DID SURF FIRM JUST MAKE HISTORY? AdViewGlobal Says It Filed State, Federal Complaints About $2.7 Million Theft; Surf Wants New CFO, Compliance Officer, Department Managers; Asks Members To Keep Surfing
UPDATED 12:03 P.M. EDT (U.S.A.) One day after AdSurfDaily Inc. revealed in court filings that it was negotiating with federal prosecutors, the AdViewGlobal (AVG) autosurf announced it had been the victim of a $2.7 million theft.
AVG, which purports to be headquartered in Uruguay, said it reported the theft to state and federal authorities. If confirmed, it may mark the first time in history that a surf filed such a report. Autosurfs frequently are associated with Ponzi schemes and the sale of unregistered securities.
“Legal complaints have been filed in both cases and are currently being pursued by law enforcement authorities at both the state and federal levels,” AVG said in an announcement to members.
It was not immediately clear if the surf was conceding it was headquartered in the United States, rather than Uruguay. The surf did not identify the agencies to which it had reported the alleged theft.
AVG identified two suspects, saying they once were affiliated with the eWalletPlus payment processor. Some members had been clamoring for the surf to name suspects.
“We’ve been reluctant to share this information with you, because we were under the impression that the money would be returned within a fairly brief period of time. In the past 24 hours, however, we’ve learned that it could take 6 months to a year to get the money back to us,” AVG said.
AVG did not say how it got the impression that the money would be returned in “a fairly brief period of time.” Nor did it reveal how it learned it could take up to a year to recover the money or that the funds even were recoverable.
Federal prosecutors said in December that ASD President Andy Bowdoin never reported a $1 million theft at the purported hands of “Russian” hackers. The allegation is contained in a Dec. 19 forfeiture complaint that names George and Judy Harris as beneficiaries of illegal conduct by ASD.
Today is the one-year anniversary of the formal seizure of tens of millions of dollars from ASD by the U.S. Secret Service.
George Harris is Andy Bowdoin’s stepson; Judy Harris is the wife of George Harris. AVG announced last month that George and Judy Harris owned AVG. Since that time, a Pinksheet stock known as Vana Blue (VBLU.PK), which says it owns Karveck International and the associated eWalletPlus payment processor, has clouded the issue of what individual or company actually owns AVG.
In today’s announcement, AVG did not say if George or Judy Harris — or another management employee — contacted authorities to report the alleged theft.
AVG did say it was seeking a new chief financial officer, compliance officer and department heads for public relations, customer service and new projects. The surf did not say whether it had fired employees who held those jobs previously.
“We’re undergoing a complete overhaul of all management positions and procedural systems,” AVG said. The surf added that it was recruiting from within and that applicants are required “to sign a confidentiality agreement that will be strictly enforced.”
The surf did not say whether the successful candidates would be required to move to Uruguay.
AVG, which announced June 25 that it was suspending member cashouts and making an 80/20 program mandatory if and when payouts resume, said today that it was “evaluating the extent to which the inflated page impressions amassed by some members created artificial cash balances.”
Members said AVG’s frequent use of 200-percent, matching bonus programs for both recruits and sponsors — coupled with an in-house, member-to-member cash button — led to some downline groups and individuals owning millions of page impressions and creating untenable liabilities for the surf.
How AVG intends to deal with the liabilities it created through unchecked bonuses and purported abuse of the cash button is not clear. By suspending payouts June 25, the surf exercised its version of a “rebates aren’t guaranteed” clause.
Some members said they will not surf until cashouts resume because each advertisement AVG displays erodes profitability for individual members.
“We sincerely hope that you’ll continue to support us . . . and keep on surfing! AVG said today.
See July 23 story.
See July 27 story.
Yes we are.
(Quote)
Question to self…
If they act this way, and ramble on this way, and laugh and snicker because they are so smart, what must I make of all this foolishness? It is so self-serving. As usual, it will all play itself out and aside from joe, not much useful knowledge can be found here…again. Yawn!
(Quote)
You think it’s silly, I think it’s silly. The difference is I didn’t think it so silly that I sent someone my money. If you think I’m acting like I think you’re either in idiot or a crook, it’s because I do think you’re either an idiot or a crook. And no matter what you think of me, I didn’t send any money to these guys, and you did.
How’s that working our for you?
(Quote)
memo to self…
instead of sending money to a ponzi scheme, I bought 98,000 shares of Ford in January, and sold them Monday.
Cost basis $2.12 / share
Sell price $8.71 / share
not having to worry about the government later coming and calling my profit “preferential payments subject to seizure”
Priceless!
(Quote)
Come on Barb, you know you are hooked on being here. Where else can you have so much fun, and with such nice people? By the way, you weren’t one of those mods who was leaning too heavily on the “button” were you? Relax, just kidding.
(Quote)
Hi LRM,
Based on documentation I’ve seen recently in a case separate and distinct from ASD (except for the presence of certain Ponzi shills), I’d say the government is well aware of the reluctance of some operators to use their own domain names in email pitches and for customer service.
Prior to applying for a search warrant, the government had gathered the names of several suspected insiders. The search-warrant application, BTW, was 30 pages long, including notes about two mathematical analyses. One finding showed that at least 75 percent of the people who participated would gain no return, but noted “a brief period of perceived success” in which a tiny universe of participants would make money.
“Matching bonuses” were part of the scheme, BTW.
And the government observed and observed and observed — and, just like ASD, the case features multiple bank accounts (at least nine, from five separate institutions).
Not that it wasn’t before, but the government also plainly is “on” to the proclivity by schemers to file articles of incorporation with state Secretaries of State and to use shell companies — and also to use maildrops. The government sits outside of the maildrops, apparently in nondescript vehicles, and observes who gathers the mail and where they go after they gather the mail.
In any event, after the government gets the lay of the land, it seizes the computers — along with certain peripherals and other records — and then brings in people who specialize in “computer forensic techniques.”
Oh, one more thing: The search warrant in the non-ASD case noted that a bank closed an account held by the alleged schemers, after it noted unusual activity.
So, the non-ASD case sounded a lot like the ASD case.
Patrick
P.S. This case appears not to have direct ties to ASD or clones — but it does appear to have some folks who flogged ASD.
(Quote)
Quick note:
I should have noted in the P.S. that the folks who flogged this “opportunity” did so despite the seizure of tens of millions of dollars from ASD amid allegations of operating a Ponzi scheme while engaging in wire fraud and money laundering.
It’s easy to forget that the ASD case was brought as a conspiracy, and it looks like some folks left one conspiracy and joined another in short order.
Patrick
(Quote)
Hi Patrick,
There is now posted at Eagle Research Associates a detailed mathematical analysis of AVG, outlining the best case scenario about its life cycle. The business model comes compliments of “joe”. As with the autosurf you mention, losers are guaranteed to outnumber winners (so surprise). For AVG, the minimum number of losers is 84% percent under any scenario, although the real number of losers is likely to be higher.
(Quote)
Hi Entertained,
Please post the Eagle link when you have a moment.
Thanks.
Patrick
(Quote)
Hey joe;
It’s time for me to acknowledge that you do, indeed, have some credibility here. And it comes about because of a knowledgeable observer and commentator like Entertained, no less.
Why do I say that? On the Eagle Research Associates website Entertained has an article titled, “Mathematical Analysis of AVG: Payouts and Membership – The Painful Result” Your new-found credibility (with me, anyway) comes from this statement in his article: “Thanks again to ‘joe’ for his insights and detailed information on the workings of AVG. Without his information, this modeling would not be possible.”
Wow, joe, that’s amazing! So, I must now say that while your self-declared lack of integrity remains an issue, your credibility has now been established.
As to his article itself, in part, Entertained says:
“…So far, we have shown that AVG is definitely not sustainable (nor ASD, BAS, AGW, etc). You will hear the cheerleaders also talk about the scheme “always paying out”, or “they were paying out as planned until (fill in your excuse here)” but here’s the thing about Ponzi schemes. They ALWAYS pay out to the first people to join, and NEVER pay out to the last people to join. If they never paid out, they wouldn’t even get started. I worked through a number of different permutations of the recursive analysis of AVG. Interestingly, in every variation of the model, the analysis shows that 16% of the people will make money, and 84% will lose money. Further, no matter how many people eventually join AVG, the first 16% of the people who join will be the 16% who make money. THE LAST 84% WHO JOIN WILL BE THE 84% WHO LOSE MONEY. GUARANTEED!”
See http://www.eagleresearchassociates.org/avg.php for the complete article, which includes the spreadsheets that document his conclusions.
(Quote)
So you think it is okay to feed on the misfortune of the people who sold you the stock? They had huge losses and you are smiling because you made money off their pain. Did you offer to pay them what they paid for the stock. And why in the stock market is it okay to pay old investors with new money? You may have made money, but you are no better than Andy. You can sleep and fell great about trading on the pain of others. You are so special!! Your actions are not priceless…your victim paid the price.
(Quote)
CORRECTION:
No-one made the person SELL the stock at that price except the person selling it. Trying to equate the stock market to Andy is plain ludicrous. But I always find the circle jerk logic one of a person who knows they can’t win an argument on facts.
Every time you buy or sell stock in the stock market their is a winner and a loser. Everyone knows this going in. Besides it is legal, ASD was not, nor AVG, nor BAS, nor AGW, or ad-ventures4U, nor megalido, nor MrsVIP, nor CEP, nor 12DP, nor Phoenixsurf, and the list goes on and on.
You areally are showing your ignorance with this post of yours, but I am sure you thought it was a brilliant come-back. Sorry, you lose again.
(Quote)
CORRECTION!
I actually bought Ford at $1.95. Perhaps I sold it to Mr. Evans at $2.12 and I made a profit….. Perhaps the rest of the people who sold him their shares made money as well. You have ZERO way of knowing whether they made or lost money. Perhaps Ford will go to $10 and Gregg will be a “loser.” What we do know is that the market sets the market price for securities, so EVERY trade is at fair market value. Besides, why didn’t you buy a boatload of Ford at that price? Perhaps you thought Ford would file for bankruptcy. If Gregg had bought GM at $2 when he did, he wouldn’t be doing as well. Sheesh, and you have claimed to understand business….. It is 100% true that Gregg made his money legally, and it is 100% true that the dollars came from new investors (and he was an old investor). However, unlike the Ponzi’s you promote, if Mr. Evans would have lost money, then you’d have the new investor benefitting from his loss, ie the new investor “makes money” from the old investor. In your favorite Ponzi schemes, that cannot happen.
Why doesn’t the government recover the lossers money? Why is that different from the situation wherein someone buys advertising with no guarantee of gain? double stadard pal…admit it.
(Quote)
Why is the stock market more legal? The market sets the value of the advertising too. each time someone buys advertising, someone gets paid. Just because some clown gets on this site and braggs about his great victory on the stock market proves only that he is a small person…his priceless remark is calous. Nothing is guaranteed and there are winners and losers everywhere…admit it.
(Quote)
Thats it!!!! Thanks Correction, I’ve got Ponzi Buzzword Bingo! I’m calling “House”, and I’ve got the big prize!!
I was waiting for “Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme”, but thanks to you I have got a Full House with “The Stock Market Is Just A Ponzi”. It’s been a while since I’ve seen that excuse, so I wasn’t hopeful. But I should have had more faith in Ponzi scammers such as your self & joe. Thanks very much.
If anyone’s interested, the prize is a signed copy of “Just Numbers On a Screen” (signed by Marsden, of course), 100 grams of IntGold, a “I [heart] Charis Johnson” bumper sticker and a slightly used “Trevor Reed” pencil sharpener.
I wonder when one of these ponzi scammers will have the imagination to come up with a new, unique excuse?
(Quote)
It is the truth…live with it. While you count your gains, someone else looses. Where is the government to help the loosers just answer that if you can. until you do youare no better than any one else who bought something with no guarantee. Double standard bull….live with it.
(Quote)
A new Ponzi Buzzword Bingo game and a new, fresh, card to start crossing the boxes on.
I think that counts as “Blame the Evil Government For Everything” – so that’s me with a corner square to start with. Keep going Correction. If I can get a diagonal, I could get a “Graham Kelly OSGold – ‘Here In Australia’” post card.
(Quote)
Tony,
While I am not a Professional Ponzi Pusher, can I offer “All Capitalism is a Ponzi Scheme” which is basically what CORRECTION! is implying. Apparently, when one buys a good or a service (or a piece of a business, such as a share of a company’s stock), if the seller makes money, then it’s a Ponzi. If the buyer makes money, then it’s a Ponzi. Maybe “All Capitalism is a Ponzi” should be your center square. Sigh….
Oh, and CORRECTION!, the government DOES bail out people who lose money on legitimate investments (but not necessarily on the illegal scams you push). It is called a Capital Loss, and you can find it on Schedule D (I’ll assume you at least know what that is.) Sorry to explain something so basic, but….. Further, the government taxes gains (and btw, did you report YOUR gains in your scams on line 21 of your 1040 like you are legally required to do?)
(Quote)
Double standard bull…you know it is!!!
(Quote)
Yup, real advertising has a market value as well. As you are well aware, the market value of 1 click for 15 seconds is not $1.00. Further, as you well know, when people pay for advertising, the transaction is between the business owner and the provider of the advertising. The viewers of the advertising do not get paid a significant amount and generally get nothing. Further, those viewers are NOT required to pay lots of $$$$ in order to join some illegal scam, which is what they need to do to join the illegal Ponzi’s of your choice, like ASD, AVG, etc.
Oh, and to answer your question, “why is the stock market legal?”
There are myriad reasons, and as well there’s a rather large government organization strictly overseeing matters in the stock market (ever hear of the SEC? I think their contact information can be found by emailing securitiesandexchangecommission@aol.com — oh wait, that’s AVG). One simple difference. It does not matter at what point in time you invest in the stock market, unlike your favorite Ponzi schemes. In Ponzi schemes, only the early entrants make money. For AVG for example, at a minimum 84% will lose money, and it is the last 84% who join AVG who will lose. Not true in the stock market of course. What matters is what the market value is when you invest. Of course, most people want to buy low and sell high, but that is easier said than done. Why didn’t you have the courage to buy Ford in March like Gregg?
(Quote)
OK, I accept your challenge. It’s called Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses. The government does provide relief for people who lose money in the stock market. Basedon your post, I guess now that I have answered your question, you would consider me to better than someone like yourself who is an avowed AVG supporter/investor (though you call it advertising purchaser). I would never claim to be better than you however.
(Quote)
I am not familiar with US laws with regards to investments, but in the UK, the private investor has some protection as well. I don’t know the exact regulations, but where shares are held on an investors behalf, the investor has some sort of protection by the FSA should the share dealer disappear.
Also, if a private investor bought shares on the advice of a Financial Advisor, there are other protections & regulations in force.
The same cannot be said for investors in obvious ponzi autosurfs like ASD or AVG. This is not a double standard, the protection is offered because the share dealer or advisor is registered with and regulated by appropriate financial regulators. Again, the same cannot be said for ASD or AVG.
And yet, often these ponzi schemes will try to show that they are covered by some sort of government protection. Was it not an ASD promoter that claimed that ASD was FDIC protected? And then there is the attempt to generate an air of respectability by registering shell companies or “associations” or “trusts”.
(Quote)
Entertained,
Several weeks back, after AVG announced the bonuses and cash button had led to a monumental problem, some fine capitalists proposed a Socialistic, return-to-Ponzi-health plan.
The plan featured accounting tricks and a redistribution scheme of the same ilk some AVG members accused the government of foisting on the American people. The economic theory behind a Ponzi’s return to health apparently holds wealth can be created by taking away vast holdings from some members so other members with smaller stakes can enjoy higher daily payout rates from the Ponzi’s advertising rotator.
AdGateWorld is said to be doing a redistribution scheme of its own and making bonus ad packs disappear even as we speak.
Under the proposed AVG redistribtion scheme, which apparently wasn’t implemented because too many members grumbled about losing the 200 percent matching bonuses they were promised, AVG would have reduced the maximum number of “page impressions” (ad-packs) an individual member may hold to 250,000.
Some members reportedly had more than 1 million page impressions on the books. Their holdings would have been reduced to 250,000 by fiat, with the excess placed off the books in a nonearning state of suspended animation for at least 30 days.
Here is the story on the proposed redistribution scheme:
http://patrickpretty.com/2009/06/19/capitalism-communism-socialism-is-autosurfism-next-members-say-adviewglobal-surf-considering-bailout/
And, of course, it is not the first time the purportedly ardently Capitalistic Ponzi enthusiasts ventured into Socialist waters.
Indeed, the idea that moneyed BIG advertisers and moneyed Main Street brands would be happy to forgo rebate profits so lesser advertisers could profit in the rotators is one of the great imponderables of autosurfing.
http://patrickpretty.com/2009/01/10/seattle-post-intelligencer-imperiled-could-it-use-the-autosurf-model-to-save-itself/
Patrick
(Quote)
Tony,
A sharp-eyed reader shared this link today. You may find it useful in understanding how part of the U.S. debate is shaping up:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/154258-proposed-accountability-bill-could-prove-a-game-changer-for-investors
Regards,
Patrick
(Quote)
You and the other apologists seem to have a problem with the concept of legality. Some things are legal, some are not. Let’s forget the product/no product debate for a bit.
Where I live, selling booze is legal…if you have the proper licenses and the liquor is taxed. Other rules apply. If you don’t have the right licenses, sell untaxed liquor, sell to intoxicated persons, sell to minors, etc, you get charged with an offense. It’s as simple as that.
If you don’t like a particular law, you can petition to have it changed or you can vote for a candidate who shares your views.
Most people choose to follow the law whether they agree or not. Some take their chances…and usually squeal like stuck pigs when they get caught and have to pay the consequences…
(Quote)
It’s a given that the end stages of a HYIP ponzi and “autosurf” cycle brings out the same tired old arguments. Most of them being advanced by “true believers” desperately trying to avoid the inevitable, and ALL of them distractions from reality.
In any other context, someone drawing the conclusion that a HYIP ponzi “autosurf” is “like” the stock market would be howled down within a heartbeat of making such an outrageous claim.
Suugesting a HYIP ponzi fraud is “like” the stockmarket requires the same sort of tortured logic that claims an apple is “like” an orange, a Volkswagen is “like” a Rolls Royce or vodka is “like” water.
Similarities abound. Apples are round, as are oranges. Both are fruits, both are edible, both contain seeds and both grow on trees.
In the abbreviated world of internet forums and blogs, a clever ponzi promoter could perhaps, for a short time at least, convince someone unfamiliar with fruit that apples ARE “like” oranges.
“Like” ????? definitely
“The same as” ????
No bl***y way.
Sadly, clever HYIP ponzi promoters are only too aware of how to use space restrictions, errors by omission, distraction, misdirection and downright lies to convince those unfamiliar with business practices that HYIP ponzi “autosurfs” are “like” the stock exchange/Social Security/advertising/social networking/Google.
Whether or not “Correction” and her fellow HYIP ponzi “autosurf” player friends ever awaken from their Bowdoin induced coma is debatable, however, her statement that for someone to profit from the stock market there needs to be an equivalent loser shows such a lack of understanding of the process as to make sensible discourse nigh on impossible.
To then further equate a HYIP ponzi “autosurf” with legitimate business practices only serves to make sensible discussion TOTALLY impossible.
(Quote)
LRM, could you please explain the pink sheets to me and why they are allowed to exist? And the VSE, Vancouver Stock Exchange?
(Quote)
There is no double standard, and the transaction I described is how real business operates. Ford does not at this time pay dividends, but if it resumes paying them, the stockholders will get every quarter a part of their earnings based on how much stock they hold. It also is not absolutely true that what I made I took from someone else anymore than someone who bought my stock will be taking from me if the stock goes to $10 or higher. Rational investors buy stocks for rational reasons. As Ford is my employer, I don’t buy it as an investment (hint, never “invest” large amounts in your employer, if they go broke you lose your savings and your job at the same time) but as a trade. When I bought it I had decided it was under priced on the assumption that Ford would likely declare bankruptcy. As I have pointed out many times, I doubt Ford will ever declare bankruptcy until it’s way too late to avoid, for the simple reason that the Ford Family controls 40% of the votes and they would have to vote to make themselves broke in a company they have controlled for over 100 years, something I find very unlikely. When I bought it, I intended to hold it for six months or to sell half when it reached $7 and the other half a bit higher. I held on longer than I had planned because it was going good, but my discipline got to me and I finally sold it, I was fearing my own greed, honestly. Anyhow, casual investors who didn’t agree with that assessment decided that they wanted out before the things they expected happened, and they didn’t. I have no idea if those people who sold had been collecting dividends for decades before they sold it, what their cost basis was, if they sold the stock to take a tax position or if they needed the money. Maybe they had bought it like me with a time limit and the time ran out. Unlike Ponzi schemes, when they decided they wanted their money back for whatever reasons, there were perhaps millions of people like me willing to take their stock off their hands and pay cold hard cash for it. Do I have an advantage? Well, maybe I do. But not because my stepfather will pay someone to surf my daily sites for me to get my payout, but simply because I’m a third generation Ford employee who knows the company from the inside and better than most analysts who make their living by knowing companies. Or maybe because I have a doctorate in business. Or maybe I’m just lucky. I lose in the market too, this trade almost covered my losses last year in Visteon, another transaction that by any objective measure I should have had an advantage over a casual investor. Notice I said just advantage, not unfair advantage. I’m not high enough up in Ford to know things that would give me that.
The point is, me, the people who sold to me and the people I sold to all were acting on reliable and verifiable information, Ford builds cars and sells them. They don’t say they sell cars and take my money to pay the next guy without bothering to sell the cars. Or build the cars for that matter. They don’t pay me in Transmissions, and the business statements they make in various government filings or indeed in investor press releases are both true and verified by in independent auditor. If I win or lose is not a matter of luck or being the first in or if I got numbers of people after me to invest, it’s based on how well Ford does at convincing people that they can make money building cars and if they do I’ll get to share the profits with the other shareholders. In fact, when you buy or sell a stock in a company, except in the case of a new offering, the money I spent didn’t go to Ford at all, it went to the old owner of the stock. And in the case of Ford, even the ORIGINAL buyer who bought the stock in 1956 when it went public didn’t give any money to Ford directly, as the shares were at that time owned by a charity whom the Ford family had donated it to years earlier. The only time Ford as a company has offered stock to the public directly was believe it or not just last month.
That’s another difference between you and me (aside from showing how a real investment, or trade in my case, works) I made money from knowing about the business I send my money too. I might have lost but based on good information I thought it was a good trade. Ford says they build and sell cars and I can believe them. I know who the people who run Ford are. I know who the independent CPAs who audit Ford are. I know where Ford invests the money they make and it happens to be the same place they say it is. With a cheap ponzi scheme, no one will tell me these things and any answer they do give I cannot trust as being true. My investments in general make money for me, the ones you defend only make money for the few at the top and the people operating them. Make or lose money, Ford provides a product, they put cars on the road. Your investments only take money out of the pockets of some and put it into the pockets of others.
Do I belittle you for your choices? You betcha. If you’re not a crook, you’re ignorant enough of business that you have no business giving anyone else advice on investing. And if you do try to tell people how to invest, I am left with the choice of you’re a social evil because you’re a thief or you’re socially irresponsible in advising people so much ignorance that you should for the greater good shut up. So, we’re back to the original proposition I made, you’re either a crook or an idiot, either way, if the world was a just place, you’d just shut up.
(Quote)
Thank you…it is different. I do not equate them. Only the government and the few of you here do. One is an ivestment and one is a purchase. Thanks for pointing that out so well to all of us. It seems to me then, that if you are truely interested in sensible discusion, you would admit that, as you concluded, there is a difference. Is there a difference?
As for the stock market profiteers who pray on losers who hold stock in depressed companies, unless there is continued, sustained growth to infinity in a company and the value of it’s stock there will be losers. Growth in a stock market has it’s limits, just like Enterained’s AVG math runs out of potential new customers at AVG. New money drives up the stock price, yet it isn’t that illegal? Perhaps they should ban the sale of stocks for profit. You can only sell them for what you paid for them and not a penny more. Otherwise you excede 100% of your investments value and new money pays you your profit. 410% profit must be illegal? How is 410% profit possible without new money coming into the market? Sound familiar? But the sale of stocks for more than you paid for them is not illegal, it is encouraged, in our word of double standards?
A truely sensible discussion would allow that it is no different with Internet advertising companies or any business. New revenue drives business. No growth is infinite, and it was new money that paid back over 400% to the bragging, bottom feeding Ford profiteers, and the shameful “Priceless” remark. “Priceless”…tell that to the people holding stocks when the markets crashed. Are they not paying a price when their 401K is now a 201K?
Finally, I have a suggestion. Why don’t the bragging stock traders/profiteers at the expense of others, pay for Andy’s legal fight with their obscene profits and we can put it to rest in court. Put up your profits to get a jury of 12 citizens to agree with you and the govenment. Until that happens, you will never be right and neither will the ASD supporters. This question deserves a day in court, and I do not mean a hearing to free operating funds. I
(Quote)
Me shut up? That’s a hoot!! I didn’t give investment advice and I never have. You just assume I have, and you know what assumptions make. Perhaps I am an idiot, because I am not a crook. By definition coming here and posting must qualify me as an idiot. You on the other hand beamed about your “Priceless” 311% (I corrected my math)profit (before fees)and how it made you feel to profit from “new money” going into your pocket, while at the same time you belittle others who just made a purchase with no guarantees. I’d rather be me than you any day.
(Quote)
CORRECTION: We are glad you are you too. Also glad to learn that you just pretend to be a business person. You should remember the old adage: ‘It is one thing to be thought a fool, and another to open your mouth and remove all doubt.’
I really do feel sorry for you if you really believe all the utter B.S. you have been spouting. Glad to know that you believe in the old expression: ‘when you can’t B.S. them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S.’
(Quote)
My question is why does the govenment let this stock trading ponzi happen in the first place. Why don’t they protect the losers from the possibility of financial disaster? You have people profiting 310% from new money and it is legal. Yet, it is illegal to operate a “revenue share” business involving the purchase of Internet advertising with no guarantee of profit for viewing ads. I’m not promoting anything here. I don’t care what you do. I’m just asking this sensible conversation to include the possibility that there is a double standard.
The buying and selling of anything marketable requires new money and the potential for the less informed particpants to lose. It’s a source of pride to win in the “stock market” even though unless the stock price rises forever, which you have proved by association is impossible, someone must lose money unless they hold the stock forever from the day of issuance.
How can we let this happen? Easy answer…two standards. Moraling acceptable stock market winners and losers on one hand, criminal behavior for revenue sharing with no promises of gain on the other. I was always taught that double standards were unfair. Does anyone wonder why there is disagreement?
(Quote)
I’m not B.S.ing anyone, and I don’t claim to be brilliant. I’m just stating facts and exposing the double standard. This discussion has never been fair or very accurate. I’ll say this and I have good reason to believe it is true. Take away the felonious history of some of the participants, their apparent mismanagement, their alledged lying and sloppy record keeping and the government would not have a problem with the “revenue share” business model. This is not about the business model, but rather about the players and the money.
(Quote)
See, there ya go,
“one is an investment and one is a purchase”
such a simple statement, but it encapsulates the whole problem, right there.
This is a FRAUD investigation.
The FRAUD the prosecution is alleging is that Bowdoin and Co made you THINK you were making a purchase.
There is no need for discussion about securities violations, ponzi definitions or, for that matter, comparisons with stock markets IT’S NOT ABOUT ANY OF THEM.
They have no relevance.
The SEC wasn’t and isn’t even involved.
WIRE FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDERING AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BOTH.
They’re the allegations.
NOT securities violations.
Following Corrections’ logic, someone who stabbed another person to death wouldn’t be guilty of murder because he or she didn’t poison them.
Or, the murder didn’t conform strictly to Wikipedias’ definition of murder, so it somehow didn’t happen.
Or art fraud isn’t fraud if the painting concerned is good enough to fool the purchaser.
That’s the whole point of fraud, isn’t it: “deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage”
That the victims “thought”ASD was a legitimate advertising medium therefore “thought” they were buying advertising, is the reason for the original complaint stipulating “wire FRAUD”
as in: “Wire fraud, in the United States Code, is ANY CRIMINALLY FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY that has been determined to have involved electronic communications of any kind, at any phase of the event”
As inept a fraudster as Bowdoin has turned out to be, surely even he wouldn’t attempt to run a scam where the victims knew exactly what was going on.
Further,
The prosecution has long since had the books, computers and records (or lack of)
They’ve SEEN the fraud, how it was done and to whom. And, what’s more, with the passing of every day, they’re seeing more and more.
They’re not relying on “Andy said” or “ASD is like……” or “my upline told me” they KNOW IT WAS AND IS A FRAUD.
As for Corrections’ understanding of stock markets.
With her assertion “every stock market winner requires a loser” as the basis for discussion, one might as well have a debate with a Kalahari tribesman who firmly believes the sun revolves around the earth, on the finer points of quantum physics AND fit said discussion on a blog.
(Quote)
It is what it is, and what it is has yet to be determined…for now…I think? But we are getting closer…
(Quote)
C’mon CORRECTION!, you can do better than that. You cannot even remember what you said, or read what you typed. Your question, verbatim with typos, was: “Where is the government to help the loosers just answer that if you can. until you do youare no better than any one else who bought something with no guarantee.” and I answered that.
Now you raise other questions while conveniently ignoring the answers to your previous questions. Trading stocks is legal whether you like it or not, just as the Ponzi’s you favor are illegal whether you like it or not. In Gregg’s case, he came out ahead, but had Ford filed for bankruptcy, he’d have lost his entire investment. He pointed out that he lost an equivalent amount in Visteon, and I’ve had my share as well, riding WCOM into the ground just like Major TJ Kong.
In any case, it is quite possible to build legal social advertising network companies that share revenue. It is not hard to do (in concept), and I have posted several variations in several places. However, NOT one of the HYIP Ponzi schemes you promote is using one of these models. Instead, they choose to use the illegal, minimum of 84% of people will lose, models like AVG.
As to the Black Box analysis of the stock market, for example, (or more involved, the recently posted recursive model), until you understand these things please don’t make claims using them, and certainly don’t link me to them. Your statement is true in the abstract, in that practically speaking the creation of wealth cannot go on to infinity, but for an extremely long time humans can, and will continue, to create wealth essentially from planet earth. It is this process of creation of wealth (that resides within the Black Box of the stock market) that allows continuous growth of the value of human enterprise. Planting crops, extracting minerals, shaping raw materials into goods, etc. — the harvesting of human ingenuity and energy — all fuel the global growth of human activity and wealth, as reflected in the stock market. I expect that will continue on for a LONG period of time. Your favorite Ponzi, AVG, on the other hand, cannot last more than a couple years or so. Further, AVG does not create anything new wealth. It only moves the wealth from the ignorant to the criminal.
(Quote)
No CORRECTION!,
The business model variant that the AVG founders chose is illegal and unsustainable. They easily could have chosen a legal variation. Why did they not? Easy answer actually — they wouldn’t have been insiders in a get-rich-quick scheme and have made easy (illegal) money.
I have answered your questions, please answer this one for me.
Why didn’t the founders, in your mind, chose one of the obvious legal social network revenue sharing advertising autosurf business models?
(Quote)
The stock market is NOT a ponzi. It doesn’t require any new money be put into the stock for everyone to make a profit. As I pointed out, no new money was put into Ford from it’s founding in 1903 until just last month. That’s 106 years and the new money that was put in was hardly required, it was just a good way to raise some money.
Read that again, Ford was founded in 1903, and no new money was put in by stockholders until 2009. In the interim, literally tens of Billions of dollars have been made by the act of changing iron ore and other materials into cars and selling them. A real product. And there have been no losers, in an abstract way, because every time one of the shares has been traded, it traded at fair market value and even today every share is worth 1/2,870,000,000 of the company and the companies future profits. If Ford privatizes the shares today, every one of those shares will be redeemed for cash.
Listen one more time, and I’ll try to use little words. There is no new money. Ford created the shares over one hundred years ago, gave 90% of them to charity in 1936 and the Ford Foundation sod their shares to the public in 1956. That is all the money (none, ironically) that Ford has ever gotten from the sale of the stock. Last month, they raised 1.6 Billion and change from the only “new money” that has ever been put into the company. Get it?
(Quote)
interesting trivia, Ford went public @ $64.50 per share, and one share from then has, through splits become today 190.2 shares. A single share bought at the IPO would with re-invested dividends would now be worth $1,269,267.
(Quote)
Hey Correcction;
Using your reasoning, one might say, “Take away the felonious history of some of the participants, the murders, their machine guns, their alledged bribery of police and judges, the sloppy record keeping – and the government would not have a problem with Al Capone and his associates’ business model.”
Priceless!
(Quote)
Entertained,
Some of the AVG members say that, since the ASD case hasn’t been fully adjudicated, it’s OK to use the ASD model.
So, to borrow from dirty_bird’s booze-selling analogy above, some of the AVG folks are saying that, if two bars are permitting illegal gambling inside — and only one gets busted — the one that doesn’t get busted is allowed to continue to permit illegal gambling until the case against the bar that got busted is adjudicated, even though gambling is illegal.
Not all that long ago, Gregg compared some of the ASD/AVG supporters’ tortured constructions to throwing a wrench off the top of a building and conflating a reality that, since the wrench is in the air, it might form wings and not hit the ground.
The argument by some AVG members, of course, ignores Andy’s proffer letter and his own acknowledgments (plural) that ASD was operating illegally. And it also ignores the fact that Andy’s attorney is now negotiating with the government, announcing the negotiations in a PUBLIC filing.
None of Andy’s previous negotiations was announced in a public filing while the negotiations were under way.
He did not tell the rank-and-file about the proffer letter, for instance. And he did not tell them about the January forfeiture decision. They read about it in the newspaper and on Blogs and forums.
What he did tell them, eventually, was that he was going pro se to reverse his forfeiture decision, assuring them that a “group” had advised him on his past legal errors and reassuring them that the government still was evil.
The “group,” however, appears not to have anticipated Judge Collyer’s ruling that corporate entities cannot proceed pro se, which forced Andy to hire paid counsel to undo the damage he caused himself by consulting with the “group” and filing what amounted to political statements, not cogent legal arguments.
“I hate the government” doesn’t help fleeced widows in Florida or abate Andy’s crisis, especially when the “group” doesn’t have to pay the bill for Andy’s civil liability or serve the time for Andy should he one day be convicted of a crime.
Surf’s Up hinted prior to the filings becoming public that something was in the offing — after AVG switched to an “association” structure and after it was reported that the government had seized other bank accounts on or around Feb. 24.
Andy’s first pro se pleading was dated Feb. 25. AVG announced the “association” Feb. 26. Andy filings became public a few days later. Imagine that.
And imagine a decision by the AVG folks to launch an autosurf with a proffer letter in play from the patriarch. One of the unanswered questions is whether the purported 30 “founders” and other insiders knew about the letter prior to launch — or whether the government surprised them with the bombshell announcement in its last response (April 24) to Andy’s pro se pleadings.
http://patrickpretty.com/2009/04/24/prosecution-bombshell-bowdoin-signed-proffer-letter-prior-to-submitting-to-forfeiture-that-said-governments-material-allegations-were-all-true/
At a minimum, the founders and insiders all knew about the ASD seizure — and yet started right back up again with AVG. That’s bad enough because of the “in your face” elements. But if they knew about the proffer letter — and if AVG’s switch to an “association” was caused by it and the secondary seizures of bank accounts — it looks like a conspiracy to obstruct justice, along with a conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money-laundering.
Steroidal puppeteers and devoted criminals, for instance, might not have been pleased by a proffer letter. And people who just want a stage from which to rant against the government, regardless of the consequences of their actions on other people, might not even care if there was a proffer letter. The political battle is much more important than the legal battle to some people.
It seems that the words Judge Collyer used in her first round of denials of pro se pleadings have had a significant effect on Andy’s thinking. As you pointed out, Entertained, the judge was very clear.
Andy also seems to have fallen out of favor on Surf’s Up. His most ardent supporters — including the Mods — no longer are leading the cheers. Although Surf’s Up never announced a divorce, it seems that some folks have decided that their interests and Andy’s interests no longer are equivalent.
Lots of people lost lots of money — and because the government plans to implement an ASD refund program in which members will have to certify under oath they were crime victims, it might not have been the smartest thing to follow the promoters right into AVG. It’s possible that AVG participation cost them any chance of getting a proportional refund from any common pool of ASD funds that may emerge.
In the end, involving people in a new conspiracy may prove to be Surf’s Up’s most ignoble contribution to this saga. On the bright side, though, if the government is able to determine the identities of people who joined AVG after the ASD debacle, it could mean more money will be available to compensate real victims.
CORRECTION, for his part, still has a need to cloud the issues as evidenced in this thread. I wonder if he has considered the possibility that people he trusted lied to him repeatedly, broke his heart and embarrassed him.
For the moment, it seems easier for CORRECTION to display anger at people who post here and to author tortured constructions than to examine the possibility that he got hoodwinked by people he thought were his friends.
CORRECTION easily could have been influenced by GIGO and passed along the GIGO as fact. Regardless, after these many months, CORRECTION still hasn’t been able to point to a single, verifiable income stream — and yet somehow seems able to maintain some faith in the AVG enterprise.
And CORRECTION previously talked about “plants” within AVG and railed against what he sees as this Blog’s unfair coverage of AVG. Fact is, though, that the cash button suddenly went missing, the bonuses (and all “earnings”) went into a state of suspended animation, and AVG simply isn’t paying — and AVG now says it was victim of a $2.7 million theft.
AVG announced it reported the theft one day after Andy’s lawyer filed a motion and advised the court that negotiations were under way.
It looks to me as though AVG was an amalgamation, rather than a singular entity controlled by a single individual. It does not appear even to have had a common revenue pool or controls to prevent insiders from cherry-picking funds, and there are issues about the ownership of eWalletPlus. Much is unclear about AVG, Vana Blue, eWalletPlus, Karveck International, Karveck Corp., TMS Corp., TMS Association and TMS Corp. USA LLC.
Patrick
(Quote)
You make some good points. Time will tell…
(Quote)
Patrick..I lost big in AVGA..just an innocent by stander who was sucked in>>>Can I retrieve my money??
(Quote)
Linda,
Sadly, pPerhaps someday, but not for a while. In theory, the illegal Ponzi scheme AVGA is still running, and has not yet been shut down by the authorities. The math says that that is the only way to get your $$$ back. You joined a scam, but you know that by now. With luck, the authorities will shut it down, seize assets, and claw back illegal gains from the winners. That is likely a multiyear process, if previous similar cases are any guide. For reference, Google “12DailyPro Receiver” and read all the documents you can. No guarantee the AVGA process will go that way however. Also, pay attention to how the ASD case is unfolding. Clues there as well…… Finally, at some point you will be able to sue your sponsor in AVG for civil damages. They tricked you into joining an illegal Ponzi/pyramid scheme (even if they somehow did not know it was such, as your sponsor they have a higher obligation to know — and hence, heightened liability).
(Quote)