Thread: History Bits from TalkGold

Welcome Edward. Since you have joined RS and have replied to the behindMLM article, I do have a question for you that you can clear up for me. Since TG was sold, how would you and your brother have the authority to take the website down?

Hi Eagle. Any reason why my reply is not showing here?

Talkgold was sold in 2008 or 2009. The buyer defaulted on payments after only 9-10 months and we took the site back.

Originally Posted by EdKra

Hi Eagle. Any reason why my reply is not showing here?

Talkgold was sold in 2008 or 2009. The buyer defaulted on payments after only 9-10 months and we took the site back.

Your post is now viewable as you can see. Sometimes it takes a little while to get the post approved. Your first few posts have to be approved before they will be posted.

I do appreciate the clarification about TG site not being sold after all.

But above is a screen shot from Pacer that clearly shows a Warrant for Arrest being issued on 8/25/17 and being sent to the US Attorney for enforcement. You have to admit that this is rather odd since it is, as you have claimed, you and your brother are not going to be charged with anything.

Two things. Notice that the document on Pacer clearly states: "United States of America V. Assets Identified in Paragraph One of Verified Complaint"

This is a civil complaint against an asset we own, not a criminal complaint against us. In fact we have a letter clearly stating there will never be any criminal charges.

As for the 'Warrant for Arrest in Rem,' Google it. This is an arrest of the ASSET in question, not person or people.

Edward

Urm. In the other cases I have seen where the defendant is an asset rather than a person, they were directly connected to a criminal case in which that asset was created by or for the defendant from the proceeds of the activities they were being prosecuted for performing.

Unfortunately here in the US we have something called civil forfeiture where the government can seize assets before and without ever charging a person with a crime. The government after viewing the evidence saw that we did not "partner" with any HYIP scam. We simply sold ads without a commission structure for a flat rate. We had the option to fight them in the civil case or turn over a small portion of assets they linked to a specific group of individuals who advertised with us. The attorney and court fees, not to mention stress to our families would have likely eclipsed the settlement amount so we decided to settle.

Note that the document on Pacer was actually a complaint written before the government had all available evidence from us. When we agreed to the settlement they used this complaint text. Clearly they did not agree that there was any criminal wrongdoing on our part thus they never filed such charges and provided a written guarantee that such charges will never be brought.

When I see the word "arrest," I think of a person or persons. When I see "frozen," "forfeiture," or "confiscation" I think of an asset or property. Kind of hard to "arrest" a property or asset in my thinking, thus my confusion.

as per a quote on BehindMLM:

The First Amendment clearly protects Facebook as well as us.

uh, no, no it does not.

Originally Posted by EdKra

Unfortunately here in the US we have something called civil forfeiture where the government can seize assets before and without ever charging a person with a crime. The government after viewing the evidence saw that we did not "partner" with any HYIP scam. We simply sold ads without a commission structure for a flat rate. We had the option to fight them in the civil case or turn over a small portion of assets they linked to a specific group of individuals who advertised with us. The attorney and court fees, not to mention stress to our families would have likely eclipsed the settlement amount so we decided to settle.

Note that the document on Pacer was actually a complaint written before the government had all available evidence from us. When we agreed to the settlement they used this complaint text. Clearly they did not agree that there was any criminal wrongdoing on our part thus they never filed such charges and provided a written guarantee that such charges will never be brought.

Feel free to post that written guarantee here.

And none of this matters anyway.

* Giving the arena in which they've participated for so long, the chances of Edward or Brian Krassenstein telling the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" are negligible, at best.

* Talkgold and MMG are gone and can't do any more harm.

* Whether the Krassensteins are "punished" is irrelevant, the naive and unwary upon whom they preyed are safe for now.

* The HYIP "industry" has taken a hit from which it will take years to recover.

IOW, only good has come from all this.

I googled "can you arrest an asset in USA"...
Based on the hits I got I'm taking every word Edward wrote with a grain of salt...
If there was no crime then how can assets be forfeited??...and why not fight it if no crime was committed??...when you win you would be awarded costs right??...
The claim that it was cheaper and less stressful to agree to the forfeiture of 2 houses is too rediculous to be true...
I'm calling bullsheet!!!!

Originally Posted by EagleOne

Feel free to post that written guarantee here.

If what Oz posted over at BMLM is correct, looks like a lie/half-truth to me. What a shock.

The Organized Crime and Gang Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, agrees not to charge Brian Krassenstein with committing any federal offense known to the Criminal Division at the time of the execution of this agreement related to the alleged conspiracy to commit wire fraud and substantive wire fraud.

Please note that this agreement is limited to the Organized Crime and Gang Section fo the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, and cannot bind any other federal, state, or local prosecuting authorities, although this office will bring Brian Krassenstein’s cooperation, if any, to the attention of other prosecuting officer or others, if requested.

When I see the word "arrest," I think of a person or persons. When I see "frozen," "forfeiture," or "confiscation" I think of an asset or property. Kind of hard to "arrest" a property or asset in my thinking, thus my confusion.

Well, that's understandable but these are the weird ways the court words things. Just do a simple Google search of 'In Rem,' as the Pacer document states and you will clearly see that it was referring to a civil matter (property) not a person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

If there was no crime then how can assets be forfeited??...and why not fight it if no crime was committed??...when you win you would be awarded costs right??...

Welcome to US Civil forfeiture law. Considering that you are Aussie (I believe), I wouldn't expect you to know this, but civil forfeiture is a hotly debated topic here in the US. And NO, the government is NOT responsible for compensating the innocent unless jail time is served.

The claim that it was cheaper and less stressful to agree to the forfeiture of 2 houses is too rediculous to be true.

You are right, it wouldn't have been cheaper to forfeit two home. The forfeiture was not even for one house, much less 2. It was for a portion of the proceeds from the sale of one rental property.

If what Oz posted over at BMLM is correct, looks like a lie/half-truth to me. What a shock.

Nope, the letter I shared was one from the enforcement agency which was investigating the matter and found no criminal liability. Could the drug enforcement agency or the Environmental Protection Agency be investigating us for something? Sure, Just as much so as they could be investigating anyone else.

Originally Posted by okosh

If there was no crime then how can assets be forfeited??...and why not fight it if no crime was committed??...when you win you would be awarded costs right??...

You might find the below link interesting.

Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.c3d7cfcaf97c

Anecdotally most white collar crime if pursued at all in the US ends with this type of settlement as opposed to prison time or complete wipe out of ill gotten gains. Steal $10M pay $2M in fines without admitting guilt, rinse and repeat.
I consider it to be a very big problem with our system, but that is for another time.

Originally Posted by okosh

The claim that it was cheaper and less stressful to agree to the forfeiture of 2 houses is too rediculous to be true...

It's hard to know what the truth is with respect to this matter. Prosecutors to use the term loosely have a lot of power/discretion in these matters.


Why U.S. Criminal Courts Are So Dependent on Plea Bargaining
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...cutors/524112/



Pretty good deal...

Originally Posted by EdKra

The forfeiture was not even for one house, much less 2. It was for a portion of the proceeds from the sale of one rental property.

So , Ed , I did not get it, did the feds seize mysql databases and other records ? what would come out of it ?

Originally Posted by EdKra

Nope, the letter I shared was one from the enforcement agency which was investigating the matter and found no criminal liability. Could the drug enforcement agency or the Environmental Protection Agency be investigating us for something? Sure, Just as much so as they could be investigating anyone else.

It's unlikely we'll ever get the entire story, but I haven't seen anywhere where they say they found no criminal liability. Maybe I missed it.

The Organized Crime and Gang Section is just one section of the DOJ. There is still the Fraud Section, for instance, that could take action.

And why does that notice only mention one of you guys? That seems odd.

Originally Posted by surfer

It's unlikely we'll ever get the entire story, but I haven't seen anywhere where they say they found no criminal liability. Maybe I missed it.

The Organized Crime and Gang Section is just one section of the DOJ. There is still the Fraud Section, for instance, that could take action.

And why does that notice only mention one of you guys? That seems odd.

It's kinda obvious that we don't have the whole story...
Looks like there is lots that Edward is not telling but no doubt we will find out the WHOLE truth eventually..

Originally Posted by EdKra

You are right, it wouldn't have been cheaper to forfeit two home. The forfeiture was not even for one house, much less 2. It was for a portion of the proceeds from the sale of one rental property.

How much did the % of the sale translate into??...how much did you settle for??..100k??...500k??
And yes I'm an Aussie which is why I googled 'arrest an asset' and found no mention of that term being used...

It's unlikely we'll ever get the entire story, but I haven't seen anywhere where they say they found no criminal liability. Maybe I missed it.
And why does that notice only mention one of you guys? That seems odd.

I have no reason not to give you the whole story. BehindMLM's Oz has the document showing such, which reads ""This is to confirm that the Organized Crime and Gang Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division agrees not to charge Brian with committing any federal offense known to the Criminal Division at the time of the execution of this agreement.....". Both Myself and Brian got the same letter as well as verbal confirmation.

It's kinda obvious that we don't have the whole story...
Looks like there is lots that Edward is not telling but no doubt we will find out the WHOLE truth eventually..

Why is that? While you do have the truth from me, you obviously don't have the whole story because that would probably take a 200 page book to convey. There was a 1 year investigation and no criminal wrongdoing was found. That's what's important. Everything else is irrelevant in relation to us.

And yes I'm an Aussie which is why I googled 'arrest an asset' and found no mention of that term being used...

Okosh, like I said before. Do a Google search for 'Arrest in Rem'. That's exactly what the document states. 'In Rem' means referring to an asset. For some reason Florida courts use the terminology. Please look up asset forfeiture in the US. Here are a few links.
https://www.scribd.com/document/6401...boymonthly-com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

In essence, in a civil asset forfeiture case, the government makes a claim on assets alleging that those assets were involved in criminal activity. This happens a lot with vehicles used to transport drugs or illegal goods. For example, if John borrows Tom's car to deliver drugs to Susan, Tom's car can be seized and later "arrested in REM" by the government since it was used in the crime, even though Tom had no idea that the crime was taking place or that it ever did take place. In turn, Tom needs to go to court and fight a lengthy legal battle which would be titled something along the lines of "US Government Vs. Tom's Car" to prove against a preponderance of evidence that he was unbeknownst to the fact the car was going to be used in a crime. Tom isn't accused of a crime, but his assets are essentially accused as being part of the crime. The August 21st asset forfeiture case is against a small portion of our assets, as it says in the header of the claim. It doesn't say "DOJ Vs. OUR NAMES" but rather "US Government vs. certain assets".

lol. they don't just seize property with no criminal wrongdoing.

Originally Posted by Whip

lol. they don't just seize property with no criminal wrongdoing.

Actually they can and do. I had a dear friend who wanted to own a fishing boat and do charters. The day came when he could buy his boat. What he didn't know was that the Feds had been monitoring the owner of this boat believing he was smuggling drugs into the US from Mexico. So when my friend took his boat out with his chartered fisherman they went into Mexican waters to fish. They ended up going ashore in Mexico for some food and then back to fishing and returning to home port. As soon as the fisherman left his boat, the Feds swooped in and confiscated his boat and his personal catch he was going to sell to a local restaurant. They kept his boat for six months without ever charging him with any crime. He then had to pay storage fees for this six month period of time, and of course they never took his catch off the boat so you can imagine the stench. It took him about 10 days before he got rid of the stench and could charter his boat again. He lost a lot of money and almost lost his house and boat because of it. Not one dime was paid to him for the seizure and loss of income. All they had to do was show "suspicion" of an illegal act being committed. He paid for the "suspicions" of the previous owner through no fault of his own.

This happened over 5 years ago and he still wonders each time he goes out if it is going to happen again. He is convinced that under cover agents go on his charters just to make sure fishing is all he does. Whether or not they do I don't know, but he believes they do and that's all that matters to him. He won't let anyone take his boat out, even if they are his best friends and just want to go to Catalina. He won't take the risk.

As for Brian and Edward's case, we only know what we know. But asset forfeiture is used wrongly in many cases, and there needs to be a better way of asset seizure, especially if someone has no prior history of criminal activity, associations with criminals, or suspicious activities.

there's a huge difference in getting the asset back and agreeing to the seizure being kept. only way the government gets to keep it and not give it back is if a crime did indeed happen.

Originally Posted by EdKra

I have no reason not to give you the whole story. BehindMLM's Oz has the document showing such, which reads ""This is to confirm that the Organized Crime and Gang Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division agrees not to charge Brian with committing any federal offense known to the Criminal Division at the time of the execution of this agreement.....". Both Myself and Brian got the same letter as well as verbal confirmation.



Why is that? While you do have the truth from me, you obviously don't have the whole story because that would probably take a 200 page book to convey. There was a 1 year investigation and no criminal wrongdoing was found. That's what's important. Everything else is irrelevant in relation to us.



Okosh, like I said before. Do a Google search for 'Arrest in Rem'. That's exactly what the document states. 'In Rem' means referring to an asset. For some reason Florida courts use the terminology. Please look up asset forfeiture in the US. Here are a few links.
https://www.scribd.com/document/6401...boymonthly-com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_rem_jurisdiction

In essence, in a civil asset forfeiture case, the government makes a claim on assets alleging that those assets were involved in criminal activity. This happens a lot with vehicles used to transport drugs or illegal goods. For example, if John borrows Tom's car to deliver drugs to Susan, Tom's car can be seized and later "arrested in REM" by the government since it was used in the crime, even though Tom had no idea that the crime was taking place or that it ever did take place. In turn, Tom needs to go to court and fight a lengthy legal battle which would be titled something along the lines of "US Government Vs. Tom's Car" to prove against a preponderance of evidence that he was unbeknownst to the fact the car was going to be used in a crime. Tom isn't accused of a crime, but his assets are essentially accused as being part of the crime. The August 21st asset forfeiture case is against a small portion of our assets, as it says in the header of the claim. It doesn't say "DOJ Vs. OUR NAMES" but rather "US Government vs. certain assets".

You are still not telling us the whole story...
You would only agree to lose the money if you had committed a crime ...
We have basically the same laws here...it's called 'proceeds of crime'...just yesturday they seized a whole jewellery and diamond business and they took his lamborgini... (lol)..

I'm still calling bullsheet! !...

Edward why did you ignore the question of how much you settled for??...
(Not like the reason isn't obvious)....lol

Originally Posted by okosh

Edward why did you ignore the question of how much you settled for??...
(Not like the reason isn't obvious)....lol

My question if the feds got their hands on the database was ignored too (i gueess),
I do not care if the brothers get in trouble or not, you see, there were not only pimps and players, but serial HYIP admins, lots from US , that is what would be the bomb.