) shows that you could have an agenda, that you're deceptive, or that you're just an idiot. Arguing against the truth simply gives everyone a decoder ring to see that you're not all that smart.

If no one points this out to you-- how will you ever improve yourself in life?

Wake up, Haters! You need to educate yourself in this area FOR SURE if you're going to be a "scam-buster" or debate online, because all you're doing right now is displaying how stupid you are to those who are educated in this area.

There's a certain type of person who draws towards false things and believes those things before they believe things that are true, and then there is another type that draws towards truth and believes those things and may never believe the false stuff.

Haters, you're the type of person who grabbed hold of internet rumors from FUD campaigns and smear campaigns against me, and you thought what they had to say had real merit and meaning, but in reality it doesn't... but you couldn't tell the difference, because you're an idiot.

I don't mean to insult you, just saying you need to wake up in life and open a book and read what words mean, because you're wrong in this discussion, and the facts and measurements in place to obtain truth here have all lined up to 1 single reality: Traffic Monsoon is NOT a ponzi unless they ignore all the ad service, disclaimers, business math, everything- including the definitions in the law books, especially since Traffic Monsoon could always keep its contractual obligations.. and isn't that (end of the day) what the fraud actually is in a ponzi scheme- the inability to meet obligations? and if my company can, and always would-- then what is your problem?

So before you post your uneducated opinions again, TRY to educate yourself about these things more deeply. One of the things the judge also said was she didn't feel comfortable releasing any funds without appellate review. She wasn't confident of any decision she might make here.

Take a look at things like the Judge ruling in a manner inconsistent with previous rulings. She ruled in a way about Morrison which is contrary to any other previous judge EVER. Did you think about that? Did that make you think that maybe other things she has decided COULD be wrong too?

How could you not recognize that you're currently seen as a foolish man who believes the opposite of the truth which all who have seen court records or been to the hearings know for themselves to be true. So you're just looking like an idiot to those who know.

So if you haven't read things then you don't know yet. That's my point. You don't know what you're talking about. What things are you reading. Law books, law references? or haters comments and internet rumors? Which do you think is established in truth? Right. The law books. So why believe the internet rumors when I'm posting links to the briefs filed with the courts so people can review and learn the definitions of law for themselves, and understand truly that my business is actually legitimate by all counts.

I get it. The SEC are usually right in what they do, but the SEC isn't always right. In this TM case with the SEC, the SEC is wrong-- they just are in our case... and they think they are right because their source of fact is haters comments and they are not basing their evaluation of my business by what is actually written, but based upon what SOME people THOUGHT, and people only thought that based upon people who taught the business wrong, and that only happened by people who had agendas or people who didn't know any better-- but end of the day, they didn't read the website for themselves or have the intelligence to say the words they saw written on the website-- instead they made up their own.. was it because of agenda or because they just didn't know what was on the website because they never read it?

Once we drill through the crazy internet rumors and have this case based upon what was actually there, this is going to resolve in our favor because if you understand law then you would know that the only winning points the SEC have about TM is how people promoted TM wrong, and that has nothing to do with me or the company, because I made sure everyone was educated before purchase.. now, if people didn't take time to read their order before making a purchase, then that's their problem.. but I did all I needed to in order to make sure each potential customer is aware their purchase on TM is for ad service, and not for any sort of investment, and there is not any sort of returns. So the SEC shouldn't really be involved in TM, because an investment isn't actually involved. For you to think so only shows how dumb you are. Why would you think buying an ad service is an investment if you're given a reward for surfing? Do you see how stupid this is? Classic low intelligence arguments here. So you really should stop arguing and making yourself look bad, but hey-- go on all you want and make yourself look as obviously stupid as you want. But you might not see too much argument from me, because I'm seeing that you don't have the intelligence required to understand my words.'


You don't need intelligence to understand Traffic Monsoon is a PONZI Charles, you just need to be able to read.

Saturday, 30 September 2017

Charles Scoville - Delusions of Granduer

'I could have joined USI-TECH and made lots of money, but that's not me to earn from a scam. I have morals and standards.'




....says Charles Scoville. 

The guy who opened and closed all these scams and presumably made a nice tidy sum from each of them.


TVIPTC.COM
INFINITYBUX.COM
EternalifeBux.com
ULAUNCHFORMULA.COM
Wealthenginex .com
trophybux.com  
inboxbux.com
Adscashfast
FreeHitXchange
BuxSecure.com        
Powerfulbux.com  
Foreverbux.com 
BuxUnleashed.com 
Banrev.com
Ultimatepowerboost.com 
AdHitProfits 
...and Traffic Monsoon. 

If anyone knows scams, it's Charles Scoville. He's certainly had enough practice perfecting them. 

So why is Charles picking on USI-TECH particularly?  Out of dozens of other perfectly good scams he could tear apart, he picks on the one that his previous loyal leaders have all jumped into. Disloyal friends are the pits, aren't they Charles? And after all that money they made from you as well...that's gratitude eh?

Meanwhile, a fellow scambuster Ethan Vanderbuilt, has also suffered the wrath of Charles for daring to suggest that in 'his opinion' Charles is a scammer. I've got news for Charles, there are thousands more people with the same opinion, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, who, may I remind you, has charged Charles with all this:


FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
EMPLOYMENT OF A DEVICE, SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD
Violation of Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(1)] 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD IN THE OFFER OR SALE OF SECURITIES
Violation of Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(3)] 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF SECURITIES
Violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5(a) and
(c) thereunder [17 U.F.R. § 240.10b-5(a) and (c)] 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
OFFER AND SALE OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES
Violation of Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and (c)]


This is Charles post about Ethan:


'Ethan Vanderbuilt recently ran an article featuring how I'm openly displaying the lies and deception within USI-TECH and the leaders there. 




I appreciate his ameteur approach but he's been very wrong with many of his business opinions. Ethan, I'll help you out with a legal definition relating to your opinion about me and also my business Traffic Monsoon.

In definition a ponzi is an *investment* which doesn't have any actual source of returns but simply uses investor funds to supply returns. As you apply scrutinty to the pages inside and outside the members area of Traffic Monsoon, you would see there is no offer to place money in TM's management for TM to manage in such a way for there to be returns. Telling customers that there is a rewards program built into a purchase which will reward them for an activity based upon how much they purchased using money the company already has does not constitute a ponzi, so your ameteur opinion about my business is flawed. Since no offer for an investment exists on my website or videos -- all content created by me which was available for customers to view step-by-step through the sign-up and check-out process.. and had to setup an advertisement before a purchase button even appeared. Clearly what was for sale was ad service, and not any investment.

The fraud in a ponzi clearly identified is the contractual obligations which they cannot meet. Promising returns from X and there is no X to provide those returns, then it's impossible to meet the promises made within the purchase agreement.

As we have been able to outline for the courts, TrafficMonsoon would never be in position where it couldn't fulfill its contractual obligations. It's also not positioning itself to be a place to manage your money and get returns from X. X doesn't exist, but the offer to provide returns from X also doesn't exist within TM. Promise of income of any kind does not exist on TM, but quite to the contrary. Everything labeled as an ad service that will get visitors to your website, and every obligation to complete the delivery of the service purchased can be fulfilled. Every account balance with earnings can be paid out. There is no ponzi here.

This is how clear this case is, and truly shouldn't have happened in the first place.

If you need reference to the laws, I recommend reading the brief we've recently filed.

What the brief basically said was: Using money the company already has to reward surfers does not constitute a ponzi, especially when there is no contractual obligation for those rewards to be anything at all. Without obligation for surf rewards to be anything there is no investment. There is no obligation to payout more than the company has, so by law there not only isn't a security but also no ponzi.

The references used were to places where laws and definitions are found which give credibility and weight to our words. One of the references was a dictionary, to show just how plainly simple this case really is, that it should resolve in our favor by definition of law.'

The only  'Definition of Law'  that Charles needs to worry about is how long a jail sentence he'll get for stealing. And in MY OPINION, insulting the Judge by calling her of  'lower intelligence', isn't likely to get him a lighter sentence - but I'm guessing he knows that already. 


Charles Scoville yeah, lots of people taking cheap shots. So I was talking about intelligence with my mom about estimating a date for when this case might be resolved-- truth is we don't know when, and we don't know when the appeal will be finished either- we have no idea..

I was explaining how we need to be careful about giving any estimations at all beyond something like: we don't know how long this will take, but we'll do all we can do have it take the least amount of time as possible.. but some cases with the sec have taken 3-5 years, some have taken longer.. but each step we are at we'll try to do all we can to have the case take the least amount of time as possible.

So these low intelligence people see *estimate* April 2018 .. and these people set it on their calendars and write it on stone and will hold us to that date if something takes longer than we expected... and call us liars if something different than what they say happens.. and these lower intelligence people sometimes squeek louder and also attract other lower intelligence people to collectively agree on such absurd thoughts.. I think that's also one of the roots of this case is lower intelligence agreeing together when the facts can clearly be seen to be the opposite.

Ethan is just another one of those lower intelligences agreeing with other lower intelligences, but if anyone actually pairs my business model up with a ponzi, it actually doesn't match by legal definition-- so the lower intelligent people feel good because a lower intelligent judge was on the bench, but truth was not decided, and the end was not reached in the case-- we haven't even had a trial yet, so we are just getting started in this case. No need to start saying what's been concluded, because there is not one yet... but lower intelligence makes people think a judge has already made a decision, but she really hasn't... the case is still open, it's not closed... still going through the process, and in a legal process there are wins and losses, but in the end we believe we'll win because we're right... and all the higher intelligent types can see it by plain & simple definition of law and definition of what was offered by my business.'


I don't know who Charles lawyers are, but since they've supposedly waived their fees for the last three months:

Shirley Scoville:
'TREMENDOUS NEWS: All of TM’s current bills don’t need to be paid! Imagine that! Our attorney, whose bills these are, has written them off. This means the $3,632.50 June bill and the $577.50 July bill are gone! We didn’t get an August bill. All of this is an effort to take some financial pressure off of us!
The donations that have come in already and those yet to come in will be used on future bills, and you know we’ll have them. We all need to celebrate!'


...I can only conclude his attorneys are sick to the back teeth of him and his continuous verbal diarrhea , and have given up. They surely must be advising him to seek a low profile?But since Charles point blank refuses to shut up and insults everybody from his once close 'friends' to Judge Parrish, who in their right mind would want to defend him?

This latest rant was posted just a few hours ago. Once again he says his previous leaders, Imy Islam and Sharon James, are 'psychopaths'. These are the same people who knew him really well and presumably have stories about him that could incriminate him further. So why do it?

Charles Scoville I'll share what I said to Ethan Vanderbuilt.. If you really put some effort and research into your opinions, and not just read the haters comments.. but read through facts, and dig through each thing.. inspecting.. dissecting.. your articles having things well mapped out with legal definitions, facts from the case (not just opinions or statements of others) but facts, and line those up with legal arguments.. (square to square and it's clean and clear you got it bang on) and you form your opinion using measurements of law and actual definitions (not just what people say).. oh, you start digging into things and uncovering truth as deeply as the depths things go.. and people would pay for a subscription like that to learn of the programs you've dug into.. people would pay you to be a consultant to review their businesses they are thinking of joining..but you don't do that.. In fact this idea may have never crossed your mind to really study and learn, and improve your skills in your field.. you have no idea what you're talking about.. and you can't even see how reckless you are writing (basically) about every company and say it's a scam.. you think that's valuable to anyone at all? you haven't really dug in with all that much skill.. and it's obvious, and the business minded people can see it clearly, so you're not going to attract a very intelligent crowd as you can see by your current followers. Yes, they get some right, but a lot wrong.. but definitely people like Imy Aslam, Sharon James, etc are certainly psychopaths.. but as far as what I was doing, and what the company was doing.. if you're honest as a scam-buster.. nothing I was offering actually was a fraud at all.. there's no fraud in selling ad service.. there's no fraud in sales commissions.. there's no fraud in giving away money the company already has received to people who surf ads... there's really no fraud in that.. if you're truly good at what you do, you'll see that very easily.

Look, you're pathetic at writing these articles but I think you could get better if you just got an education on the things you write about. That's all I'm saying. Your free opinions are worthless, and no one would pay a penny for them anyway. I don't mean to say that as an insult, but you should start living in the truth.. you suck at this, but you can get better.. so see this as me trying to wake you up to a reality, and motivate you to improvement :-) Be a mythbuster quality writer in busting scams. You'd be great if you really put in the work, but what you have now is just real sloppy work. Honestly, real sloppy. Yahoo wouldn't even want to hire this sloppy of work. Seriously.

What do you do for money (I mean besides the ads on your site).. are you workin a job? own a business? what would you say you have gained your level of experience from in this world? Have you tried to launch a product to the market and see that people didn't really want to buy it and have to improve it..? and then see people didn't really want to buy it so you improved.. but what if you did that and people called you a scammer? Everyone had received what they paid for.. and everyone was paid out what they earned.. and after everyone stopped using the service, no one was logging in.. everyone already had requested to be paid.. I closed the site, and recognized that I really need to improve what I'm doing.. just like I'm recommending you to do-- improve what you do and you'll be a greater value to the world and this industry.. but if you're just going to say everything is a scam, then you're just a joke.. and everyone talks about it.. yes, everyone. except the 9-10 people who liked you on fb.. everyone thinks you're a joke.. it's what everyone says everywhere I go.. so it's all I know, is how stupid you are and terrible your reviews are.. So I'm sorry to bring this to your attention but it's true.

You know why Simon Cowell makes a good judge? Because he tells the truth. He makes a lot of money simply being honest about what sounds good. Is that a good singer? He says no. People say he's mean. He says no because no one would buy that record if it was made. If he wants to find real talent, then he's not going to be soft about it. He's going to tell the truth, and when real talent is there he says it. That's the kind of leader people need to be.. if it's a real business, say it.. if it's a fake business... say it.. follow the Simon Cowells who get it right and tell you where the stars are. Don't follow the leaders who constantly lead you into scam after scam, or simply say everything's a scam. They don't know what they're doing. Terrible talent scouts. Find good talent scouts to be your leaders. Need to find leaders who will show you where the good businesses are, and tell you the truth.'


Charles has alot to say about everybody, except the one person who would have known all about his financial dealings - namely Amin Forati, his previous Chief Financial Officer. But we haven't heard a peep. I wonder why?