Tuesday, 31 October 2017

Tony and Lynne Booth - The Small Claims Court Case Judgement

* updated 24th February 2018
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:

* 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?

7th January 2018 

Small Claims Court Update:
Due to non-payment of Solicitors fees, 'T' and 'L' have decided to go to Court to recover these costs.
The Court date is:
February 23rd 2018 at 2.00pm
St. Helens Courthouse,
Corporation Street
St. Helens,
Merseyside,WA10 1SZ

24th February 2018

Court case result:
Unfortunately, Tony and Lynne have got away with it and have been awarded £20 a month until the debt is clear.😡

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 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, 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.