Ok stop looking everyone, I found Chris Smiths history on Facebook!
Attachment 2434
Banners Broker Ponzi Scam | Facebook
Printable View
Ok stop looking everyone, I found Chris Smiths history on Facebook!
Attachment 2434
Banners Broker Ponzi Scam | Facebook
Duh! Look up "hypocracy" and "double standards"
And we INVITE LAWYERS . Just give us the name of any BB lawyer
We will contact Shyster Flywheel and Shyster ourselves and betg them to take us to court.
As usual this "opur lawyers will gt you" is an empty threat!
No wonder people wont supply names! they dont want the likes of your mates phoning them with empty threaths.
Do stick around as yuo promised. That above is called "admitting liability for damnages" in the lawyers circles.
I invite any BB lawyer to take me into such a court.Quote:
The legal waters were tested in a court of law in front of magistrates and a prosecution presenting real evidence, not some wishy-washy collection of stuff scraped off the net.
You need only look at the sig mentioning evil triumphing because good people do nothing.Quote:
To the credit of what I tend to call dream-stealers here on BS, sorry RS, what you guys are up to here must be like a drug, a kick, a buzz, call it whatever you like. It could just well be you might be on to something, let's not discount such a possibility because there's certainly some valid points being made here, in particular when references are made to BB's "early days" where it has been shown the company was seen to be promoted by affiliates as some kind of doubler / cycler, or whatever you want to call it.
See we arent greedy and thats why we dont get suckered in. You can question out motives all you want but attacking the others personally is ad hominem - and is a gioiod indicator that you are losing the argument.
Rubbish !
There is not "balance" here. The two sides arent to be weighed as if equal!
It is quite clear
RS had produced material from BBs own site
WE have seen comnpany registrations, office details
The who thing is a Hollywood set!
BB have produced NOTHING - no background , accounts , staff details - nothing
and the RS people dont even have to support claims . That is for BB to do.
A Question for any BB member:
What Due diligence did you do before joining BB?
Rubbish! If you jump off a cliff you will fall to your death. i can supply you with Newton's equations of motion shopwing what the impact will be.
We can describe experiments based on them
We dont need to go to a court to say the laws of gravity are correct.
We CAN discuss what the "impact" of BB will be here.
LOL So take RS members to court and prove them wrong! We are inviting you to legally settle this.Quote:
There's only one way this argument will ever be settled, and that's if and when BB are required to formulate a defense showing their business model is not a ponzi, but where the majority of revenue comes in fact from advertising revenue and not from member subscriptions (which are basically purchasing more advertising inventory as there are no joining fees, aside from the monthly admin fee).
first of all you are wrong! again. A court would most likely not take personal assets like a home. and if a person is representing a company then the court Could not take them since the legal entity committing the defamation is the company. thats what LIMITED meand in company law. Limited liability. Limited to the amount of shares the company has. Of course individuals own these shares and their liability is limited to the unpaid shares they have. If you look it up you might find Raj Dixit owns maybe one dollar in shares and has no unpaid shares. So that is how far his liability extends to BB or Kibotec .Quote:
I hope you realize the potential implications that can result in publicly defaming companies and individuals on the internet. The resulting law-suit can well strip you of all your major assets, depending on your juristiction's bankruptcy laws, certainly kiss your mortgage and house goodbye, the resultant fall-out may well see you demoted from your beloved 9-5 employee lifestyle to one on unemployment welfare when your boss sees your spiteful attempts at sinking a reputable company a threat to his own business, potentially playing with fire here, but that's alright, you're so damn sure BB's a scam and a ponzi, just stick to your guns, but don't go screaming conspiracy theories and such when the **** hits the fan.
Im not really scared of BB sueing me for defamation. In fact Id welcome them to do so. Can you tell me the name of any lawyer they have ? No? That convinces me all the more BB is a fake!
LOL Doubtful. when they promise lawyers and you cant even name one?Quote:
On the other hand, it may well be a scam. Doubtful, but everything's possible in this world.
Like official legal records? Actual addressess of offices showing someone else there. The records of thiose other companies who have been ther for decades?Quote:
You don't have the facts, just wishy-washy crap scraped off the net.
You cant offer anything. why -Quote:
On the other hand, from the pro-BB side, we can't really offer a hell lot more ourselves either,
1. the management of BB just decided to keep all their past details secret and not register any company or pay any tax?
or
2. there isnt anything to odffer- the whole thing is a scam?
This is another logical fallacy. Most of the academics didnt believe Galileo. did that mean he was wrong?Quote:
Honestly and seriously, WHO are you going to believe? There'd be about a dozen or three vocal anti-BB people here, really vocal ones, plus a few more with their doubts, thanks mostly to the vocal ones and their wishy-washy "evidence" - there are approximately 250'000 affiliates in BB, even if that number were just 100'000 which is what the numbers thrown around were when I first joined, whether it's 100k or 250k affiliates or a thousand with a grudge of some sort, WHO are you going to believe?
Look up "argument ad populum"
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
I mean millions believed WMD were in Iraq and Saddam was involved in the 911 attacks and sponsored Al Qayda camops in Iraq.
But they were also sold a lie do dont feel so foolish.
Rubbish! Few if any valid points form you. and argument ad populumQuote:
There are valid points made from both sides, but the pendulum always tends to swing towards the majority.
Another Question:
What is the address of the new BB HQ in Canada?
Wait a minute, are you, Roger Stockburger, the surfer (or "waverider" if you will) who also calls himself "Active Rog", seriously coming on to a forum full of adults to use one persona to defend the other?
You obviously can't do it, or you'd either have to make up a name and address, or proffer Roger Stockburger as yours.
What was it you were saying about "credibility"?
At last we agree on something,youStockburger really is a joke.
To be fair,waveriderActiveoneRoger knows his limitations. Why else would he have his IQ proudly displayed on histaxicar as a private plate? :RpS_lol:
Attachment 2435
You obviously have no concept of what defamation actually entails. Here's a quote from the BB bible, Wikipedia...
I've highlighted the areas that apply in relation to the comments made here regarding BB. Any case for defamation regarding statements made here, or on any of the oft-cited blogs and newspapers, would be covered under one or more of those first two points.Quote:
Allowable defences are justification (i.e. the truth of the statement), fair comment (i.e. whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (i.e. whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth.
The part about it being "the truth", well it's fairly easy to back up every single claim made regarding BB with evidence from either bodies held in high regard (Canadian govt. etc) or from Banners Broker, who conveniently provide 99.9% (their favourite percentage) of it themselves in the form of their promotional material that can be found littering the internet.
@waverider. Who do you think we are on this forum? Some eccentric bunch defaming a reputable company, just for the fun of it? Are we trying to dissuade people from investing in google? or yahoo? No. There are people here who have exposed scams before. There are people who have been scammed by bb, and had their money stolen by bb. Or like myself has had a gullible family member or friend robbed and mugged by bb.
People who want to get the true story out, to try protect other vulnerable people who might be sucked into this ponzi.
Many of us have spent a lot of time researching this ponzi, contacting media, crime and regularity authorities, mastercard etc etc.
All of it done for ethical reasons, No one donating their time here stands to gain 1 cent.
You on the other hand have 1 reason for posting here. To try (unsuccesfully) to defend bb, in the hope that you might help delay the collapse. In order that you will gain some more money from others.
Any sign of chinacastle? Wanted to try and talk to him now that he is probably sober.
#3
UncleFesta
Top Level Member
Country:
UncleFesta's Flag is: Scotland
UncleFesta's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 650
Default Re: Is Realscam.com a haven for scammers?
Why do I say the answer is yes you might ask. Well I'll tell you.
First we have admin Littleroundman. A well known incest pornographer and owner/manager of warez sites. He also scammed one poor demented woman known as Finix into believing he could offer her a new life halfway round the world.
Then there is Finix herself. A known participant in various scams. She has also tried to fund illegal processors and has at one time worked for the notorious Shadow Crew member Patryn. She is still a Patryn apologist.
Next we have Okosh. A well known ebay scammer and forum thief. He is also a ponzi participant although he says he has now seen the light. Personally, I doubt it.
Patryn himself has recently been welcomed into the forum.
Last but not least on my list ( there will be plenty of others) is Egg-on-legs Lynndel Edgington. He scams by having people believe that if they donate to his cause they are helping to save the world from scammers.
"Well the above is what my research showed up, comes from the site realscam.com, interesting ,is it not??....really interesting...well lets see how long before it gets deleted here, sorry i was not available earlier when you guys were looking for me but as you can see i had some interesting reading to do.
The above copied and pasted from the site Is realscam.com a have for scammers......just in case you think im lying [again]
China, you are back. Good. What due diligence did you do before joining BB?
sorry left out the letter N in the above.Should have read haven.
We got that. Now, what about the due diligence question?
Good evening noname, as regards DD,checked online sites, forum discussions,went to visit the offices here in Ireland, when they were based in Little Island before they moved to Dublin Hill, yes, i went to one of their meetings, two actually, made my own decision based on what i personally thought.
Naturally what suits one may not suit another person ,im happy with MY decision,and the only person i have to satisfy is myself as it is my own money .Of course my DD may not be good enough for another person, that is their choice, its their money and i would not dream of telling them what to do with their hard earned.
Please feel free to comment on the piece i copied and pasted as well Nooname, im sure its probably a different Littleroundman and Okosh anyways, those names are so common!!
So you didn't do any due diligence? No independent research?
Correct. many people have had BB promoted to them and not took it up. The vast majority of people who have heard of BB do not participate in it, so using your logic that puts BB in the crapper then? You also are a minority here. Just comparing the activists on one side against the whole of the other is NOT valid reasoning.
Just answered your question noname, you going to comment on your friends mentioned in my pasted piece or just ignore it?, thank you.