Charles Scoville - Why Traffic Monsoon Isn't a Ponzi

Charles Scoville is again telling us Traffic Monsoon isn't a Ponzi. He uses example after example to explain his reasons why. But in 2015, he contradicted everything he says here:

July 31st 2017:
Update on what's happening now in the case can be found at the end of this post below.
So the Howey Test is the legal instrument to measure whether something is an investment or not.

The Howey Test, let's go through the bullet points.
1. Is there an investment of money?
- Reviewing the website, it clearly and repeatedly makes sure the potential customer is fully aware that the offer is for ad service, and not any investment. There are no refunds. Therefore a purchase of ad service is a purchase of service, and not an investment.

- The definition of an investment is placing your money into someone else's management control, but the money still belongs to you. As specified on TM, a purchase of ad service is not an investment nor a deposit. Money spent on ad service no longer still belongs to the customer. After payment of service and being credited what was paid for, the money spent rightfully belongs to the company.'

Charles 2015:

'When our members purchase a service from TrafficMonsoon, the revenues from that purchase are held by the company. Then, you can qualify to receive share of the profits! Naturally there is cost associated with providing services. Each service provided generates a profit margin. We share those profits with you!'

2. Does TM promise returns using a common enterprise (investment project)?
- Reviewing the website, you'll find there is no promise for any returns whatsoever.
- When you look over the website, there is no description for placing money into TM and that TM will use your money in a way aimed at gaining returns through some investment project.
- There is no pitch to invest, no investment project mentioned, and no returns offered.

Charles 2015:

'When our members purchase a service from TrafficMonsoon, the revenues from that purchase are held by the company. Then, you can qualify to receive share of the profits! Naturally there is cost associated with providing services. Each service provided generates a profit margin. We share those profits with you!'

3. Is the money invested placed (or promised to be) into any common enterprise (investment project).
- There is no investment project/common enterprise, nor was there said to be. There was not anything that said that money from customers would be used in any investment project, and the returns from the investment project were owed to the customer.

Charles 2015:

'When our members purchase a service from TrafficMonsoon, the revenues from that purchase are held by the company. Then, you can qualify to receive share of the profits! Naturally there is cost associated with providing services. Each service provided generates a profit margin. We share those profits with you!'

4. Are returns on investment from the managerial or entrepreneurial efforts of others?
- There are no returns on investment
- Any money received comes due to an individuals own effort. Must surf to receive any potential reward for surfing.
- Reward given for surfing does not carry the same legal definition as a return on any investment.

Charles 2015:

'When our members purchase a service from TrafficMonsoon, the revenues from that purchase are held by the company. Then, you can qualify to receive share of the profits! Naturally there is cost associated with providing services. Each service provided generates a profit margin. We share those profits with you!'

Can it be more clear? No security (meaning investment) truly exists within TM. The sec really have no jurisdiction, and this case shouldn't have ever happened.

As you can see by legal definition, the SEC are wrong, and the case should resolve in our favor. Published February 19, 2014 and quoted elsewhere too, the SEC enforcement director Andrew
Ceresney told The Washington Post, "If you’re not losing cases, you’re not being aggressive enough."

The SEC are overreaching, and are simply being aggressive bullies.. and sadly, the impact of their witch-hunt (added on top of the impact of the PayPal limitation) has hurt so many people all around the world, and they are only doing it for career advancements, recognition, etc-

https://www.wilmerhale.com/…/SEC-fight-valentine-rabner-cor…'

As it says in this article, "Mr. Ceresney’s comment came as no surprise to us. Over our combined 23 years representing clients in SEC matters, willingness to push the envelope in close cases—to “regulate by enforcement”—has been a hallmark of the agency’s enforcement division."

*I highly recommend reading this article to understand more about the SEC and their history of misapplying the law in their accusations.*

Keep in mind, the notice of appeal on the preliminary injunction was filed 14 April 2017, and I've been advised by attorneys this appeals process can take about a year.. sometimes more, and sometimes less, so there will be little or no change in the case until then.

If for whatever reason we do not prevail on the appeal, then the case will continue forward through depositions, discovery, and other steps which can take years before a trial with a jury to determine whether TM is liable for what the SEC allege. I'm hopeful through this appeal we can display based upon the legal definitions why this case shouldn't have even been brought against TM.'