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

Here's their latest letter writing campaign....

Traffic_Monsoon_Updates.jpg
Traffic_Monsoon_Updates_001.jpg

lmao! by all means give the government a list of who they have to watch now. It will severely cut the workload, thus expenses, thus more time and resources for other investigations.

Well, it'll be a benchmark for something, I'm sure.........but not necessarily in a good way.....

TM 158 Aug 16.jpg

Originally Posted by Bestbud

Here's their latest letter writing campaign....

Traffic_Monsoon_Updates.jpg
Traffic_Monsoon_Updates_001.jpg

All this is not getting the sort of response he wants.....

TM 159 Aug 16.jpg

Meanwhile, Jose is getting TOUGH with the naughty naysayers!

TM 160 Aug 16.jpg

Just behave yourselves, do you hear??

Oh dear!

TM 161 Aug 16.jpg

You'd think he'd had enough from people, what with $21million finding its way into his personal account (purely by accident, I'm sure). Now they are going to fund his defence??



Luckily, some people are taking a tougher line (though Jose is mounting a firm defence of poor ickle tickle Chazza):-

TM 162 Aug 16.jpg

Amazing that they still think they were "running their own business", when in fact, they had/have no control of the outcome...

Poor old Adrian! He had NO idea, poor little lamb. All those people out there trying to tell him what was going on, all those FB pages and blogs and resources, and somehow, he missed every single one! It's a right bark, isn't it?

TM 163 Aug 16.jpg TM 164 Aug 16.jpg

And Chazza lied! Never. The most honest, wonderful, upright, devoted to the welfare of everyone, man on the planet??

Originally Posted by Della Cate

Meanwhile, Jose is getting TOUGH with the naughty naysayers!

TM 160 Aug 16.jpg

Just behave yourselves, do you hear??

Originally Posted by Della Cate

Oh dear!


TM 162 Aug 16.jpg

Originally Posted by Bestbud

Amazing that they still think they were "running their own business", when in fact, they had/have no control of the outcome...

In Jose's first post he admonishes people for their emotions and suggests they don't have what it takes to run their own business.

In the next, he says they're just affilates and advertisers, and Charles has no obligation to them.

He can't keep his story straight.

Originally Posted by Joe_Shmoe

William G Bryant is proposing to send the following to Judge Dee Brown on the SEC v Traffic Monsoon case.

The case against TM is a"diabolical plot"

He's convinced it's a witch-hunt and TM isn't a Ponzi.


All Charles' problems will be gone pretty soon. I imagine.






https://www.facebook.com/groups/trafficmonsoon.org/

William G Bryant

4 hrs

I couldn't sleep thinking about ways to beat this complaint against Traffic Monsoon, so I decided to go ahead and write the letter now to the judge. You'll find it below. I'm posting it now, but let's wait until later today for us to say this is concrete and that covers enough for our purposes here. This could serve as just the initial letter and then we send another one soon after this one. In the meantime, read the letter and let me know if you think we can improve it a bit before we put postage on it and send it to the judge.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
C/0: Judge Dee Brown
August 2, 2016
Dear Judge Dee Brown:
This letter comes as an attempt to draw your attention to a potentially miscarriage of justice which Is being carried out in your court room. Specifically this letter is in reference to Case No.: 2:16-cv-00832-DB, Securities And Exchange Commissions vs. Traffic Monsoon, LLC and Charles David Scoville.
What this letter specifically hopes to address are the glaring indicators which bear out a Witch Hunt against Traffic Monsoon in the SEC's complaint alleging Traffic Monsoon as a "Ponzi" scheme.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has defined a Ponzi scheme as: "a scheme whereby a corporation operates and continues to operate at a loss. The corporation gives the appearance of being profitable by obtaining new investors and using those investments to pay for the high premiums promised to earlier investors. The effect of such a scheme is to put the corporation farther and farther into debt by incurring more and more liability and to give the corporation the false appearance of profitability in order to obtain new investors." Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085, 1088 n.3 (2d Cir. 1995).
Despite this clear definition of what a "Ponzi" is, the SEC's complaint against Traffic Monsoon in Case No.: 2:16-cv-00832-DB fail to satisfy this standard. In essence, the SEC fail to explain how Traffic Monsoon has a net gain despite the SEC misconstruing the relevant data enough just to chalk Traffic Monsoon up as a "Ponzi".
In fact, the whole of the SEC's case against Charles Scoville and Traffic Monsoon hinges on the SEC's attempt to misconstrue the relevant numbers in sales in Traffic Monsoon's overall sales so as to not reflect Traffic Monsoon as profitable. This action by the SEC appears to stem from the SEC's and Scott R. Frost's inability to properly interpret and describe Traffic Monsoon's business model despite Scott R. Frost's "MBA in accounting" claims, and to deny Traffic Monsoon its true representation in an internet age. (Despite Scott R. Frost indication of an "MBA in accounting" he never addresses how Traffic Monsoon's members could have pulled in as much as it has in sales of all of its services, withdrawn as much as its members have, and yet Traffic Monsoon still have a net gain in overall.
Traffic Monsoon is a legally registered business model which actually does what it purport to do: Traffic Monsoon sales advertisings services and shares 100% of all revenue minus operating costs for maintaining it's presence on the web. The SEC's complaint is indicative of lawyers yielding an arbitrary complaint just to discredit the business model via a nefarious means which only further obscures relevant data as irrelevant. In fact, the SEC never details in its complaint against Traffic Monsoon that Traffic Monsoon is a 100% revenue share which shares 100% of all revenue generated with active members of Traffic Monsoon and therefore actually owns none of its own revenue in the true sense of the word, simply because every dime in Traffic Monsoon eventually gets shared.
The only real expense of Traffic Monsoon's operating costs are minuscule at best, because the programmers and operators who maintain the website's presence online receives the only allocated funds for maintaining the business. in fact, in all of the SEC's complaint against Traffic Monsoon, nowhere is there any allegations made by the SEC of Charles Scoville or Traffic Monsoon being a ruse for the purposes of generating money which is diverted anywhere other than as the business purports.
And that is part the problem here. The SEC's whole complaint filed in your court against Traffic Monsoon not only never makes any claims of Traffic Monsoon misallocating funds for purposes other than it's business model states, the SEC's complaint also never fleshes out Traffic Monsoon as a "Ponzt". No where in any of the filings in this case does the SEC ever allege Traffic Monsoon as operating at deficit, which would satisfy the standard for "Ponzi" scheme.
In absence of the SEC showing Traffic Monsoon as either operating at a loss from using new money to pay off old money, or operating as a ruse for a reason other than what's stated in Traffic Monsoon's terms of service, the SEC's complaint Traffic Monsoon is the SEC's attempt to castrate a proven business model for evil intentions and its attempt to use the courts to get away with its scheme.
The SEC's actions as outlined here are nothing more than actions of arbitrary with law as its ruse to carry out its true agenda.
Instead, the whole of the complaint against Traffic Monsoon is buttressed by a report made by Scott R. Frost, who takes great pains to describe Traffic Monsoon's business model to reach a summation of Traffic Monsoon being a "Ponzi", but the report never satisfies the standard laid out by Second Circuit Court of Appeals: Specifically, Scott R. Frost's report never describes Traffic Monsoon as operating at a deficit. Through all of the numbers in terms of the amount Traffic Monsoon did in sales during the any period indicated in his report the report never reaches an objective conclusion whereby Scott R. Frost fleshes out Traffic Monsoon as operating at a loss. In fact, Scott R. Frost seems to take great consideration in never explaining in his report that the money remaining in all of Traffic Monsoon coffers indicate Traffic Monsoon operating at a net gain. With this in mind, the SEC's complaint against Traffic Monsoon is nothing more than a government agency attempt at misconstruing a registered business model's numbers in attempt to steal it's profitable business's generated profits.
In fact, the whole of SEC's case against Traffic Monsoon appears to be nothing more than an attack on a profitable business model. Traffic Monsoon total records indicate Traffic Monsoon as operating at a net gain, yet what the Scott R. Frost's report in the complaint details are nothing more than subjective references which indicate his lack of understanding of Traffic Monsoon's business model. Essentially, Scott R. Frost doesn't understand the nuances of Traffic Monsoon's business model, and how this business model is a proper bridge of service, value, and people at a cyberspace crossroads. And because Scott R. Frost and SEC doesn't understand or is able to properly articulate Traffic Monsoon's business model, what they've done instead is misrepresented the facts in court filings, and have misinterpreted the data enough to fudge the fact that the SEC's findings in this case does not satisfy, not only Circuit Court of Appeals standard of a Ponzi, but no objective measure which one could use to show a business operating at a loss but disguising the loss via new investors money.
In light of Traffic Monsoon having a net gain in over all sales and thereby being a profitable business model which is operating largely at this point off mostly profits generated, and in light of the fact that Traffic Monsoon is a 100% revenue sharing business model, the SEC's case against Traffic Monsoon is akin to an assault on capitalism in an internet age. This case surely sets a precedence whereby a government agency is able to decry a legally registered business as a "Ponzi" by smudging the irrelevant data to misconstrue the relevant data. What's relevant in this case is whether Traffic Monsoon had proven it's business model via net gains and was not a "Ponzi" using new money to pay off old money.
The SEC's complaint against Traffic Monsoon isn't a complaint that details how a business is recycling money to pay off money, but instead the SEC's complaint against Traffic Monsoon is an assault by a government agency upon a proven profitable business model operating in the black, and it's use of your court room is its attempt to use the courts to carry out its attempt to arbitrarily depict Traffic Monsoon as a Ponzi despite having not proven such in any of the information the SEC has built its complaint against Traffic Monsoon on.
Throughout his report on this matter, Scott R. Frost takes great pains to present subjective and selective data without exposing Traffic Monsoon as being in the black. For example, Scott R. Frost describes that Traffic Monsoon had taken in $207,000,000 from out pocket sales of adpacks, but that via repurchasing Traffic Monsoon had sold an additional $531,000,000 in adpacks to reach to a total of $738,500,000 in adpacks purchases. The SEC doesn't explain that the only way for such to have occurred, whereby such an additional number of adpacks were able to be repurchased was by members being paid on their accounts as the business model purports to operate. Not only does the SEC's report fail to indicate the proper context of Traffic Monsoon's large amounts of repurchasing as a reflection of its members earning on their accounts from sales made to the business, the SEC uses this data to misconstrue the meaning of members actually being paid from services sold.
Essentially, the SEC's complaint against Traffiic Monsoon reflects an assault on a legally registered business by a government agency and that government's agency attempt to use the courts to carry out its diabolical plot.
All of the SEC's actions in regards to this case reeks of a malicious conspiracy between PayPal and the SEC with Scott R. Frost being the cosigner. Consider that it was PayPal who called in the SEC on this matter. The SEC has been aware of Traffic Monsoon's business model for quite some time, but did not take legal action against Traffic Monsoon until after PayPal had released part of Traffic Monsoon's money back to Charles Scoville inadvertently. Notice in the complaint that Scott R. Frost indicates that on July 21st of this year that PayPal notified him that Traffic Monsoon had gotten some of its money back because the system had mistakenly released back to him. It was shortly after PayPal notified Scott R. Frost of Traffic Monsoon receiving the money back that the SEC filed its case against Traffic Monsoon. Which raises the question: If Traffic Monsoon was a Ponzi, why did the SEC wait until after PayPal had mistakenly released the money before it filed Case No.: 2:16-cv-00832-DB against Traffic Monsoon?
Were this complaint allowed to continue, it would surely set a dark day in American jurisprudence, as it would set the example of U.S. government official's attempt to seize a proven business model's profits. Make no mistake about what is at stake here: This is a violation of people's rights to earn a living. This complaint is one which rides the waves of the general public's emotions, feeding the public misrepresented information via misappropriated court filings about Traffic Monsoon in the SEC's attempt to portray Traffic Monsoon as something other than what the aggregate of all of its remaining funds in all of its coffers indicate it to be: a business operating in the black.
Signed, ....

WOW! Just WOW!
If he put that much effort into finding a REAL job he'd never need to push Ponzi's ever again.

Originally Posted by Joe_Shmoe

.... Traffic Monsoon is a legally registered business model ...

Where do these idiots register "business models" :)

I have few to register myself, one is how to spot the brainwashed morons who just lost in a PONZI and invite them to a new one.

Would love to see that letter filed in court too :) Even that it would waste the judge's time , but I bet he will get at least a laugh out of it.

Traffic Monsoon was registered as an Limited Liability Company (LLC). That has nothing to do with the "business model"...

https://secure.utah.gov/bes/details....y=9175555-0160

Originally Posted by NikSam

Where do these idiots register "business models" :)

I have few to register myself, one is how to spot the brainwashed morons who just lost in a PONZI and invite them to a new one.

Would love to see that letter filed in court too :) Even that it would waste the judge's time , but I bet he will get at least a laugh out of it.

LOL. Want to see an endless supply of nonsense in this general vein, go to Patrickpretty.com and look up the antic of Todd Disner, Dwight Shweitzer and Kenneth Wayne Leaming and their twists and turns in ASD and Zeek. You really can't make this stuff up!

Personally I want as many TM members as possible to send their letters to the Judge as requested by William Bryant and Shafiq Zaman. They need to do it IMMEDIATELY as time is of the essence here. The court needs the time to document everyone who wrote letters so when Charles' criminal trial comes along, they can all be called as witnesses. The Prosecution will gladly give Charles' attorneys this list so they are witnesses for him. It will also make the Receiver's job a lot easier too.

I have encouraged stacy to let William Bryant and Shafiq Zaman know that they need to do this NOW, and they have my support in this letter writing campaign.

Here's the latest update from Charles. Warning BARF alert, but he's now going for comedic gold, and I quote:

"An update from Charles:

It's true. ClixSense has a different overall business model from Traffic Monsoon. However, the problem the SEC has said they have with Traffic Monsoon is that (their argument NOT mine) is people make a purchase with the expectation of earning more because of that purchase. ClixSense offers an upgrade which people buy with the expectation of earning more money because of the upgrade. There are more guaranteed ads given to the buyer of the upgrade on clixsense, which helps the buyer earn more money. There are 8 levels of commissions for a membership which basically merely helps the buyer earn more money, and there is no service or product actually given to the upgrade purchaser. So if the owner of ClixSense thinks his model wouldn't be appraised by the SEC as being an investment, he's wrong under the provisions the SEC is giving me for potential restructure. This case against Traffic Monsoon proving that I'm not offering any investment or financial product is more critical to sites like clixsense; more than clixsense or any other similar sites might think in this moment of time. If Traffic Monsoon loses, then next they'll go after clixsense. Since their membership doesn't provide any actual product/service other than helping the buyer earn more-- and they pay on 8 levels of referral commissions, then not only could it be classified by the SEC as a ponzi, but also a pyramid scheme for offering commissions on a sale of a membership which has no identifiable product or service. With Traffic Monsoon's adpacks there is an identifiable service being given to the buyer.

I love ClixSense, and its owner. The thing is, the SEC's problem with Traffic Monsoon is actually going to be the same problem they would have with ClixSense's business model. The SEC said they have no problems with anything in my business model except for the purchase which includes a position which allows people to earn money generated from the sales of services by surfing. ClixSense has to recognize that their upgrade offers more guranteed ads, which the buyer of the upgrade is allowed to earn more money generated from sales of services by surfing, than a free member. There are more guaranteed ads to upgraded members! So the buyer of this upgrade is expecting to earn more because of this purchase. The SEC is saying that's what makes the purchase an investment.

If buying an adpack on Traffic Monsoon makes someone an investor -- even though there is NO promised returns, NO interest, NO guarantee of income, and specifically states that the offered service is NOT an investment-- then look out everyone! The SEC is on their way, and they don't care whether or not you have more money to pay everyone what they have earned or not! Traffic Monsoon has millions of dollars more available than what people have earned... and look at what they are accusing!

The point I'm making is "what actually makes something an investment" according to the SEC is much different than what I believe an investment is, and probably the owner of ClixSense would also believe he's not offering an investment, but according to the SEC if someone is buying the upgrade expecting to earn more money because of that purchase, then it makes it an investment -- which wouuld mean if TM's ad service pack is an investment, then so is the upgrade on clixsense. So the impact of the outcome here is far more than the SEC vs Traffic Monsoon. It's the SEC vs. the entire industry and multiple sites that offer products, services, memberships which help people earn more money... and the buyer would carry the expectation of earning more money because of that purchased service, product, or membership."

What I love about this is that he can't change his position to the members, or they will know immediately TM is the Ponzi the SEC says it is. As Whip posted, he is committed this defense of TM, and it is going to be his doom. I love it when these Ponzi admins aid in their own conviction.

Looks like the business model for ClickSense is to make a profit on each sale of service


And the business model for Tragic Monsoon is to make a loss on virtually every single sale of service

Poor Chuckles just hasn't got a clue! Seems to me there is an emoticon that covers this.

he's running out of strawmen. I hope he gets so desperate that he says 'well deese and MAP are doing the same thing.....why don't you go after them!'

Originally Posted by Scoville parrots Stacy

The point I'm making is "what actually makes something an investment" according to the SEC is much different than what I believe an investment is, and probably the owner of ClixSense would also believe he's not offering an investment, but according to the SEC if someone is buying the upgrade expecting to earn more money because of that purchase, then it makes it an investment

I'm seriously you guys, did the bakery pay for a correspondence law class for Stacy? To hear the CEO rambling this way is simply embarrassing, the SEC isn't saying anything close to this. Clixsense has actual customers that sell products other than more Clixsense. When an advertiser buys ads with Clixsense they don't get all their money back plus a "rev share" after their ads have been viewed. Perhaps Scoville missed the part where he had less than a gnats nads in that type of business?


Although in fairness I can see how a CEO might confuse a $17 premium account with someone putting $200,000 into Traffic Manana Begonna.

What is a premium account?

PREMIUM account status indicates to advertisers that the viewer has successfully made a purchase using a credit card or bank account online. Many advertisers prefer to limit their paid advertisements to viewers who have proven purchasing power.

The cost of upgrading to PREMIUM status is $17 USD and is valid for 1 year from the date of upgrade.
What is a premium account?

Originally Posted by Bestbud

Amazing that they still think they were "running their own business", when in fact, they had/have no control of the outcome...

Unless that outcome is sending Chucko on another trip to Disney.

send him to disney.JPG

Originally Posted by Joe_Shmoe

Sunil Patel has another bright idea to help save Traffic Monsoon.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/trafficmonsoonsunil/

Attachment 14785Attachment 14784

Ekhm about this fella I think this data is enough :

Fraudster claimed benefits despite having eight homes - Get West London
Court fines allow council to come after dodgy landlords - Get West London

For those readers who are wondering just who is "William G Bryant" and why he's stacy532s' go to person when it comes to all things legal:



William G Bryants' wgbryant page on Facebook

Traffic_Monsoon_Updates.jpg
Traffic_Monsoon_Updates_001.jpg

Want to know why Scoville has no money and has go go begging for members to finance his defense ???

From the SEC affidavit:



Want to know why the SEC doesn't believe Traffic Monsoon is a legitimate advertising company and able to deliver why Scoville promised ???

Poor stacy532 and his hero, William G Bryant.

Scrabbling around trying to find scapegoats for the closure of their favourite fraud.



stacy532s' waffling on the EMS forum

Way, way back observers of Traffic Monsoon warned members that Paypal was required under the terms of its' licenses to report Traffic Monsoon and Scovilles' activities to the US Department of the Treasurys' Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and that FinCEN is part of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, whose members include:



Under the terms of The Bank Secrecy Act, once having filed Suspicious Activity Report/s,(SAR) Paypal CANNOT reveal to anyone, including Scoville, it has done so

It can, however, choose to co operate with FinCEN, leave the account open and carry on business as normal, until both it and the investigators are satisfied there is / isn't illegal activity occurring.

As was pointed out on this forum at the time, anyone who believed Paypal did NOT file multiple Suspicious Activity Reports before and after it froze the Traffic Monsoon account and co operate fully with the subsequent investigation which lead to the SEC filing against TM and Scoville was in for a giant eye opening shock.

AND, read that list of FFEFT members, they all knew exactly what was going on

The IRS, the SEC, the DoJ, all of them

Forget all this conspiracy and "Paypal is guilty" talk.

Read the documents, it's all in there.