Thread: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville

looks like one of the slum landlord, serial scammer Sunil 'nostrils' C Patel companies about to be closed.

P POWER LIMITED
UK Flag 102 Brockenhurst Avenue, Worcester Park, Surrey, KT4 7RF
ACTIVE Accounts: Not filed Age: 2 Year(s) Directors: 1 Company No: 09085790 Edit Company

2016-09-01
GAZ1 First notification of strike-off action in London Gazette (Section 652).

Originally Posted by alanking

looks like one of the slum landlord, serial scammer Sunil 'nostrils' C Patel companies about to be closed.

TM Sunil Patel's slum landlord properties and convictions are well known around the Ealing/Acton/Hamersmith area of London (which is north of the river Thames and the western limit of Greater London.) Worcester Park is in the Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames which is south of the Thames and Kingston is located at the eastern limit of Greater London. Do we know if these two people are one and the same?

Originally Posted by path2prosperity

TM Sunil Patel's slum landlord properties and convictions are well known around the Ealing/Acton/Hamersmith area of London (which is north of the river Thames and the western limit of Greater London.) Worcester Park is in the Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames which is south of the Thames and Kingston is located at the eastern limit of Greater London. Do we know if these two people are one and the same?

It is the same person. Confirmed through booking photos and his videos.

Originally Posted by EagleOne

It is the same person. Confirmed through booking photos and his videos.

Thanks for that information "Eagle." His criminal activities are known by Councils in Ealing and Kington-Upon Thames so any dubious activities in the Worcester park area should be reported to Kingston Council.

Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames.

Looks like old Ma Scoville has stirred things up a bit....

TM 286 Sept 16.jpg TM 288 Sept 16.jpg TM 287 Sept 16.jpg

WHEN YOU ARE IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING!!!

Originally Posted by Della Cate

Looks like old Ma Scoville has stirred things up a bit....

TM 286 Sept 16.jpg TM 288 Sept 16.jpg TM 287 Sept 16.jpg

WHEN YOU ARE IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING!!!

I wonder which facts scammer scoville's mom is on about ?

Would it be the story he has been telling the members of TM !

Or would it be the story he has told the SEC !

.....and Nostrils other company

LONDON ACHIEVERS LTD
New Documents Filed
02/09/2016 - First notification of strike-off action in London Gazette (Section 652).

Oh that Shitbird Charles...
Months of groveling for $ (that nobody will give him) and crackpot excuses of why TM isnt a ponzi, (which even his most brainwashed followers called idiocy) his new FB thing is on & on about relationships and religion.
At least it will slow down the death threats.

It looks like Charles' legal team is instilling false hope in mama Shirley...

Shirley_Scoville.jpg

Originally Posted by Bestbud

It looks like Charles' legal team is installing false hope in mama Shirley...

Shirley_Scoville.jpg

Ole Swap Meet Shirley on the hustle like her boy. Sadly mom no matter how much more you try to steal this ends in tears, which we will use to make cocoa and rejoice as your son is sentenced.


tears.jpg

Originally Posted by Bestbud

It looks like Charles' legal team is instilling false hope in mama Shirley...

Shirley_Scoville.jpg

That beast Squirrelly Scamville always looking for a handout.
That family knows no shame.

Originally Posted by Fat City, LA

That beast Squirrelly Scamville always looking for a handout.
That family knows no shame.

ITs at it again. Con artist mother as pathetic as Charles.
Mrs Scamville the grifter.jpg
1Mrs Scamville the grifter.jpg
2Mrs Scamville the grifter.jpg
3Mrs Scamville the grifter.jpg
4Mrs Scamville the grifter.jpg

There is a situation with the Hanjin bankruptcy that is similar to the TM Paypal freeze, and I believe it highlights what actions real customers might take when they can't access services they purchased.

http://www.usnews.com/news/business/...s-retail-fears

These real customers are not:

Rolling over shipping packs and waiting for a big delivery on some nebulous date
Continuing to buy shipping services from Hanjin, much less telling their friends to sign up
Purchasing shipping they don't need


Even a kangaroo court could look at the above and differentiate actions of customers between that and this.



It is impossible to make the case that you're a customer when you're constantly on your heels attempting to rationalize why you aren't an investor. No one is confusing Hanjin's real customers as being investors. The cellphone this gentlemen used to shoot the video cited as one of his not investment examples cost him maybe $500. The use of that phone in other money making activities is irrelevant. He didn't get to keep the phone and pocket $550 for using it 10 times a day. He didn't roll it over and get two phones, or refer a friend and get three phones. When that happens it looks like (Telexfree Forbes Welcome) which was shut down for effectively the same reasons as Traffic Monsoon.

The way to argue this would be to find a situation were a court held people were customers under the exact scenario as Monsoon's credit packs. Since we have numerous examples to the contrary https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/vict.../ad-surf-daily I wouldn't bother hunting but you do seem a determined if not misguided lot.

her lawyer won.JPG

Video shot Feb 15, may have been posted before.



7:55 Sunil is allegedly holding 10,000+ Ad Packs

9:18 everyone's ad packs will mature at $55

21:16 only had about 3 people in his team tried to withdrawal

36:32 the media being nasty for no reason Online get-rich-quick scheme Traffic Monsoon hits a storm - Andrew Penman - Mirror Online


Wonder how his travel plans for the 23rd are shaping up?

I don't understand why they are all getting so exicited about 23rd Sept. (referring to the pimps)

It is only preliminary hearing in which case scammer scoville will probably get to say very little other than confirm who he is.


Most of the dealings with the judge will probably be from the SEC side of things, and they will probably ask for an extention of the TRO, they may also ask for his passport to be confiscated due to flight risk.


Nothing much else can be sorted because fresh subpoenas have only just been issued, these have date's of return by 3rd & 5th Oct, there may be more subpoenas to be issued which will add more delay.

Once all the information from the subpoenas is in then more can be done with looking into the dealings of scammer scoville and his companies.

The SEC may have plenty of information already, however, with the issue of these subpoenas and any further subpoenas they are going to possibly have lots of extra information to sift through.

They are still at the stage of gathering evidence.


I doubt very much that anything major is going to happen before 2017.

Originally Posted by ianh

I don't understand why they are all getting so exicited about 23rd Sept. (referring to the pimps)

They aren't excited. They are lying (see: blowhards like Sinus that know they can't leave their country but say they are going to go to the SEC themselves) and acting excited so their sheep will follow them to the next scam. It's all an illusion.

Originally Posted by ianh

It is only preliminary hearing in which case scammer scoville will probably get to say very little other than confirm who he is.

It's like the Bugs Bunny cartoon b4 the main feature.....Always entertaining....

The difference between an "ex parte injunction" (which is what has been issued) and a "preliminary injunction" (which is what is being sought on the 23rd) will probably make things clearer for you.

Ex Parte Injunctions
Ex parte injunctions are appropriate only when the threatened harm is so immediate and so severe that even giving the other party notice of the application for the injunction and an opportunity to be heard in opposition is not practical.

Ex parte literally means one-sided.

A party seeking the entry of an ex parte order (without the involvement of or even notification to the other party most directly affected) has an exceedingly heavy burden in convincing a judge the emergency warrants such extreme action. By definition, there will not be even minimal due process afforded to the affected party; therefore, the courts’ rules require certain safeguards to protect it.

Furthermore, the party seeking such an injunction also has the obligation to post a monetary bond which the judge deems sufficient to compensate the affected party if it is later determined that the ex parte injunction should not have been granted.

During an ex parte injunction hearing, there is frequently no actual hearing. Although a judge is free to insist upon a full evidentiary presentation, he or she usually permits these applications to be presented in chambers.

The presentation of such an application represents one of the only instances in our legal system where one party’s attorney has the opportunity to sit down with the judge and render an entirely one-sided version of the matter before the court. Although the lawyer is acting as an advocate for his client, he or she must be scrupulously honest and avoid exaggerating the circumstances. Engaging in any form of overreach throughout this onesided process can have disastrous effects on both counsel and client, once the adversely-affected party is represented and has an opportunity to tell its side of the story.
For obvious reasons, judges react very poorly to being sandbagged.

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction represents the most common form of injunctive relief requested. A preliminary injunction differs from an ex parte injunction in that the affected party is given notice that the application has been filed and has an opportunity to appear and be heard at a formal hearing where both parties may present evidence. Unlike ex parte injunction practice, a preliminary injunction almost always involves an evidentiary presentation in open court. Although not a full-blown trial, these hearings are critically important and set the stage for any litigation to come. In many cases, these hearings – and the judge’s reaction to them – constitute the entirety of the litigation.

More often than not, preliminary injunction hearings are conducted without the benefit of a significant amount of time to prepare and without the benefit of discovery, through which documents and testimony from the other side and its witnesses can be obtained prior to the hearing. Therefore, unless the party seeking the injunction is certain it fully understands the case and is completely prepared to present its case at hearing, it is a good idea to attempt to secure a court order to allow for limited discovery in preparation for the hearing to be conducted on an expedited basis, sometimes the very day before the hearing.

At the hearing, the party seeking the injunction has the burden of convincing the judge of a number of things. (Injunction requests are presented to a judge sitting without a jury. Therefore, the more counsel knows about the judge, including his or her political and ideological leanings, the better). Among the elements which must be proven by the party seeking the injunction are:

(1) it has no adequate remedy other than an injunction (such as money damages);

(2) truly irreparable harm will occur in the absence of an injunction;

(3) it is more likely than not that the moving party will prevail on the underlying merits when the matter ultimately goes to trial;

(4) the benefit to the party seeking the injunction outweighs the burden of the party opposed to the injunction; and

(5) the moving party’s right to the relief sought is clear.

Although these are somewhat flexible – even vague – standards, the judge must be satisfied that all of these elements have been satisfactorily proven prior to granting an injunction. Needless to say, it is easier for the defendant to argue that one or more of these five elements has not been satisfactorily proven than it is for the moving party’s lawyer to argue that all five have been proven. The law sets such exacting standards because the consequences of an injunction can be so dramatic.

It's at this hearing the SEC will ask for the "temporary restraining order" (which is currently in place) to be converted into a "permanent restraining order"

Remember also, this is only the "civil" portion of proceedings, which means any penalties can only be monetary i.e. fines, disgorgement, asset freeze.

The important point is, the fraud is halted and the proceeds / assets have been seized

The "criminal" charges and penalties will follow later

Very importantly, the "subpoenas" have been issued via the court appointed receiver who is operating separately from the SEC

This is a pretty good testimonial as far as these things go.




All for naught when you visit https://www.facebook.com/masteryovermoney# page and find a link to this Monsoon presentation.

the main way I make money.JPG
the main way I make moneyiii.JPG
the main way I make moneyiiia.JPG




I was so expecting he owned a deli or something, imagine my shock when I realized his other "businesses" were easily identifiable Pyramid/Ponzi Scams.

FutureAdPro Review: FutureNet launch a revshare Ponzi

http://www.realscam.com/f9/future-ne...ns-prize-4483/

the main way I make moneyv.JPG

Global Traffic Takeover Review: Xtreme Lifestyles Network v2

xln.JPG

Power Lead System Review: Accelerated leverage?

Chazza's mother is hard at work to gather in funds for her boy:-

TM 284 Sept 16.jpg TM 285 Sept 16.jpg

But not everyone is convinced, it seems:-

TM 283 Sept 16.jpg

Squirrelly Scamville works the rubes. Continued.
5Mrs Scamville the grifter.jpg
6Mrs Scamville the grifter.jpg
7Mrs Scamville the grifter.jpg

Shirley is quite content living under a rock. Otherwise, she would have researched the facts. Imagine her horror when the truth unfolds in court. She may want to give up her front row seat after that...

Originally Posted by Joe_Shmoe

Or was the $10,000 per day a lie?

$3.65 million a year ???

Seriously, Anita ???

C'mon now, that's nonsensical, even for a serial ponzi pimp

Shirley Scoville.jpg

https://twitter.com/ShirleyScoville

Just in case anyone is unfamiliar who we mean when we talk about ( soon to be unemployed and seriously discredited ) serial Traffic Monsoon pimps Sharon James and Anita Langley