Translate

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?

Wednesday, 20 September 2017

USI TECH Is a Scam - Says Charles Scoville!

Not content with calling anybody who thinks Traffic Monsoon is a Scam, 'stupid', Charles is now calling his previous loyal followers, psychopaths.
He's also on a mission to expose USI Tech as a scam.
It reminds me of the countless times people have written on our facebook pages, or blogs and forums to say:
' ...hey, 'such and such' is definitely a scam, great work! But MY business is REAL!'
Like they're the first person to think of it. Insincereity at it's finest.

This first post was written by Charles for all of us 'haters' out there:

'Haters claim to want to protect people's money and get them their money back.. but they encourage people to contact the receiver who spends more of their money every minute she works on anything related to TM. They don't really care about you!
If people could only see how truly stupid these tara talks/refund groups types really are when it comes to TM... in reality it's truly not a ponzi, and the recently filed appeal brief clearly steps the logical thinker through the law and Traffic Monsoon's business model to display that there is no valid reason for this case and it should be voided.
It's people that are so stupid who refer to the law cited in the brief filed as "pseudo-compliance.." and I'm thinking how stupid do you have to be to think REAL LAW is just pretend? This isn't pseudo anything.. these are the real laws here with references to them too. Why would you try to tell people this is pseudo compliance when this is the real thing with citations to law that prove TM isn't a ponzi whatsoever by definition of law... no wonder the haters are trying to "hit back" by telling people to contact the receiver. The haters don't really care about anyone, just want to win an argument online regardless of how it impacts anyone, but they are wrong this time-- TM isn't really a ponzi.
They are not happy about losing this argument. They have been right about some ponzi schemes, but TM is not one of them they are right about, and the brief we filed 12 Sept 2017 clearly outlines just how right TM is.
The whole PayPal limitation started because of this online argument between haters and TM users, and haters desire to wreck our relationship with PayPal because they could see we had such a good one. So they combined and worked together to convinced PayPal of a lie, and PayPal believed their lie so well that they thought I had been deceiving them the whole time. So they limited the account and did all they could to get people to report me to the SEC and FBI. PayPal even pulled a bit of deception job themselves to make it look like things I said weren't true. Those have all been proven to be truly exactly how I had been telling people within official court documents supplied by PayPal themselves. The haters worked with the SEC to help convince them to file this case.
So if you think these people are really working FOR you, they are not. They are working against you simply to win an online argument about Traffic Monsoon, and by clear definition of law it truly isn't a ponzi, as has been clearly demonstrated through the appeal's brief. So all this destruction and impact on everyone's lives had nothing to do with anything I did, but everything to do with what the haters, PayPal, and the SEC have done and caused an injustice to fall upon every single one of us involved in TM, and none of us should partner with them-- but partner together to beat them at what they are doing to us, and simply using PayPal and the SEC as weapons against us.. to win an argument online.. and not having any concern about what they are doing and what impact it would have on any of the TM members' lives..
They don't care about the destruction in people's lives, in fact they cheer and want to have everyone believe I caused this, when it was actually them.. I would say they are "pseudo-caring" because they are attempting to fool people into believing they care, when actually they haven't dug into the actual business to see that there actually isn't any investment offered, and since no security exists the SEC shouldn't have gotten involved.
Since I know I wasn't doing anything wrong, and I wasn't offering any security, (I offered ad service, referral program, and rewards for surfing) and I know there was truly no ponzi involved within my business as a matter of law based upon legal definitions, I know we're going to prevail in this case eventually! Truth and justice shall prevail!'

And this is Charles latest post slating the Ponzi Scam USI Tech:

'Please share so that more people can learn the truth about USI-TECH. Just remember, the thing people say is the only problem I had is I trusted the wrong people. Trusting the right people is hard when psychopaths are involved, and it's hard to determine who in your life is fake and only using you for your money, or telling you nice things for their own benefit.
A psychopath will harm you and deceive you and feel no guilt or shame about what they have done... they think only about their own benefit... and will do all that it takes to get what they want, even if that means cheating, lying, tricking, manipulating, stealing, etc.. without thought of how their actions will impact anyone else.
they have no soul.. they feel no shame or guilt and they do whatever they want to hurt people and get as much gain from others as they want, and they walk away and do it again without even feeling anything about that at all.. emptiness, but they put on a mask of warmth, charm, charisma, and all that you want them to be while they take advantage of you.
NO ONE could possibly tell YOU to invest in a company without YOU being able to verify trades are real... without being a psychopath! They are taking advantage of your inability to see USI-TECH as the ponzi scheme that it is. No real trades! And they certainly wouldn't proceed without any proof FIRST!!
Spreading FALSE HOPE that trades are real is more destructive upon people than WARNING people that they are probably fake since no proof exists, except more destructive upon your commissions. If determining whether trades exist is a question, then again it's another clue for people to open their eyes.. a security exists, and regulators NEED to be in place to ensure trades are real, which is what the SEC does. The SEC even said they do this regardless if the security is traded in USD or bitcoin. Since this is what USI-TECH is offering to the USA, then they must be registered and licensed with the SEC, otherwise their offer is a likely fraud.
USI-TECH leaders and laywers appear to be lying and participating in the deception..They are trying to say there isn't a security involved, when there is certainly:
1. OFFER is for a placement of money
2. OFFER says the money is being managed by the company
3. OFFER claims money is being used in such a way to generate returns
4. OFFER owes any returns to their client.
That is a security by legal definition, and anyone following the TM case would know that, and would see for sure that USI-TECH truly is offering a security, and anyone who thinks differently is being lied to. Anyone who read's TM's website would see this is not something being offered on TM, which means a security truly isn't involved... and if you thought there was anything like this involved in TM, then you were lied to--
I agree with USI-TECH leaders about getting facts straight. I have a video with Ralf Gold where he described his business and his offer, and based upon his description the offer of USI-TECH is a security.
If someone is offering you to trade with your money.. YOU need to be sure they are really trading with your money, but so far they have resisted to provide truth and worked hard to deceive people why they don't need to provide proof.
Honestly, no one should be investing there until the facts are straight and the proof is provided. I 100% agree with USI-TECH leaders, people should get the facts straight. 100% agree with USI-TECH leaders about getting the truth before putting your money into USI-TECH..
When you recommend people to invest in a company that's not supplying any proof of trades, it's terrible advice. It's setting people up to potentially lose their money on a scam which isn't actually trading with your money!
Fact is, until now they haven't provided any authentic proof that all returns are coming from where they say, and 0% from new investor funds.. and since none of that has been provided, honestly-- anyone offering good advice would NEVER tell people to invest anywhere without full disclosure from the start. I'm just saying. No one should be investing over there without full authentic proof.
Yes, TM is not online because of this bogus case. Anyone can see there is no security involved in TM... but while this case is going on which has hurt all of us enough already, I want each of you to find a way to be happy and earning an income while this case is going on. To be involved in a business without proof of trades... I'm afraid it won't last for you, and the fall will be really bad for you and how people think about people who were involved after it goes down.
I truly love all my TM members. I want what's best for all of you and want to see you all happy in life, and find the happiness that will last and not build upon a foundation of a lie (no real trading activity).


And this is from the thread that followed: 

Sharon James Seriously Charles Scoville this is a fantastic business and I am not sure why you are slating USI I and many other TM affiliates are enjoying an incredible business model, we have supported you We are with TM all the way But to continually slate USI this is NOT GOOD and I am very disappointed... you do not have the facts you do not know the owners and there is a lot more to come when it comes to USI, I am so proud to promote the business its ethical and very credible and is a very serious business.

Charles Scoville Thing is, I haven't done anything wrong, so supporting me makes sense.. they haven't provided any proof of trades ever since day 1.. so why are people leading anyone to invest with a company no one even knows for sure is real?

Sharon James Charles Scoville They have an FX product they have been using for over 10 years Charles I have a trading acc that is just in my name IT IS Segregated and I get an EA that trades for me automated, I see evidence every day, Its incredible very very happy with it,more is coming too, so your choosing to slate the company on that fact that you think its a scam I thought better of you Charles especially on what has been written about you online, This is a credible business and since when did you become so bitter about another company.

Charles Scoville Sharon James but where is the proof of this 10 years they claim.. a year ago on their website it said 8 years.. so where can we go to see the facts with this?

Sharon James Charles Scoville I have friends who have used it for over 2 years for a start before the company was even launched this has been a credible product.


Charles Scoville Sharon James how long have you known these friends?

Sharon James Charles Scoville 4 years


Charles Scoville Sharon James anyone who pushes USI-TECH knowing there is no autentication by a well-known, reputable 3rd party accounting firm (and especially registered and licensed with a regulatory body somewhere in this world) has greatly disappointed me after all we have been through with TM, so you being a person I'm disappointed in and hope you turn away from such an obvious scam.. Sharon, I'm deeply disappointed because you push this probable scam.. not even thinking of the people who might get hurt by it.. because no one can see for sure whether the trading/mining/or whatever they claim is the source of money now is even real.
I have great disappointement with anyone referring anyone to invest anywhere which doesn't have any proof of source of returns established by any authority whatsoever, or lead anyone to believe they don't need to be licensed or registered with any authority.

Why would I want to gain approval among USI-TECH members when I think this sort of activity is criminal? Wouldn't I want to stand up for my principles and warn people? Isn't warning people and standing up for what I believe in a sign of integrity? Why would I want support from criminals (USI-TECH members) especially when I'm establishing myself as being innocent of the exact things USI-TECH are doing! I'm innocent of any wrong-doing because I actually am... so defending me makes sense...but anyone pushing or defending a blatant ponzi is someone I'm greatly disappointed in... especially since the false allegation against me is precisely what USI-TECH is doing, and you're either blind to that or simply pushing it for the money... and because of that, I'm disappointed. Because of this TM case everyone in USI-TECH should have known better.

Sharon James How dare you say that i am pushing a scam Seriously Charles What proof do you have, I am very disappointed in your comments I can not believe in your actions, You are truly showing your true colours Charles I have always loved you Charles and this is really giving the wrong message. Since when did you become the Police of Internet. Seriously, I can not believe you are in the position your in and you are accusing a credible company of the above ,These guys are Professionals and I believe if you had done half of what they have achieved in the past I do not believe we would have been suffering Now.. USI is NOT AN INVESTMENT USI IS NOT A SCAM USI is a fantastic business model and great Leadership, Charles why are you always comparing USI to TM they are nothing alike TM was an Incredible business and hopefully it will come back But I have had huge amount of messages from people saying they are disgusted by your behaviour towards USI and that they have lost respect for you and will not be donating from the incredible income they are earning with USI, I wish you all the best Charles but I can not have any further comments to make. USI pays on time without fail has a product that has been used for over 8 years has another product that is due to launch in October has opened multiple offices globally and we will celebrating their the anniversary in London in October this is just the beginning of an amazing journey and I am happy and so are thousands of others, All the Best

Curt Elbert I just cant believe this guy, i think he has lost his mind...smh he is insane Charles Scoville what a shame...you have just killed the little reputation you had left!


Charles Scoville Sharon James Curt Elbert Just remember claiming GetMyAds was legit and then it turned out to be a ponzi. Consider what motivated the sale and pushing that it was legit? Do you think maybe you didn't dig enough since it turned out being a fraud? What ifI told you it was a fraud before you figured it out through sad experience? Would you have listened before getting started? Would you have stopped promoting it before it crashed?

Curt Elbert Charles Scoville i never said anything about Getmyads...lol never even thought once about that program...what are you talking about...lol


Charles Scoville Curt Elbert RIght, I'm referring to many of the top leaders in USI-TECH also just promoted GetMyAds and it turned out to be a ponzi.. some of those same leaders promoted Banners Broker.. and it turned out to be a ponzi.. a lot of things these same leaders promoted turned out to be a ponzi... is it any wonder why people have a hard time seeing why TM isn't a ponzi when these same people constantly promote ponzis and then promoted TM? Those same people thought TM was one of those, but it really isn't anything like those. Sharon of all knew it the best because she tested and tried out all the services and knew it all was real.. so that's why it's so unbelievable when leaders who even came to the hearings for TM to learn from ground zero I ran a legit business which would never go into debt.. these same people go off and promote these scams.. so disappointing ..

Curt Elbert So thar mean TM was a scam too right..lol so you are contradicting yourself Charles...TM is just like Getmyads, its gone under and wont be back so are you saying TM was a Ponzi scheme too. Just because leaders are promoting something legitimate now doesn't mean its a scam like TM was...stop Charles the more you run your moutg the morr you make yourself look like a scammer and TM looks even more like a PONZI Scheme.

Charles Scoville Curt Elbert There's no contradiction. My business offered ad service and never offered a place to deposit money. TM has a winning case, and I think a lot of people will be shocked when I actually win :-D

Curt Elbert Your ad services was not a product because it had no value and 99% of the people bought ad packs and the ad services were junk and most ponzi scheme programs advertised on TM platform so you see the SEC saw right through it.


Charles Scoville Curt Elbert That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If you look at the alexa rank of Traffic Monsoon, that represents more eyeballs than pass the busiest highway in the USA in a day. Traffic Monsoon had more in a day than those busy highways. You're telling me, having a banner on a site like that has no value? What brain do you use to think with?
Not only does this hold true value by definition of how many people actually were on the site in a day to see the banners, but additionally the traffic exchange services had been tracked and ranked by more than 1 traffic exchange rank site, which tracked Traffic Exchange services by their own metrics, and on 2 separate sites on a weekly basis for over a year TM ranked very well, and majority of the time #1. So you can't say there was no value in these services..
And not only that, in comparison with pricing.. Traffic Monsoon was very competitive among all these traffic exchanges, so your statements are weak and evidence is too strong to the contrary.

Curt Elbert Charles Scoville you are sounding really crazy right now..lol you have lost your mind and sound really insane and very unprofessional smh...you O alot of people money my freind AGAIN because this is not your first PONZI Scheme scam Were you lost millions of members money so stop calling the keddle black and mad and hating on a real legitimate business that makes real returns of capital and doing it the right way unlike you did...

Curt Elbert You see that Alexa rank stuff mean nothing because TM is shut down no more


Charles Scoville Curt Elbert Time will tell, and my "crazy" words will be seen a lot different later on down the road ;-) have fun with USI-TECH, but I really want you to understand that it's a ponzi scheme which will hurt people down the road, and since it's wanting to take a giant step into the USA, I'm pretty sure that authorities will not sit by and let a ponzi get away... and it will be clearly displayed as well that TM is clearly no ponzi.. if you've read the last brief filed in the courts, it's pretty clear in all the outlining of law that there is no ponzi involved in tm.

Curt Elbert You have already seen That TM was a PONZI we all no that and has hurt tons of people that lost everything...you will see 2 5 years from now when USI is still around and no more PONZI Scheme TM. Mark my word and all your hating will be water under the bridge. I know you are mad and upset that usi is doing huge things and is a legitimate business and TM wasn't but it will be ok.
Goodbye...TM no more and USI is thrieving good night...lol hater!

Charles Scoville Curt Elbert You're embarrassing yourself here Curt Elbert - Maybe if you read the latest brief filed with the courts you would understand by definition of law I wasn't doing anything wrong.. if you had the ability to dig in and see things for what they are, you would see that by clear legal definition, rewarding people for surfing using money the company already has does not constitute a ponzi.

Curt Elbert You have already embarrassed yourself Charles Scovilleand you are now making yourself look even worse. Your true color are showing bro! No one trust you.

Vincent Boutin So USI-Tech is an investment or not? If it brings real returns on capital, it's an investment right?
Just trying to follow here

Sharon James Vincent Boutin no it's Not .. we receive our initial capital on a daily basis along with profits on mining and trading up to 140% overall we receive around 6% a month in profits this is very achievable for traders in the crypto world. An Investment is very different to Return on capital when the company can not offer this going forward the product will no longer be available.



Charles Scoville Vincent Boutin Those USI-TECH leaders have people's minds all twisted up to believe that returns on capital isn't the same as a return on investment.. but what do people invest with? Capital :-P


Vincent Boutin The online world is full of psychopaths. People launching websites, trying to steal the most money, to every single penny possible from all naive victims. And we all go through the naive stage. I hope people won't lose much on this site. I would definitely suggest to everybody to just hold Bitcoin. Much safer, you are the sole owner of your money and it will grow immensely in value during the years to come.


Charles Scoville I'm hoping my posts help bring people out of the naive stage. Some already are.. others are not yet out of that naive stage.


Charles Scoville a lot of true colors being shown here. I'm definitely setting at variance my business as being real and USI-TECH as being false, and it helps identify types of leaders (who constantly push ponzi schemes that fail again and again) for people and sort of pulls the blinders back for helping people choose good leaders and not psychopaths. Sharon is one of those who doesn't care how anyone is wronged by USI-TECH down the road, as long as she's making money right now she's ok. Same thing with GetMyAds and anything else she's promoted before and since TM.. a ton of scams.. Who do you trust in.. the leaders who constantly jump from scam to scam or those who really dig in and find real companies. TM was a real company, and it lowers people's perception of me when leaders within my business just push scams. It's truly disappointing.


Charles Scoville Look, there were people pushing this bet-robot on Telegram. I knew it was a ponzi. I warned some people, and I was made fun of.. then, a month or so later it was finished. People see me differently now. People see those leaders differently now. Some people still follow them into those ponzis after ponzis.. and Sharon has gone from ponzi after ponzi time and time again.. telling her followers to jump into that next thing she's in.. and USI-TECH has no proof of trades, and is just like BannersBroker in that way.. confusing explanations which don't make sense, and people fall for that garbage. TM is a real company, real ad service, people earned real money.. and this case will prevail.. and in time USI-TECH will fail because it all really is a lie over there... and honestly, a leader who leads people into scam after scam and leads people to invest when no proof exists it's a real company.. well, leaders like this have no morals.. and if anyone is going to misdirect people away from legal regulatory and mandatory requirements for things like USI-TECH to be registered with the SEC, then they're just slimy too... and doesn't make me look very good to be associated with people involved in companies like USI-TECH while I'm fighting this case against the SEC.'


Charles Scoville People like you, Sharon, and Imy.. people pushing USI-TECH.. you might be good people, but I wouldn't trust any of you with business. 0%. Tons of deception and manipulation around all of you. I didn't see it when you were focused on TM, but when I see you pushing scams well.. it's very obvious the type of person you are, and I'm really not expecting this.. I thought you were someone better. I shared this whole situation with a Vice President of a company I sat down with recently, and as far as business acumen from an actual business professional and Vice President of a global distribution company.. he saw people like you as snakes and criminals over there at USI-TECH. I don't care what you think of me. I know who I am, and I know I tell the truth. I can't say the same thing about your manipulation tactics to get people to put money into USI-TECH. If that's how you promoted TM by lying to people about what TM actually is, then I'm really wondering how so many people in the UK thought TM was an investment.. maybe you were one of those who promoted TM in an ILLEGAL way.

Sharon James really Charles Scoville you are certainly scraping barrel enough this is not a good look for you at all...

Charles Scoville Sharon James I'm not nasty against you, I'm nasty against scams, and usi-tech is a scam. I think the world of you, but business acumen is not something you have, and usi-tech has manipulated and deceived you, and if you truly believe all the lies and perpetuate a scam, then you're part of that lie.. and I don't respect lies.
...The point is, many of these leaders inside USI-TECH have made a bad reputation for themselves promoting several scams but everyone can remember seeing how much they claimed they were legit. These leaders don't seem to have any business sense if they think it's a good idea to invest with a company which doesn't have proof of trades. Because of all the scams they have promoted over the years it really makes TM seem bad when in reality all it was is a company that sold ad service, offered an affiliate program, and offered customers rewards for surfing. It's hard to see the truth when there's all these people with masks on seeming so good, charming, charismatic.. telling you to invest your money in their scam so they can earn a commission. Tell me if this is the type of leader you really want to be following?'
Updated:22nd September 2017
Charles Scoville Anita Langley Any well educated person would know it's bad advice to invest anywhere which has no proof of trades. I have not lost the plot telling people NOT to invest somewhere that has no proof of trades. :-P 
In actual business sense, no one should be telling anyone to invest somewhere which is unlicensed/unregistered with the SEC, especially a place that has no proof of trades. People who do that have lost the plot for sure.

Charles Scoville well, i'm not saying Anita Langley and Sharon James didn't stand by me.. and I'm not saying they aren't standing by me.. all I'm saying is usi-tech is dangerous and anyone covering up need to be regulated or even need to provide proof of trades has got to be insane or intentionally trying to get money from others through telling a lie, and I can't support that.

Darren Protheroe Hear hear to that Charles 😉

Anita Langley Charles in TM you never actually declared your business model (and rightly so) hundreds of thousands of people trusted you!! It was only when the SEC got involved that you had to declare your business model for everyone to see. Why would you disclose it, if you didn't have too? So other companies could go any copy your business model which many did and failed !
They aren't doing anything different to you (even though they are a completely different business model) other than they had the forceit to obtain a legal opinion to ensure that what they was offering was not a security! 
Everyone has a right to there own opinion and I respect that, we are all adults and we will make that decision for ourselves but slandering people all over FB - IMHO is so wrong especially when we have been through thick and thin with you Charles and many, many people have been in touch with myself and others and we are concerned for you. 
In the meantime, perhaps your energy would be better focused elsewhere i.e. in your forthcoming new venture and on TM winning the case.
I am not prepared to discuss this any further on an open forum. All the best

Charles Scoville Anita Langley I appreciate your support through TM, and as everything has come out it has shown I haven't ever lied to anyone. The truth truly is I was selling ad service. This is not an investment. Using money the company already has to reward surfersdoes not constitute a ponzi, especially when there is no contractual obligation for those rewards to be anything at all. 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. This case will prevail in our favor as a matter of law. So I'm grateful for you standing with me when I'm in the right.
The problem is, USI-TECH is lying to people and there's so much deception. I'm calling attention to it. I believe in honesty. I'm sorry that right now you're also supportive of such deception at USI-TECH while also wanting to show your support of me. If you can't see that USI-TECH is probably a scam, then does your opinion that TM isn't a ponzi truly going to carry much weight in the public eye? It does make TM and me look bad to see TM leaders promoting scams, or investment programs which do not provide proof of trades. It's just disappointing, that's all.. and it does weaken the view of what TM is when leaders go and push something like Tom Kent, GetMyAds, and now USI-TECH.. it's just disappointing...'

In conclusion, it looks like Charles has decided that part of his defence is that these people who hero worshipped him and recruited affiliates for him in their hundreds/ thousands have recruited illegally. 
What a truly lovely person Charles Scoville is.