Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
again fails to address how it's a 'sale of a service' when the 'service' is a sham and the alleged purchaser is given their own money back and then some. seems like more of a refund to me. lol. his buzzwords fail him at every turn. vocabulary is hatorz!!!!!!!!!!
he also never explains how 'repurchasing' is covered when it created a $55 liability as the same initial $50 is just rolled over.
Haven't lost any money to online scams.......results are typical.
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
News Flash folks! It ain't about the advertising, it's about the money! If it was about the advertising, why would someone pay $50 for an ad pack to run a TM banner? ( or anyone else's for that matter! ) If I buy advertising, it is to advertise my own product or service, not someone else's!
It seems like in this "industry" common sense is not all that common!
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
Originally Posted by laidback
News Flash folks! It ain't about the advertising, it's about the money! If it was about the advertising, why would someone pay $50 for an ad pack to run a TM banner? ( or anyone else's for that matter! ) If I buy advertising, it is to advertise my own product or service, not someone else's!
so what are you saying?
Haven't lost any money to online scams.......results are typical.
Muhammad Maf Rahman
Charles, the answers you posit have no relevance to the questions people are actually asking, and you end up providing non-sequiturs on the rare occasions that you do address the questions which will determine the legality of your doomed TM project. The SEC’s arguments are clear:
1. You were offering an investment
2. You consistently used the proceeds of future purchases to pay back the liabilities accumulated from previous purchases; hence there was no legitimate business activity which could justify payouts over and above what people put in
3. No logic or rational behind TM’ers earning/sharing revenue based on 50 clicks
4. This fulfils the criteria of a classic ponzi scheme
5. You are therefore in breach of securities laws and the regulator (SEC) has the jurisdiction to bring a case against you
Your statements and posts are shockingly inept at dealing with the above suppositions; nevertheless let’s look at some of your claims.
A. “There was enough money to pay member balances”
Maybe there was and even if this is true it actually has nothing to do with the SEC’s argument. If someone buys a $50 ad-pack, that $50 is your revenue but after you take away TM expenses and your IT programmers costs you are left with $42. $42 is your account balance, after 10 days and on the assumption that the person who brought the ad-pack completed their clicks, they would have accumulated a balance of around $10 which you owe them. So yes obviously you have enough in your TM account ($42) to pay the TM member his balance after 10 days ($10). But the TM member did not purchase the ad-pack in the hope of only earning $10, they want $55 dollars after 55-60 days; you could not point to a single normative instance where an ad-pack did not mature to $55 and all the evidence points to the fact that people were either paid more than they put in or were expecting to get paid more than they put in otherwise they would not have spent an extra $39 dollars on the product when the cheaper product is $10.95 but only offers the ad traffic credits.
So the pertinent question is, did you have enough in your TM account to fulfil what people would be owed/and expected after 55 days? The SEC have given a resounding answer to this from the data you provided, so offering red-herrings about member balances will not fool the sceptics (or the courts I might add). In the example above you can only pay the member more than they put in via the solicitation of funds from subsequent ad-pack sales, and in practice this was you were paying $55 to each member who brought a $50 ad-pack.
B. “.....SEC is using figures to distort the truth”
The irony here is that the SEC are using the numbers that YOU provided to them; yes it would have been ideal if they had provided the source data in their conclusion that there was not enough to pay back the US members only. But let’s just perform a rudimentary analysis of the figures:
1. Your own figures show that up until the freeze ad-pack sales accounted for $738.5m in total revenue
2. Your lawyer said that the US members accounted for about a 10% of this volume
3. SEC said that US sales accounted for $60m+ (~10%); so it’s clear the numbers are congruent
4. Even worse there is a $56m+ deficit in payment to US members, but TM assets only total $49m as a whole
5. There is no discrepancy between the SEC quoting the figures of $207m investor funds coming into TM; $738.5m in total sales, $618m shared in revenue so far and $49m in your account (assets). You admitted in your testimony that when a TM member purchases an ad-pack for $50 and then buys another ad-pack $50 (after 55 days with the revenue accumulated for clicks) that you book this transaction as a $100 revenue even though you paid them back the $50 dollars they originally put in. This accounts for the difference that accumulates over time, so $207m of initial seed money was used (for re-sales) to reach total sales of $738.5m. As you are due to pay back your customers $5 on top of their $50 purchase, the actual liability you end up with is $812.35m which you need to share for everyone to get paid what they are expecting. But you have only shared $618m to date, which is close to a $200m deficit. If you were a legitimate business you should have had more than $200m in your accounts to cover this remaining liability, but you only have $49m and even if the chargebacks were returned to you this still wouldn’t put you in a position to fill the $200m black hole that has built up from the deficit you create each time you sell an ad-pack
More importantly the independent accountant and receiver have provided these figures under oath, they are putting ‘their money where their mouth is’ under the risk of perjury. Whereas you have admitted under oath that you misled your whole TM ‘family’ by hiding the reason behind the PP freeze, who do you expect objective people will believe?
(CONT)..........
Muhammad Maf Rahman (CONT)..........
C. “....get paid for clicking on ads from money spent by the people who placed those ads in front of them”
What has been overlooked is the travesty of the statement above and how your model defies basic common sense about advertising. If I expend effort to distribute 1000 leaflets promoting a restaurant I sure in hell would be super pissed if I found out that an equivalence is made with the chap who only distributed 100 leaflets. On this same token how do you make an equivalence between someone who has purchased 1 ad-pack and someone who has purchased 100 ad-packs but both having the same requirement of clicking 50 ads to get paid? How do you justify that both are required to expend the same effort when clearly there is a stark difference in the volume of traffic that they have signed up for. It becomes clear that there is no link between effort and payment in your model, is it any surprise that you were only able to deliver 10% of traffic you promised? This is a key point which I will come onto later.
D. “Advertising services are being offered without any returns”
This would be true if TM members only purchased the $10.95 product which delivers the same traffic exchange credits and visits as the $50 ad-pack. Ask yourself this, what is the main motivation here for someone to spend an extra $39 if their primary reason (as you claim) for buying your ad-pack product was for the purposes of advertising their business and delivering traffic to their websites from which to generate sales? Again this makes no sense at all, but in the TM universe I suppose common sense is an exception to the laws that govern business activity.
E. “Ad-packs are not investments”
The strength of the SEC’s argument is how they have managed to tie the following points to demonstrate that your model fulfils the criteria of the Howey Test.
1. You cannot provide a cogent reason why there is a difference between a $10.95 & $50 product without accepting the reality that your customers were willing to buy the product which costs $39 extra as it carried an additional incentive
2. The additional incentive without doubt is that customers are hoping to make back more than they spent to buy the product (regardless of whether you guarantee this or not); as per point D
3. The payouts are not linked to the efforts of those who are actually clicking the ads; as per point C
4. In conclusion your ad-pack product meets the requirements of an investment
F. “......TM is not a Ponzi”
You have been running circles around everyone on this point now for months but as we have demonstrated above:
1. You are offering an investment in the form of ad-packs
2. You only sell ad-packs (the other revenue streams are negligible 0.4%) each sale of which creates a $5 deficit in your rev share pot (higher deficit once you take your healthy cut and deduct expenses)
3. You are only able to cover this deficit by soliciting more funds from ad-pack sales; there is no genuine business activity which accounts for this deficit being covered
4. Under this model investors can only be paid back by money pooled from subsequent investors and so on; which is a breach of security laws
5. The fact that you were able to pay people more than they put in as demonstrated from all your seminars/testimonials is evidence that you were operating a ponzi scheme......AND YOU KNEW IT!
IT REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE!
G. “SEC has no jurisdiction”
I don’t know if this argument came from your playbook or your lawyers’, but it is embarrassing when the precedent case you cite (Morrison) is the one used by the SEC to demonstrate that they actually do have jurisdiction; this is the very definition of a backfire. The frivolity of this line of argument is emphasised by the fact that TM was registered in the US and operated from servers hosted in the US as well as carrying out their transactions from this base using US dollar currency.
Having followed these groups and forums since the summer it’s become clear that your circle of supporters and allies are dwindling by the day, I believe the primary reason for this is your inability to provide a watertight robust response to the points above. Every nuance of your argument points towards evasion and obfuscation, which only hurts your image even more. We have been waiting now for nearly 3 months for you to address these substantive issues, although I harbour little hope that you will; I along with many others still wait with patience.
Like · 1 · 1 hr
"the owner seems really confident and even promises this one won't be going anywhere"
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
Originally Posted by pagla
Assuming ALL of the $49 million can be paid back to investors then likely payout will be 9 cents for every dollar invested.
(49 dived by 560 x 100 comes to 8.75 %)
That's exactly what Chris Morrell the former MMG mod and pitch man for the Zeek ponzi scheme said....Payout will be a few cents in the dollar....
But after all the clawbacks and rounding up of money hidden by admin here and there the victims got an amazing payout....
I don't remember exactly what they getting but was a hell of a lot more than 9cents in the dollar....
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
Originally Posted by littleroundman
Rather than "What is Behindmlm" I'm thinking more relevant questions would be "Who is William G Bryant" and "What relevance does he have to the case against Scoville"
Yep that's the real question......Though some of us already know the answer......
I see this as a game changer.....Finally the SEC and others look to be going after those in the oval office of the scam industry...
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
"But to Traffic Monsoon apologist Jose Nunes, Hunt, an officer of the court for close to three decades, is “Piggy,” a “[b . . . h” and a “Lying cow.”
These descriptors naturally reminded us of some of the things Donald Trump has said about women. Remarkably, Nunes took to Facebook to disparage Hunt just this past weekend, the same weekend Trump again was battling assertions that he is a misogynist."
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
Originally Posted by okosh
That's exactly what Chris Morrell the former MMG mod and pitch man for the Zeek ponzi scheme said....Payout will be a few cents in the dollar....
But after all the clawbacks and rounding up of money hidden by admin here and there the victims got an amazing payout....
I don't remember exactly what they getting but was a hell of a lot more than 9cents in the dollar....
When it is all said an done, it is expected the amount returned to the victims of Zeek will be close to 75% and could go as high as 80%. Depends on how the outstanding clawbacks go that are currently being fought by the "winners/crooks" to keep their ill-gotten gains. it will also depend on how many of the 41,000 claimants that have been approved return the required OFAC documents so they can be paid.
EagleOne
Author: "Robbing You With A Keyboard Instead Of A Gun - Cyber Crime How They Do It" available in soft cover and eBook at Amazon.com
In that case SEC are not correct when they say there is not enough money in the kitty even to payback USA inverters, as the actual money invested by them is likely to be a lot less than $56 millions.
Give or take 10% of $49,500,822.10 is available to US investors to recover the cost of ad pack purchases only. Less any money they have already withdrawn or stolen from friends and family via referral commissions. What they believe they are owed is irrelevant.
If this were to settle today without adding clawbacks or subtracting legal fees investors would get about $.24 back for each dollar invested. But they all read and understood they were buying ads so two bits in exchange for a buck should leave them feeling awful smitten.
Last edited by ribshaw; 10-10-2016 at 09:27 PM.
"It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403
"It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
Originally Posted by EagleOne
When it is all said an done, it is expected the amount returned to the victims of Zeek will be close to 75% and could go as high as 80%. Depends on how the outstanding clawbacks go that are currently being fought by the "winners/crooks" to keep their ill-gotten gains. it will also depend on how many of the 41,000 claimants that have been approved return the required OFAC documents so they can be paid.
In ASD, wasn't the refund close to 100% due to the scare campaign carried out by Bowdoin & Co that caused a lot of people to not file for their refunds?
It seems like in this "industry" common sense is not all that common!
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
Originally Posted by laidback
In ASD, wasn't the refund close to 100% due to the scare campaign carried out by Bowdoin & Co that caused a lot of people to not file for their refunds?
That was a factor, as well as the fact Bowdoin had transferred something like $80 plus million into his private accounts, which was available for confiscation, there were a large number of serial ponzi players using fake IDs and bank accounts who didn't claim and there were large amounts of uncashed cheques and cash found in the ASD offices because Bowdoin couldn't deposit any of it for fear of triggering suspicious activity reports
In the ASD / Bowdoin case, the DoJ handled the claims itself, through a remission agent, rather than a receiver and, you're correct, verified claimants received 100% of their deposit, less any "winnings"
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
Originally Posted by Fat City, LA
Muhammad Maf Rahman is the bane of Scamvilles goofy lies.
F. “......TM is not a Ponzi”
You have been running circles around everyone on this point now for months but as we have demonstrated above:
1. You are offering an investment in the form of ad-packs
2. You only sell ad-packs (the other revenue streams are negligible 0.4%) each sale of which creates a $5 deficit in your rev share pot (higher deficit once you take your healthy cut and deduct expenses)
3. You are only able to cover this deficit by soliciting more funds from ad-pack sales; there is no genuine business activity which accounts for this deficit being covered
4. Under this model investors can only be paid back by money pooled from subsequent investors and so on; which is a breach of security laws
5. The fact that you were able to pay people more than they put in as demonstrated from all your seminars/testimonials is evidence that you were operating a ponzi scheme......AND YOU KNEW IT!
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
It looks like the penny (pardon the pun) is starting to drop amongst some members in Sunil's group regarding the amounts of money Charles is claiming is actually available and if there is enough to pay everyone or not!
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
There are all these complicated explanations of WHY TM is a Ponzi, isn't it just common sense? If you have a company selling just one thing for $50 (which essentially TM was) and that one thing entitles the buyer to get their $50 back...plus an additional $5 profit...there is no additional revenue to fund the additional $5. Charles obfuscates the issue by talking about revenues....when revenues just means "sales of ad packs." There was no other reveneue...so just go through all of his posts, and every time he mentions "revenues" substitute the phrase "sales of adpacks" and it becomes obvious even to a third grader how ridiculous his arguments are.
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
While Muhammad Maf Rahman literally debunked everything that Charles has been saying about his having enough money to pay everyone and TM is not a Ponzi. many are hoping and wanting Charles to respond to the points Muhammad made. What everyone needs to understand is that there is no way in the world that Charles will respond to the points made by Muhammad no matter how hard they try to get him to answer them.
The reason is very simple: Charles can't. For if he did address each point made by Muhammad, Charles would be admitting that TM is a Ponzi, and this is something he will never do. He'll go to prison professing his innocence he did nothing wrong, that TM is not a Ponzi and there was plenty of money to pay everyone what they were owed. The same is true for stacy. Sadly there are many TM members who will also believe Charles. He will be a martyr in their eyes for standing up to the "evil" SEC, and he has done nothing wrong.
What is making this Ponzi different is the "heat" the major promoters are starting to take and going to be taking from the people they conned into joining. In the past, the major promoters were able to walk away basically unscathed to their reputations. Not going to happen this time. What is also troubling is I am starting to see more and more posts from the victims who are making verbal threats of bodily harm against the major promoters, as well as against Charles. I am hoping this is all just blowing off steam and venting anger, but they won't actually go after them physically for real. For if they did, they would end up paying a higher price than the promoters who stole from them.
Just as Zeek broke new ground in clawbacks, and TelexFree went after some of the major promoters, TM is facing a new landscape when it comes to Ponzi's and how they are prosecuted; and so are the promoters/winners. And just think Map won't be far behind. Going to be an exciting end of the year.
Last edited by EagleOne; 10-13-2016 at 04:30 PM.
EagleOne
Author: "Robbing You With A Keyboard Instead Of A Gun - Cyber Crime How They Do It" available in soft cover and eBook at Amazon.com
Re: Traffic monsoon. Better than MAPS with trusted admin Charles Scoville
Originally Posted by gk1034
There are all these complicated explanations of WHY TM is a Ponzi, isn't it just common sense? If you have a company selling just one thing for $50 (which essentially TM was) and that one thing entitles the buyer to get their $50 back...plus an additional $5 profit...there is no additional revenue to fund the additional $5. Charles obfuscates the issue by talking about revenues....when revenues just means "sales of ad packs." There was no other reveneue...so just go through all of his posts, and every time he mentions "revenues" substitute the phrase "sales of adpacks" and it becomes obvious even to a third grader how ridiculous his arguments are.
So, you're sayin' that if Chuckles was a contestant on "Are you smarter than a 5th grader," he'd fail miserably? Just askin'!
It seems like in this "industry" common sense is not all that common!
Thanks: 
LMAO: 
Dislikes: 0
Ignorant: 0
Moron: 0
Member
8 Member(s) liked this post
Originally Posted by AffiliateGuy
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks