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

having my own business challenges me but it didn't change me. why would it? what is that crap suppose to mean?

Originally Posted by laidback

Judging from all the pictures of himself he loves mirrors doesn't he?

Yup. And he loves to post stuff as well.....take it away, Don (and Sunil)!

TM 388 Nov 16.jpg TM 389 Nov 16.jpg TM 390 Nov 16.jpg

My sympathy is all with their lawyers - they had to watch four hours of dross in the shape of Sunil's video!

Originally Posted by Della Cate

My sympathy is all with their lawyers - they had to watch four hours of dross in the shape of Sunil's video!

Meh, they probably could only stomach about 5 minutes and decided to bill the full 4 hours for pain and suffering.

they didn't watch any of it as it's irrelevant to the case.

Well, the acclaimed lawyer, psychologist and astute businessman, William Bryant has given his take on the actions by the Judge, and I quote:

"Think about it: If the judge in the TM vs. SEC case had even an inkling of an idea of how TM actually works, do you really think that she would have delayed ruling on the TRO?

An awareness of how TM works and a TRO continuance are mutually exclusive concepts!

And the judge didn't just continue the TRO until the 30th, she redefined and strengthen the conditions of the TRO- which is an indication that our lawyers are high-priced idiots!

And, yea, I said: "Idiots!"

You know how I know they're idiots? It's because they did not go overboard beforehand to win this case, that's how! A cakewalk case at that!

The early signs that the lawyers were half-stepping was already readily evident:

Did the lawyers call on an assembly of TMers to engage in a round table discussion of what TM meant to us, so as to allow the lawyers a vicarious perspective of TM for themselves?

Nope!

Did the lawyers depict TM in court with a model simulation that describedTM's cyberspace relevancy, what happens when members bought adspace and the dispersement of the funds?

Nope!

Did the lawyers call on an economics professors to describe revenue sharing within the realm of capitalism?

Nope!

Did the lawyers call William G. Bryant, the guy who his demonstrated his capacity to describe TM against any objective standard?

Nope!

Did the lawyers ever understand and present to the Courts that by TM being a 100% revenue sharing business that neither CS nor TM itself actually owns any of the money of TM, that the money is owned by the "partners" of TM (we the members) who help drive our services?

Nope.

Did the lawyers ever attempt to run this case through the court of public opinion prior to the case making its way to court by raising awareness and drawing attention to all of the related conspiracy actions between the SEC and PayPal in going after TM's profits? (Didn't anyone read "A Time to Kill"?)

Nope!

Did the lawyers ever file motions to dismiss using case law to bolster their motion?

Nope!

Did the lawyers post any YouTube videos in the era of YouTube explaining what TM is?

Nope.

Fundamentally, the problem is that CS knows TM but not law and the lawyers know law but not TM. That's a fundamental disconnect which not even CS has been able to recognize as the problem with his legal representation. Y'all can call his lawyers "good lawyers" if you like, and their high price tags would surely indicate "good", we assume. But their actions in this case speaks volumes of their incompetence in this case.

I mean think about it: Even CS said that it was obvious after the first day in court that the SEC can't articulate TM- So why wasn't this case simply a slam dunk win for TM? It's because TM's lawyers are half-stepping, that's why.

And if any disagrees with my assessment then simply ask yourselves these questions: How could the lawyers allow a continuation of a "Ponzi" case where the alleged "Ponzi" scheme had millions in profits? How could the lawyers allow a continuance of an "security investment" case when TM has no management of anyone's money to satisfy the legal definition of "investment"?

I'll wait for your answer....#Iajs #theSECiscorrupt"

Let me translate all of that for you: They didn't call me as a witness. They didn't use my TM FB Timeline that proves TM is not a Ponzi. I know more than the lawyers, and Charles should have just had me present his case. I, and I alone, can prove TM is not a Ponzi and save the day.

Let us not forget this is the same William Bryant who said he was going to be in Salt Lake City for the hearing, but was a no-show. He doesn't sound too convinced that TM is going to win the hearing is he.

Willy G Braindead was either dropped on his head too many times as a child, or his head is inserted where there is not near enough oxygen to support brain functions!

Well, it seems William was just warming up today. His latest, and I quote:

"So, you didn't like my last post, huh?

Get out of your feelings and learn how to look at things objectively.

Think about something: The allegations against TM were that we are an unregistered security offering an investment in the form of Ponzi.

Since this case centered on the supposed legally vague terms of "security", "investment", and "Ponzi"- then the first priority should have been to define those terms, create the objective and legal understanding from which the case would be tried before trying to fight the case against vague legal definitions.

For instance, our lawyers could have petitioned the court to first address the issue of clarity on those terms:

(1.) How is the SEC'S definition of "security" different from the state of Utah's?

(2.)Can a "Ponzi" have met profits within TM'S range of profits within the timeframe and cost factors related to those "profits"?

(3.)Can an "investment" occur without any management of funds and whereby profits are generated without assistance from the "invested" capital?

But the issue here is that our high-priced lawyers never petitioned the Court on clarity of the legal terms involved. Instead, our high-priced lawyers dragged our multi-million dollar business into a caged-arena brawl against undefined concepts.

How could we have stood an honest chance?

Being in a Court of Law attempting to defend your life's work against undefined terms is like floating in an abyss of arbitrary rule pleading for an arbitrary mercy from an arbitrary infraction! There was never any hope of justice prevailing in that court room during that hearing because there was no mutual understanding of semantical reference points used to craft the case against TM.

That was the indication of farce, the indication that this isn't meant to be a win for TM, it was meant to be a brawl against a shape-shifting ghost- whereby our enemy can assume the role of whatever defense is required, but we are limited within our capacity to articulate our own business against any objective reference point.

The fact that our high-priced lawyers drove our high-performance vehicle across murky conditions, instead of bridging an universal understanding of the related terms involved first and thereby creating a safe passage way for our vessel to showcase itself against an objective standard, is an indication of incompetence, or at least: short-sightedness of a gold standard!

It's my duty as someone who has always purported to "know my business as though I own it" to point out to you what I see from my lofty ownership position.

Don't get mad at me because you failed to own your business and because it's evident through your lack of defense of your business, your inability to articulate your business- just pay attention to the perspective I'm offering you, learn how not to get caught up in the chaos of anything and you will be able to establish the necessary vantage point which blocks a "hope" not rooted in reality in any situation in life.#Iajs"

Now that he is on a roll, you can bet he is not done. Maybe he is trying out his material for the Comedy Club open mike night?

the judge have many years with many many cases like this, Jill Parrish was apointed as federal judge by president of USA itself, this clowns think the judge is stupid like the sheep he brainwashes in his facebook

Originally Posted by laidback

Willy G Braindead was either dropped on his head too many times as a child, or his head is inserted where there is not near enough oxygen to support brain functions!

Dear William. He didn't go to Utah to the court...because he "doesn'tparticipate in a farce"!!

TM 391 Nov 16.jpg

Unfortrunately, one "Quickhitter Kelly" decides to debate with him....and Billy Boy ain't having that!

TM 392 Nov 16.jpg TM 393 Nov 16.jpg

Look, look, William, this is what you are missing!!

TM 394 Nov 16.jpg

You could strut in there, throw down a copy of your FB timeline, and the case would be over!

Originally Posted by Senior Babbling Barrister

is an indication that our lawyers are high-priced idiots!

And, yea, I said: "Idiots!"

As much as I enjoy tossing around the term "idiots" these attorneys are racking up billable hours paid for by already scammed Monsooners. As is often said with defending all manner of scumbags, if they didn't someone would.

If they decide to continue Pro Bono when the cash dries up they could then be appropriately categorized as idiots.

Originally Posted by Senior Babbling Barrister

The early signs that the lawyers were half-stepping was already readily evident

I'll give the Babbling Barrister half credit for this answer, right on form wrong on substance.

Originally Posted by Senior Babbling Barrister

Did the lawyers call on an assembly of TMers to engage in a round table discussion

roflmao.jpg

Originally Posted by Senior Babbling Barrister

Did the lawyers post any YouTube videos in the era of YouTube explaining what TM is?

rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon.jpg

Originally Posted by Senior Babbling Barrister

Did the lawyers ever file motions to dismiss using case law to bolster their motion?

Setser and Morrison come to mind? Maybe these guys are idiots since the SEC destroyed both in their Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Receivership.

This footnote still makes me cackle.

2 Importantly, in the Setser case, in contrast to Scoville’s argument here, the defendant raised the
defenses, not in the civil case, but as a motion to suppress in the criminal matter itself – which
would be the proper forum to hear such a complaint.

Originally Posted by Senior Babbling Barrister

For instance, our lawyers could have petitioned the court to first address the issue of clarity on those terms:

(1.) How is the SEC'S definition of "security" different from the state of Utah's?

(2.)Can a "Ponzi" have met profits within TM'S range of profits within the timeframe and cost factors related to those "profits"?

(3.)Can an "investment" occur without any management of funds and whereby profits are generated without assistance from the "invested" capital?

1. It doesn't matter what Utah law says since Scoville promoted this across the US.

2. WTF????????????????

3. YES


As bad as this guy is, can anyone imagine Xmas morning at the sad sacks houses who invested $600,000 on this know-nothing's version of reality?

have a monsoony christmas.JPG

Willy G has once again demonstrated that his grasp on reality may be off kilter. The reason Chuckies attorneys didn't file a motion to dismiss is they didn't want to get laughed out of court!
If the plaintiff (in this case the SEC) has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the judge is unlikely to entertain any motion to dismiss. (In extreme cases the Judge MAY consider the filing of that motion frivolous.)
Willy should probably confine his practice to Comedy Central! Maybe Realscam can offer him his own humor thread.

Originally Posted by laidback

Willy G has once again demonstrated that his grasp on reality may be off kilter.

What do you mean "MAY" ???

There's no doubt about it.

Scovilles' mother and chief apologist' latest missive:



TrafficMonsoon Team page on Facebook

Umm,

Did 12 Daily Pro have a Terms of Service agreement = Yes
Did it make any difference = No
Was the SEC complaint upheld = Yes

Did CEP have a Terms of Service agreement = Yes
Did it make any difference = No
Was the SEC complaint upheld = Yes

Did Adsurf Daily have a Terms of Service agreement = Yes
Did it make any difference = No
Was the DoJ complaint upheld = Yes

Did Zeek Rewards have a Terms of Service agreement = Yes
Did it make any difference = No
Was the SEC complaint upheld = Yes

Is there any mention anywhere in the World of Sunil Patel's TEDx appearance?

I was really looking forward to watching it.

You'll get pimples on your tongue telling fibs like that

Originally Posted by Joe_Shmoe

Is there any mention anywhere in the World of Sunil Patel's TEDx appearance?

I was really looking forward to watching it.

Well, yes, so was I .....however, while we wait, Sunil is hard at work on another TM video.

TM 395 Nov 16.jpg

He's going to send it to the SEC....lucky old them!

William seems to have got a real squabble going over at his FB page. Some meanies have even started calling him out about his qualifications and the fact he was subpoenaed to appear!

How very dare they!

TM 396 Nov 16.jpg TM 397 Nov 16.jpg

Charles has stepped in to defend the lawyers:-

TM 398 Nov 16.jpg

What I'd like to know is this: Which member of the UK "team" over there was called to testify? Did they do so? How come we haven't seen any account of that?

I wonder if High from Hairspray Shirley is reporting from the wrong courtroom? Why on earth would four scenarios be needed when one would seal the deal?

Scenario 1. Number of ad-packs outstanding juxtaposed with money in bank. It's either green or red, in this case massively red.

* Juxtapose ˈjəkstəˌpōz/ verb

A legal term meaning you ninnies hanging on every word had better start locating your own court documents as you are still being lied to.

transcript.JPG

See, e.g., SEC v. Management Solutions, 2013 WL 4501088 at *7 (D. Utah Aug. 22, 2013) (unpublished) (“The general pattern courts look for when labeling a scheme as “Ponzi” is “any sort of inherently fraudulent arrangement under
which the debtor-transferor must utilize after-acquired investment funds to pay off previous investors in order to forestall disclosure of the fraud.”).

Third, Scoville and Traffic Monsoon were not solvent at any time they operated the business – a hallmark distinction of an ongoing Ponzi scheme. At the outset, for each $50 investment by a customer, Traffic Monsoon owed the customer back $55 (the original $50, plus a $5 return). Traffic Monsoon therefore was immediately in the hole $5 to each investor – it generated no income from the $50 investment and in fact lost money through the transaction.
This problem compounded with each “repurchase” of an AdPack, as Traffic Monsoon owed each investor an additional $5 for each repurchase, without having taken in any new funds. For
example, after the initial purchase and two additional “repurchases,” Traffic Monsoon would owe an investor $65, the initial $50 plus an additional $15 in returns. And this doesn’t even take
into consideration the additional $5 referral commission payments Scoville paid to many Traffic Monsoon investors. If Traffic Monsoon had any meaningful revenue stream to draw from to pay
these returns it would be one thing, but approximately 99% of all Traffic Monsoon revenue was derived exclusively from the sale of AdPacks (over $173 million from AdPacks out of $175.9
million in total revenue). It was simply not making money through any other means. Clearly,the only source from which Traffic Monsoon could draw to pay these compounding returns and
referral payments was the sale of new AdPacks – thus further multiplying the cascading obligations owed to Traffic Monsoon investors.

Case 2:16-cv-00832-JNP Document 53 Filed 10/27/16 Page 4 of 8

From its very first sale of an AdPack, and its obligation to pay back the sale price plus a $5 return, Traffic Monsoon was insolvent. By the time the Commission filed this action, it had become stupendously insolvent. It had created a hole so deep it could never have gotten free, and it was only a matter of time before the entire operation failed – as all such schemes are destined to do. Case 2:16-cv-00832-JNP Document 53 Filed 10/27/16 Page 5 of 8

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Senior Babbling Barrister a.k.a William Bryant

For instance, our lawyers could have petitioned the court to first address the issue of clarity on those terms:

(1.) How is the SEC'S definition of "security" different from the state of Utah's?

I know we have some new viewers hoping William Bryant is going to save the day. Bryant obviously can't be bothered to read the public documents indicating Scoville's attorneys already tried this stunt. They got their asses handed to them with your gofundme money and went to lunch.






SCOVILLE ACTED WITH SCIENTER IN OPERATING A PONZI SCHEME.

Scoville also argues, once again, that he did not act with scienter because the Utah Division of Securities apparently opined, on a separate, previous undertaking that included, among other things, a product that resembled an AdPack, that the business didn’t violate the Utah securities laws. Nothing in Scoville’s second Declaration on this point makes it any more relevant now than it was before. To the extent that an inquiry into a different business by a separate governmental agency could possibly have any bearing on his scienter, it has no bearing here because absolutely nothing is known about what prompted the inquiry, what issue the Division of Securities was looking at, whether it conducted any substantive review that included documents, testimony, or other inquiries, and what informed its opinion. As such, it is simply not relevant to the issue of Scoville’s scienter in this matter.
As an initial matter, because Scoville was operating a Ponzi scheme, the “question of intent to defraud is not debatable.” Conroy v. Shott, 363 F.2d 90, 92 (6th Cir. 1966); see also In re Agricultural Research and Technology Group, Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 535 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“debtor’s actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud its creditors may be inferred from the mere existence of a Ponzi scheme”). By operating a Ponzi scheme, Scoville acted with scienter. That is where the inquiry legally ends.
Notwithstanding this legal reality, in contending that the Division of Securities’ investigation somehow obviates this scienter, Scoville asks the Court to trust him in saying that he “received a request from Brandon Dally of the Utah Division of Securities into the business practices of the AdProfits and the sale of AdPacks.” Reply, Ex. A, Declaration of Charles D. Scoville. Importantly, there is nothing in the record, other than Scoville’s self-serving testimony, that in any way documents what issue the Division of Securities was looking into or what evidence it obtained and considered. There are no document requests or subpoenas, no informal requests, no email communications (other than the one attached to his initial declaration that provides no helpful information), no attempts to demonstrate what information was provided to or obtained by the Division, nothing at all that bears on this matter. Did the Division of Securities actually look into the similar product, or was it looking at some other aspect of the business operations or products? Did it know that the company was offering a profit sharing position that (apparently) constituted all of the revenue of the company? Did sales of that product in fact constitute all of the revenue of the company, or was there (unlike the case here) another revenue source? Did Scoville provide any testimony in connection with the inquiry? These are but a few of the many questions that are raised in connection with Scoville’s argument, none of which can be answered here. Because of this, any reference or allusion to the Division of Securities’ inquiry into AdHitProfits is, in fact, irrelevant to this matter and should be disregarded.

Case 2:16-cv-00832-JNP Document 53 Filed 10/27/16 Page 5 of 8

#wakeupandsmell
Attachment 16657

And, for goodness' sake, don't anybody mention anything about the tax liability Scoville and Traffic Monsoon were accumulating with all those millions of dollars of revenue Scoville likes to brag about.

We wouldn't want the IRS jumping all over Charlie like it did to Paul Burks of Zeek Rewards infamy, would we ???

and that's before the interest penalty. lol

Wonder how Shirley Scoville's appeal for funding for her little chick is getting on?

TM 399 Nov 16.jpg

Ah. Not terribly well then. Shameful when you think about all those people who've made thousands thanks to Charles's hard work, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Della Cate

Wonder how Shirley Scoville's appeal for funding for her little chick is getting on?

TM 399 Nov 16.jpg

Ah. Not terribly well then. Shameful when you think about all those people who've made thousands thanks to Charles's hard work, isn't it?

So $1024 had been PLEDGED for Charles legal defence??.....But how much of that $1024 has actually been sent in and will it even be enough to cover the parking meter outside the court??.....
Somehow I doubt it.....

CHIRLEY Scamville has scrubbed the TM Fb page again.
One post left from Aug, the rest go back to Mar.

This scumbag is one mixed up yokel.
https://www.facebook.com/TrafficMonsoonLLC/