BULLETIN: Narc That Car Gets ‘F’ From Better Business Bureau; Rating Is Lowest On 14-Step BBB Scale

UPDATED 1:42 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) The Better Business Bureau branch in Dallas has given Narc That Car a rating of “F,” the worst-possible rating on the BBB’s 14-step rating scale.

Narc That Car’s previous rating was “NR,” meaning the firm had no rating with the BBB, which opened an inquiry into the company Jan. 18.

The BBB said that, despite the fact Narc That Car provided some information on the company’s compensation practices Feb. 8, the organization “remains concerned as to whether the business model, in practice, truly provides any significant method of compensation which would not require sponsorship of additional program participants.”

“According to the company, as of February 10, 2010, only 1% of total commissions paid out to independent consultants was for the sale of license plate information to third parties, referred to as ‘client share,'” the BBB said.

“Previously, the company’s ‘client share’ income was the only repeatable form of compensation which did not involve the recruitment of others into the opportunity. However, as of March 1, 2010, the company has provided a modified compensation plan which allows for base-level independent consultants to receive commission payments.”

Read the BBB’s rating for Narc That Car as of March 5, 2010.

About the Author

40 Responses to “BULLETIN: Narc That Car Gets ‘F’ From Better Business Bureau; Rating Is Lowest On 14-Step BBB Scale”

  1. Let me see if I can do a good jah-kass impression:

    “that ‘f’ is for ‘fantastic’. you guys have no idea what you’re talking about. The bbb sucks unless they print something positive about our scam narc,thatponzi.”

      (Quote)

  2. What a shocker :)

    Thanks Patrick for your consistent coverage on this!

      (Quote)

  3. I would not put stock into the BBB they have no consistency among the different branches, They gave a internet company in florida a A+ when they had 98 complaints against them for various reasons, I had a complaint with them for falsifying a expiration date on a debit card so it would go thru. That is a banking violation!

    I have no problems with NARC, They are keeping up with their payments to me and I think that I am performing a service to the community and in other ways, think about insurance companies and banks who lose valuable collateral every year and are unable to recover portions or all of it. Do you really think that they “eat” the loss? Oh heavens no, they pass it on to you and me in the form of rate increases or other expenditures..

    So as far as Narc that Car comes from I think it isn’t any different than Amway or Shaklee or Mary Kay. Just because your not selling a “product”
    doesn’t mean it is a scam. We are just using Crowd Sourcing.. look it up.

      (Quote)

  4. Katrina,

    “So as far as Narc that Car comes from I think it isn’t any different than Amway or Shaklee or Mary Kay.”

    As it’s currently implemented, anyone who wishes to pay $99.00 can use the NARC database, such as it is. There is no screening, no “know your customer” efforts, etc. I could log on right now to the site and do a search.

    Given that, have you ever heard of Amway, Shaklee or Mary Kay aiding and abetting stalkers? That very real element of society could have a field day with this data, and there is nothing preventing them from getting to it. You do realize that, correct?

    Now, so far as crowdsourcing (it’s most commonly one word, not two), I’m assuming you’re aware of the potential pitfalls of this collaborative method of problem solving, correct? If you need a refresher, here’s s snapshot from the Wikipedia page:

    “Some possible pitfalls of crowdsourcing include the following:

    * Added costs to bring a project to an acceptable conclusion.

    * Increased likelihood that a crowdsourced project will fail due to lack of monetary motivation, too few participants, lower quality of work, lack of personal interest in the project, global language barriers, or difficulty managing a large-scale, crowdsourced project.

    * Below-market wages.[16], or no wages at all. Barter agreements are often associated with crowdsourcing.

    * No written contracts, nondisclosure agreements, or employee agreements or agreeable terms with crowdsourced employees.

    * Difficulties maintaining a working relationship with crowdsourced workers throughout the duration of a project.

    * Susceptibility to faulty results caused by targeted, malicious work efforts.”

    Finally, is it safe to say you’ve entered the license plate info from all of your family and close friends into the database?

    I look forward to your response,

    Jerry

      (Quote)

  5. Katrina Lee: I would not put stock into the BBB they have no consistency among the different branches, They gave a internet company in florida a A+ when they had 98 complaints against them for various reasons, I had a complaint with them for falsifying a expiration date on a debit card so it would go thru. That is a banking violation!I have no problems with NARC, They are keeping up with their payments to me and I think that I am performing a service to the community and in other ways, think about insurance companies and banks who lose valuable collateral every year and are unable to recover portions or all of it. Do you really think that they “eat” the loss? Oh heavens no, they pass it on to you and me in the form of rate increases or other expenditures..
    So as far as Narc that Car comes from I think it isn’t any different than Amway or Shaklee or Mary Kay. Just because your not selling a “product”
    doesn’t mean it is a scam. We are just using Crowd Sourcing.. look it up.  

    Since I’m sure YOU did some due diligence for you to be able to defend this scam, you are the one to tell us exactly who the outside revenue source is. Seems not one of you is able to do this. Understandable since there isn’t one.

      (Quote)

  6. Wow, you folks sure like negativity, not sure where to start LuvNlife, Not everybody has access to the database, they have to be a viable company from what I understand, just because you sign up doesn’t mean your going to have access to the database, The company contacts you. do you attack Platescan.com the same way? Why don’t you check them out. Maybe they can drive up and down your street and get your license plate.

    Wikipedia is not a valid source I am sorry to say we can’t even use them for a reference on a research paper.

    “Wikipedia’s 15 million articles (3.2 million in English) have been written collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site” So tell me LNL what are the credentials of the volunteers around the world which can be edited by ANYONE with access to the site?

    and yes I have entered plates for my family and don’t have to for my friends they have signed up and entered them themselves..

    Well Jerry which scam are you referring to? supposed NARC or the BBB and how they handled the company with the 98 complaints and still managed to give them a A+

    One of the clients is in Texas near as I can ascertain but I am new so I don’t know that much but I do know the company paid out over $3,000,000 in commissions, including me. I have gotten all my money back that I started with plus a little more.

    Maybe you two need to attend a meeting or two.

    KLN

      (Quote)

  7. Katrina Lee:blah, blah, blah.
    waah you’re exposing us.

    Yeah, still failing to see proof of an outside revenue source. Pretty much know there isn’t one. But keep trying.

      (Quote)

  8. Katerina, assuming you are an honest and law abiding citizen and your family and friends are too.

    Please tell us what possible value a data base full of car plates like yours could have? The repo man wont want them and neither will law enforcement, nor Amber Alert.

    Someone has already pointed out, the cost of a data base of over a million members at 10 plate sitings per member per month would be exorbitant to set up and would still only represent less than 4% of cars on the road in the US. If it includes sitings of a majority of “innocent” members and others, the chances of any client finding any useful information would be like finding a needle in a haystack. The only way anyone would convince people of the contrary would be to show that Narc has real clients. Otherwise, with a self confessed 1% outside income, Narc screams both Pyramid and PONZI!

      (Quote)

  9. From the jaws of Jah…

    NarcThatCar has changed its name to Crowd Sourcing International. I am sure the BBB report had nothing to do with it.

    http://www.feedagg.com/feed/4676979/Cash-For-Car-Plates

    Amazing short and sweet nationwide company call for 34,000 reps we had tonight. We are no longer Narc That Car/Narc Technologies. As those of us who were in the Know, and understood, this opportunity is way bigger than just getting car plates for related auto finance companies.

    Our company has changed its name to Crowd Sourcing International, and plans to be a Billion dollar corporate giant.

    This is just a sign of the great things to come with this company and where it is going. If you don’t understand the power of Crowd Sourcing check out the story of the Ten Red Ballons and learn more about the power of Crowdsourcing see:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=darpa-network-challenge-results.

    More to come, but you don’t won’t to be left behind on this awesome unique home business opportunity. It’s simple and straight-forward and is changing the financial lives of many in a short time.

    Want to learn more about how to make a money collecting public data go here: snipped

      (Quote)

  10. Narc Technologies is a Scam. They have no customers. They make money from recruiting others into the business.
    It should not take them weeks to provide a list of clients.
    They are not going to last very long.

    So long,

    Peter

      (Quote)

  11. I was just introduced to this company today. As I sat there and listened to the gentleman giving the the presentation on the phone I stopped him cold and said to him “It sounds like we are getting paid to recruit”.

    I have been in several NM companies and I have learned that if you get paid to recruit the FCC will shut you down.

    You have to have a REAL product. There should be more people buying the products than selling them and that is the sign of a good company….

    I am sure there are more, but I can only think of 2 that are that way.

    I do not know much about this company, but the red flags are already starting to fly…

    I highly doubt I will be taking advantage of this company.

      (Quote)

  12. Peter Smith: Narc Technologies is a Scam. They have no customers. They make money from recruiting others into the business.It should not take them weeks to provide a list of clients.They are not going to last very long.So long,Peter  (Quote)

    This company is wonderful. They took a billion dollar industry, collections, and turned it into something that the average every day person could use. Non only that, but it will help locate stolen cars, abducted children and streamline the efforts of those needing these services.

    Safe bet that 90% of Americans drive a car. That means that this is a valuable resource, knowing where a car is or was on a certain day. Do you know how low the numbers are for cars that are stolen to be recovered? This system helps that!
    Banks need to make back the money they are losing from deadbeats that don’t pay their bills – and we need to get the government out of our banks. When we all work together we succeed.

    You want a pyramid scheme? Go work for a major corporation – where the top guy gets paid $1,000,000, and you are making $10.00 an hour. no thanks.

      (Quote)

  13. Monika Woods: This company is wonderful.

    It’s a pyramid scheme. There is no worthwhile product, the database is worthless, the only way to make money is to build a MLM style down-line.

    Monika Woods: They took a billion dollar industry, collections, and turned it into something that the average every day person could use.

    And charge the “every day person” for the privilege.

    Monika Woods: Non only that, but it will help locate stolen cars, abducted children and streamline the efforts of those needing these services.

    Not likely as has been proven elsewhere.

    Monika Woods: You want a pyramid scheme? Go work for a major corporation – where the top guy gets paid $1,000,000, and you are making $10.00 an hour. no thanks.

    Yet another common pyramid scheme player excuse. What’s next, “Social Security is a ponzi”?

    Stick to Mary Kay. At least it has a real product for a MLM company.

      (Quote)

  14. Monika Woods:

    You want a pyramid scheme? Go work for a major corporation – where the top guy gets paid $1,000,000, and you are making $10.00 an hour. no thanks.  

    Perhaps it’s time for a little education about the difference between a pyramid “SCHEME” and a pyramid “shaped” business structure here, Monica.

    A pyramid “SCHEME” has very little to do with a geometric pyramid “SHAPE” and is sometimes defined as being:

    “pyramid scheme (a fraudulent scheme in which people are recruited to make payments to the person who recruited them while expecting to receive payments from the persons they recruit; when the number of new recruits fails to sustain the hierarchical payment structure the scheme collapses with most of the participants losing the money they put in)”

    OR:

    “pyramid scheme (plural pyramid schemes)
    1. An illicit money-making investment scheme whereby early investors are paid primarily or wholly by later investors. Eventually all such schemes fail to the detriment of recent (later) investors”

    It is the fact pyramid “SCHEMES” rely “PRIMARILY” on payment/s for “RECRUITMENT” and not on the sale of goods or services, which leads to their being deemed illegal.

      (Quote)

  15. Forget what you all think. I joined yesterday. Made my money back already from joining, On top of that my close friend made 550$ in a month..FOR DOING NOTHING> FUCK All the bullshit involved….no contracts…no nothing to worry bout…just input plates n get paid….im ridin this ship till it drowns bitchessss

      (Quote)

  16. ….typical criminal mentality…..thanks for the comment, and congratulations on your successful entry into the criminal world!

    truthseeker: Forget what you all think. I joined yesterday. Made my money back already from joining, On top of that my close friend made 550$ in a month..FOR DOING NOTHING> FUCK All the bullshit involved….no contracts…no nothing to worry bout…just input plates n get paid….im ridin this ship till it drowns bitchessss  (Quote)

      (Quote)

  17. News
    BBB Rating ?
    posted by Billy Forester at 05 May, 2010 10:00 AM

    In light of the recent media interest concerning CSI in the Atlanta and Los Angeles markets, we are providing the following information that relates to our communications with the Dallas Better Business Bureau.

    We initially met with the BBB in February of this year and provided them with information and materials describing our business and the opportunity. That was followed over the next few weeks by telephone conferences in which the BBB requested further detail and explanatory data, most of which was provided to them. Nevertheless, the BBB’s highly negative early report and low company rating was published at that time when their Advertising Director concluded that our Company was not “cooperating” with their investigation.

    The BBB has asked for the contact information for our “clients”. This information is proprietary to both us and to the clients, many of whom prefer anonymity. Clients may be private investigators, skip tracers, attorneys, or repossessors who do not wish to have their identities and/or business affairs publicly disclosed ( i.e. in a BBB report). Our privacy policy required us to obtain consent from any clients whose data would be disclosed to the BBB. Nearly all of our hundreds of clients failed to respond to our request for written consent. During March, while we were seeking the client consents, the BBB further lowered our report rating to “F”, again citing non-cooperation, even though the Advertising Director’s email messages to one of our Attorneys concluded with the sentence “Thank you for your continued cooperation.“

    Currently, we have over 50,000 Consultants nationwide, representing a potential of more than 500,000 pieces of license and location data available to our clientele every single month. With continued growth, our database will become even more attractive for the many large commercial clients that we seek to serve. We believe that in the weeks and months to come, we will reach an understanding with the Better Business Bureau on the validity and market potential of this innovative Company. In the meantime, we ask all our Consultants to focus on pursuing their business in a positive fashion. It is low risk, easy to do, and offers a competitive long-term opportunity for those willing to put in the time and effort needed to build a substantial organization.

      (Quote)

  18. Dear Mr. Patrick Perry,

    Your reporting on Crowd Sourcing International (CSI) and its BBB rating will have credibility only when you have researched and reported on the scam that is the BBB.

    Except for some anecdotal experience with companies similar to CSI (and how many of those are there, really?), the BBB has no more expertise than you or I to rate any company on any criteria other than the feelings and personal bias of those determining the ratings.

    Here are a couple of examples of how crazy and unreliable the BBB rating system is.

    Since December 31, 2009, the Better Ethics Bureau found the BBB gave 18 failing banks passing grades before these banks were closed by the FDIC. Many of these banks were accredited, fee-paying, A+ rated members of the BBB when they were shut down. (Please see betterethicsbureau.org for the specifics on this potential story for your website.)

    If the BBB can’t get it right when it comes to something as important as banks are in the lives of consumers, then how can it possibly rate any other company, particularly a company that appears to be as innovative as Crowd Sourcing International?

    Still not convinced? Then check out BBBRoundUp.com. The editor for this website found the BBB gave a D- rating to the non-BBB member Boston Celtics of the NBA and an A+ to the accredited, fee-paying Denver Nuggets.

    Maybe you can justify for us how the BBB came up with these questionable ratings, and many others just like them.

    And this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the shadiness that surrounds core BBB operations, which the BBB keeps secret and “proprietary”.

    Sorry, Mr. Perry, and no offense, but until you do some investigative reporting of your own into the BBB, you will be counted as just another BBB shill by those who have.

    Scott Jordan
    Founder/Editor, Better Ethics Bureau
    (And Small Business Owner)

      (Quote)

  19. Scott Jordan: Your reporting on Crowd Sourcing International (CSI) and its BBB rating will have credibility only when you have researched and reported on the scam that is the BBB.

    Scott,

    Are you somehow under the misimpression that the PP Blog’s reporting on CSI/Narc That Car is based solely on what the BBB says?

    That’s hardly the case. You’ll find the Blog’s search function in the upper-right corner.

    Let me save you some time:

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/03/justice-department-amber-alert-system-no-way-affiliated-with-narc-that-car-mlm-program/

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/04/narc-that-car-not-a-part-of-secondary-amber-alert-system-national-center-for-missing-exploited-children-official-says-integrity-of-amber-alert-name-needs-to-be-protected/

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/16/narc-that-car-removes-reference-to-amber-alert-in-sales-video-after-justice-department-denied-link-to-mlm-program/

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/06/stop-the-madness-now-amberalerthelp-org-narc-that-car-promoters-continue-to-link-company-to-legacy-of-amber-hagerman/

    Perhaps you’d like to let our readers know what Narc should do with all of the money it collected based on misrepresentations.

    Or do you think your dislike of the BBB and your theory that the PP Blog will have credibility “only” after it researches and reports “on the scam that is the BBB” are what readers should focus on if they’re thinking about joining CSI/Narc?

    It is absolutely true that the Blog has referred to the BBB in its reporting on CSI/Narc. What you seem to be suggesting, however, is that all of our stories about CSI/Narc lack credibility because they do not bash the BBB.

    If I’m reading you correctly, you don’t like the BBB very much — and because of your dislike of the BBB and the fact we have cited the BBB in reports on CSI/Narc — you’d have readers believe the PP Blog’s reporting on CSI/Narc is seriously flawed and/or cannot be trusted.

    Isn’t that what you mean when you say our reporting about CSI/Narc will have credibility “only” when we agree with you and report that the BBB is a “scam?”

    That’s quite a leap of logic, Scott. It’s also highly presumptuous of you.

    Just so you know, you’re not going to see any reports on the PP Blog that trash the BBB. I do believe the BBB is capable of making mistakes — and, yes, I’m aware that some people and businesses aren’t fans of the BBB. I’m also well aware of criticism directed at the BBB.

    Regardless, I believe the BBB serves a noble purpose and is beneficial to both consumers and the BBB membership.

    Scott Jordan: and no offense, but until you do some investigative reporting of your own into the BBB, you will be counted as just another BBB shill by those who have.

    Did you really mean “no offense” was intended — and then instantly follow up those words by planting the seed that the PP Blog is a “shill” for the BBB?

    Of course you meant to offend. That’s why you used a flying elbow in the very first sentence of your comment and closed your comment with another flying elbow. You’d also like to drive some traffic to your anti-BBB site.

    Please know that it’s easy enough for me to live without your stamp of approval and your opinion on my reporting skills.

    You gave me some advice on how I could be a better reporter. Let me offer you some advice on how to be a more effective communicator:

    Do some research on the use of passive-aggressive language. Such language frequently is directed at this Blog, and it’s often encased in smilies or presented in a way in which the dagger is buried by seemingly polite language.

    You’re free to criticize this Blog, Scott. Indeed, a good number of people use its Comments function to give me hell or even call me names because they disagree with something I’ve published.

    They, like you, are entitled to their opinions and even the presumptions and fallacies of logic that lay waste to them.

    It’s this simple to me, Scott: You don’t like the BBB and are presuming that the PP Blog’s reporting on CSI/Narc is based solely on the BBB says about the company. You’d prefer that I not like the BBB. But because I don’t trash the BBB or point out in each and every story that cites the BBB that some people don’t like the BBB, you want people to believe that this Blog is a “shill” for the BBB and, for that reason, you’d like readers to conclude our reporting on CSI/Narc is unreliable.

    About the best thing I can say about your comment is that you’re entitled not to like the BBB and you’re passionate about not liking it.

    The worst thing I can say about it is that it’s not apt to influence people who don’t check their brains at the door when they take the time to visit the PP Blog and analyze its content.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  20. admin: Scott,Are you somehow under the misimpression that the PP Blog’s reporting on CSI/Narc That Car is based solely on what the BBB says?That’s hardly the case. You’ll find the Blog’s search function in the upper-right corner.Let me save you some time:http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/03/justice-department-amber-alert-system-no-way-affiliated-with-narc-that-car-mlm-program/http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/04/narc-that-car-not-a-part-of-secondary-amber-alert-system-national-center-for-missing-exploited-children-official-says-integrity-of-amber-alert-name-needs-to-be-protected/http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/16/narc-that-car-removes-reference-to-amber-alert-in-sales-video-after-justice-department-denied-link-to-mlm-program/http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/06/stop-the-madness-now-amberalerthelp-org-narc-that-car-promoters-continue-to-link-company-to-legacy-of-amber-hagerman/Perhaps you’d like to let our readers know what Narc should do with all of the money it collected based on misrepresentations. Or do you think your dislike of the BBB and your theory that the PP Blog will have credibility “only” after it researches and reports “on the scam that is the BBB” are what readers should focus on if they’re thinking about joining CSI/Narc?It is absolutely true that the Blog has referred to the BBB in its reporting on CSI/Narc. What you seem to be suggesting, however, is that all of our stories about CSI/Narc lack credibility because they do not bash the BBB.If I’m reading you correctly, you don’t like the BBB very much — and because of your dislike of the BBB and the fact we have cited the BBB in reports on CSI/Narc — you’d have readers believe the PP Blog’s reporting on CSI/Narc is seriously flawed and/or cannot be trusted.Isn’t that what you mean when you say our reporting about CSI/Narc will have credibility “only” when we agree with you and report that the BBB is a “scam?”That’s quite a leap of logic, Scott. It’s also highly presumptuous of you. Just so you know, you’re not going to see any reports on the PP Blog that trash the BBB. I do believe the BBB is capable of making mistakes — and, yes, I’m aware that some people and businesses aren’t fans of the BBB. I’m also well aware of criticism directed at the BBB. Regardless, I believe the BBB serves a noble purpose and is beneficial to both consumers and the BBB membership.Did you really mean “no offense” was intended — and then instantly follow up those words by planting the seed that the PP Blog is a “shill” for the BBB?Of course you meant to offend. That’s why you used a flying elbow in the very first sentence of your comment and closed your comment with another flying elbow. You’d also like to drive some traffic to your anti-BBB site.Please know that it’s easy enough for me to live without your stamp of approval and your opinion on my reporting skills. You gave me some advice on how I could be a better reporter. Let me offer you some advice on how to be a more effective communicator: Do some research on the use of passive-aggressive language. Such language frequently is directed at this Blog, and it’s often encased in smilies or presented in a way in which the dagger is buried by seemingly polite language.You’re free to criticize this Blog, Scott. Indeed, a good number of people use its Comments function to give me hell or even call me names because they disagree with something I’ve published.They, like you, are entitled to their opinions and even the presumptions and fallacies of logic that lay waste to them. It’s this simple to me, Scott: You don’t like the BBB and are presuming that the PP Blog’s reporting on CSI/Narc is based solely on the BBB says about the company. You’d prefer that I not like the BBB. But because I don’t trash the BBB or point out in each and every story that cites the BBB that some people don’t like the BBB, you want people to believe that this Blog is a “shill” for the BBB and, for that reason, you’d like readers to conclude our reporting on CSI/Narc is unreliable.About the best thing I can say about your comment is that you’re entitled not to like the BBB and you’re passionate about not liking it. The worst thing I can say about it is that it’s not apt to influence people who don’t check their brains at the door when they take the time to visit the PP Blog and analyze its content.Patrick  (Quote)

    Mr. Perry,

    I pretty much rest my case. Judging from your words, you are, for all practical purposes, a shill for the BBB. Given your reporting concerning the BBB so far, this comes as no surprise.

    And I meant what I said, sir. Please take no offense. Please take action instead. I can hope only that someday, for the sake of millions of businesses the BBB smears everyday with its wacky rating system and its multitude of misrepresentations, you will set aside your feelings and do a better job of scrutinizing the BBB than you have me.

    And to be honest, you show plenty of signs of being passive-aggressive yourself, but who the heck cares?

    The fact is my findings about the many, inexcusable–and too often, terribly damaging–mistakes and misrepresentations the BBB makes are well researched and documented. My reports concerning the BBB stand on their own merits, regardless of how I feel personally about the BBB.

    (And don’t get me started on the BBB’s questionable sales practices. There’s another story for you there when you get around to becoming an independent reporter again.)

    You can’t bury the truth about the BBB simply by shooting the messenger.

    Nice try, though.

    Scott Jordan
    Founder/Editor, Better Ethics Bureau
    (And A Small Business Owner)

    PS: Please note that I do not comment on CSI one way or the other. But one thing for sure, I will not make any decision on CSI based on what the BBB says, and neither should anyone else, without a full understanding of how the BBB really operates.

    To be fair to CSI, you must refer your readers to those who, for good reason, have issues with the BBB, even if you don’t. This way your readers can determine for themselves if the BBB’s influence in the marketplace is trustworthy or not. SJ

      (Quote)

  21. Scott,

    The BBB’s involvement has nothing to do with the preponderance of data that points to CSI as a pure scam. For starters, no one has ever suggested a viable use for the data gathered by CSI, given that the data is at best suspect and out of date. Further, no one has adequately refuted the near-zero, or in many cases negative, value of the data in the database. In addition, no one has produced credible, verifiable evidence of even a single independent customer for the data, although names like Ford have been bandied about by the criminals supporting and promoting this scam. Thus, the BBB information, even if it is flawed in its credibility as you claim, has zero influence on the scam status of NTC/CSI. Thus, your assertion that PP should direct people with questions concerning CSI to people who oppose the BBB, such as yourself, seems inappropriate. Do you really have the credibility to provide rational arguments one way or the other concerning the scam that is CSI????

      (Quote)

  22. Poor Scotty……..just another narcthatponzi shill like jah. Funny how you fail miserably at criticising the scam for itself basing it’s merits on a previous positive rating by the BBB, yet when asked to provide factual information, failed itself to do so thus resulting in the now unsatisfactory rating it deserves of ‘F’. And now you proponents cry and say the BBB is some sort of scam when it doesn’t fit your agenda and makes your ponzi fail. Your, and your fellow scammers hypocrisy is what dooms you to fail every time.

      (Quote)

  23. Hello, Mr. Jordan;

    Three points:

    Your signature is:
    Scott Jordan
    Founder/Editor, Better Ethics Bureau

    1) As an editor, one would think that you’d observe that this blog is titled PatrickPRETTY, as in P R E T T Y. However, you address your comments to “Mr. Perry”. From that, one can infer that you are either careless with details or are deliberately misspelling the name for some reason. Either way, you detract from your credibility by so doing, at least with me.

    2) You have repeatedly referred to Patrick as a “shill” for the BBB. Question: Why would someone not connected with the BBB be a “shill” for the organization? Your comments in this regard lack foundation or logic, and therefore detract from the point you are trying to make, at least with me.

    3) Your repeated comments about the BBB appear to be a red herring that you are dragging across the trail to distract readers from the obvious negatives surrounding NARC/CSI. Those of us who have observed/analyzed/exposed internet scams for any significant length of time (and there are many of us)can spot them almost upon first review. The BBB’s treatment is not relevant to this body of observers.

    In other words, eliminate every reference to the BBB from this discussion and one is still left with the conclusion that NARC/CSIO is a dubious venture at best and an obvious scam at worst. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. – you know the saying.

    – PWD

      (Quote)

  24. Thank you to Pat Dunn for expressing my thoughts exactly! I was introduced to this company in November, 2009, and smelled a rat immediately. If NTC/CSI really had clients for their information, it seems to me that, by this time, there would be some “success stories” of cars, abducted children, or something, that were found as a result of their huge database of license plate numbers of cars that were at a certain location at a certain time. The only “success stories” are of those who are profiting from the Ponzi scheme.

      (Quote)

  25. To all that have responded to my second post,

    If you wish to hold to your positions and look past all the evidence against the BBB, then red herring all you want. I can’t help you.

    However, there may be those who wish to investigate for themselves why the BBB can’t be trusted. They might judge for themselves that the BBB isn’t past many misrepresentations of its own to smear, to intimidate and, ultimately, to make money and lots of it.

    If so, then I do what I ask of Mr. Pretty. (And thanks for the correction on the spelling of his name.)

    You all, including Mr. Pretty, seem hell bent to take down CSI based on far less evidence than what’s out there on the unethical practices of the BBB. This cheapens your credibility with me.

    Maybe it does, and will, for others too.

    Scott Jordan
    Founder/Editor, Better Ethics Bureau
    Small Business Owner

      (Quote)

  26. Scott Jordan: To all that have responded to my second post,If you wish to hold to your positions and look past all the evidence against the BBB, then red herring all you want.I can’t help you.However, there may be those who wish to investigate for themselves why the BBB can’t be trusted.They might judge for themselves that the BBB isn’t past many misrepresentations of its own to smear, to intimidate and, ultimately, to make money and lots of it.If so, then I do what I ask of Mr. Pretty. (And thanks for the correction on the spelling of his name.)You all, including Mr. Pretty, seem hell bent to take down CSI based on far less evidence than what’s out there on the unethical practices of the BBB.This cheapens your credibility with me.Maybe it does, and will, for others too.Scott Jordan
    Founder/Editor, Better Ethics Bureau
    Small Business Owner  

    Then why haven’t YOU provided the outside, verifiable revenue source that everyone has been asking as proof that this is not a ponzi (and that’s all anyone has asked for…..BBB included) and why have you not condemned the ponzi itself for bragging that the BBB initially gave them an ‘A’ rating? Why the continued hypocrisy? How bad is this hurting your recruiting into the ponzi?
    You are more a fraud than you claim the BBB to be.

      (Quote)

  27. Whip,

    Ah, Whip, shooting the messenger again, are we?

    Just for the record, I am not affiliated with CSI in anyway. If you have evidence to the contrary, put up or shut up.

    The fact is that you hide behind the code name “Whip”, so you can make all the false statements you want.

    I am who I say I am. My story is out there for all to see.

    The BBB is one shady institution. Because of a preponderence of evidence to this end, I wouldn’t put it past the BBB to twist and misrepresent facts to smear CSI.

    I make my case that the BBB is shady at betterethicsbureau.org.

    Saying rotten, untrue things about me doesn’t change what is demonstratedly true about the BBB.

    Hey, wait a minute, you are not affliated with the BBB in any way, are you?

    Oh, that’s right, you are hiding your identity. Sorry!

    Like I said, while my story is out there for everyone to see, what are you hiding, Whip?

    I know this much about you, you are not above false accusations to make your point. So, what other nefarious activities might you be up to? Smearing companies you admittedly also know little about, perhaps?

    Mr. Pretty, is Whip the best you can do? Assuming Whip isn’t you, of course.

    Scott Jordan
    You know the rest

      (Quote)

  28. Scott Jordan: shooting the messenger again, are we

    The “messenger” in your phrase is normally an independent or innocent party not connected with the events. Are you saying that you are writing your replies on behalf of someone else? If so who are you the “messenger” for?

    Scott Jordan: The fact is that you hide behind the code name “Whip”, so you can make all the false statements you want.

    The “Anonymity Augment” as used by the ponzi supporters might carry more weight if your own web site wasn’t registered anonymously by a domain proxy.

    Scott Jordan: I am who I say I am. My story is out there for all to see.

    The BBB is one shady institution. Because of a preponderence of evidence to this end, I wouldn’t put it past the BBB to twist and misrepresent facts to smear CSI.

    Just to confirm, are you the same Scott Jordan of Jordan Janitorial, Mesa, Arizona? If so, I am curious why someone would go to so much effort and create so much fuss when the business Jordan Janitorial got an A- rating.
    http://www.bbb.org/central-northern-western-arizona/business-reviews/janitor-service/jordan-janitorial-in-mesa-az-97032097/

    P.S. I like the “Whip is Patrick is affiliated with the BBB” conspiracy theory. Nearly as good as the “Patrick is an agent of the evilgovernment” theory spouted by the ASD/iNetGlobal numpties.

      (Quote)

  29. Tony H: evilgovernment

    Hi Tony,

    LOL. I saw that comment from d_b about the morphing of evilgovernment into a single word. I think it might have some shelf life.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  30. Hello again, Mr. Jordan;

    You said, “You all, including Mr. Pretty, seem hell bent to take down CSI based on far less evidence than what’s out there on the unethical practices of the BBB. This cheapens your credibility with me.”

    Your ranting about the BBB appears to for the purpose of distracting from the purpose of the blog – thus my “red herring” observation.

    Your single-minded, relentless attack on the BBB may even be for valid reasons. However, I, for one, am not particularly interested in that subject.

    Why? My perception is that businesses have the ability to deal with whatever issues need to be dealt with regarding the BBB – and I was a business owner for 40+ years before retiring, so I speak from that perspective.

    On the other hand, internet investment/business opportunity scams have defrauded many disabled, widowed, elderly and other disadvantaged people over many years. Reporting on these scams – and perhaps protecting a few people from being victimized – appears to be the purposes of this blog. That does interest me – and presumably other readers here.

    So, feel free to rant, since that appears to be your passion. But understand that the BBB is pretty much irrelevant to whatever happens with CSI. If CSI is legit, the company has repeatedly been invited to document the facts required to prove it – and it’ll survive.

    On the other hand, if it’s a scam, it’ll attract the attention of the authorities and CSI will come to the same fate as the other “ducks” it looks like and quacks like.

    – PWD

      (Quote)

  31. admin:
    Hi Tony,LOL. I saw that comment from d_b about the morphing of evilgovernment into a single word. I think it might have some shelf life.Patrick  

    Without wishing to appear my usual arrogant self.

    I’d like to point out that the word in question is more correctly spelled “evilGUBment”

      (Quote)

  32. littleroundman: I’d like to point out that the word in question is more correctly spelled “evilGUBment”

    Duly noted, LRM. I might even leave the GUB uppercase if an occasion arises that would make “evilGUBment” an important part of a story.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  33. Scott Jordan: is Whip the best you can do? Assuming Whip isn’t you, of course.

    Scott,

    Narc/CSI pitchman “Jah” also advanced a conspiracy theory I was Whip. Ever correspond with him?

    You can read about Jah’s conspiracy theory here:

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/03/14/special-report-license-plate-database-populated-by-narc-that-car-affiliates-will-be-used-to-locate-people-firm-changing-name-to-crowd-sourcing-international-vp-rene-couch-to-lay-out-vision/

    It seems the cornerstone of Jah’s conspiracy theory is that I post under the name “Whip” here and perhaps elsewhere to drive traffic to my site.

    Jah’s wrong about that. I am not Whip. Nor am I “Entertained” or Pat Dunn, both of whom post here and have made important contributions to discussions. One of the AdSurfDaily folks planted the seed I was “Entertained.” If memory serves, it was one of the AdViewGlobal folks who suggested I might be Pat Dunn.

    Just so you know, AVG was closely linked to the alleged ASD Ponzi scheme. AVG tanked a year ago this week, reportedly taking millions of dollars from members. It looks as though the combined AVG/ASD haul was $100 million — plus or minus a few million.

    The very first sales pitches I saw about CSI/Narc were from ASD members. This told me a few things:

    1.) People who push Ponzi and HYIP schemes were pushing CSI/Narc.
    2.) People who received payments from Ponzi/HYIP schemes could be using proceeds from those schemes to pay the $100 one-time outlay (and the $24.95-a-month fee for a website) to join CSI/Narc.
    3.) CSI/Narc’s money stream could be polluted by Ponzi proceeds and also by the misrepresentations by members — and not just ASD members, mind you. Any number of people could have joined CSI/Narc believing they were supporting the AMBER Alert system, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

    They also could have joined believing that Ford and other major car manufacturers endorsed CSI/Narc.

    One of the cool things about Entertained is that he is good at crunching numbers and analyzing the mathematics of Ponzi schemes. One of the cool things about Pat Dunn is that he can take a complex analysis and reduce it to its essence.

    Here is one of Pat’s most memorable (to me) comments:

    http://patrickpretty.com/2009/01/03/asd-sustainability-black-box-entertained/comment-page-1/#comment-138

    On a side note, you might want to read the story above Pat’s comment linked above. It was written by Entertained and was one of the most popular articles on the PP Blog in 2009. It helped a lot of people because it introduced them to the math of Ponzi schemes.

    And here is how Entertained assessed an important piece of the Narc/CSI mathematical puzzle:

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/04/narc-that-car-not-a-part-of-secondary-amber-alert-system-national-center-for-missing-exploited-children-official-says-integrity-of-amber-alert-name-needs-to-be-protected/comment-page-2/#comment-9214

    As a side note, Jah condemned the PP Blog on Feb. 9 (after his second post here) for what he described as its “clear lack of objectivity.” Jah had the opportunity to answer questions here. He declined, claiming the PP Blog was guilty of spreading “hate” through “sophisticated ‘sound bits’ and excerpts to suit the owner of this blogs objective.”

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/06/stop-the-madness-now-amberalerthelp-org-narc-that-car-promoters-continue-to-link-company-to-legacy-of-amber-hagerman/comment-page-1/#comment-9081

    Jah noted that he had performed “due diligence” on CSI/Narc. He did not explain how his claim of due diligence was consistent with his practice of not answering reasonable questions such as whether CSI/Narc members needed to obtain the permission of store owners while recording plate numbers on private property.

    You’ll see the questions Jah declined to answer here:

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/06/stop-the-madness-now-amberalerthelp-org-narc-that-car-promoters-continue-to-link-company-to-legacy-of-amber-hagerman/comment-page-1/#comment-9060

    Scott Jordan: Just for the record, I am not affiliated with CSI in anyway.

    Jah, who said he performed “due diligence” but declined to answer basic questions about CSI/Narc after stating here that prospects needed to get information from people who “truly” know CSI/Narc, then started to attack the BBB.

    Do you have any concerns about Jah pitching the purported propriety of CSI/Narc by pointing people to your domain, which uses the word “Ethics” in its title?

    Here is the URL from which Jah prompts readers to visit your site:

    http://crowdsourcingintl.net/BBB/

    Jah, who was accused of practicing law without a license about six years ago and was assessed a civil penalty by the Ohio Supreme Court, has told CSI/Narc prospects in a purported training video that they don’t need to talk to “anybody” when recording license-plate numbers on private property.

    In his training video, Jah advised prospects that they could go home and look up an address on the Internet and enter it into the CSI/Narc database. He also advised prospects that repping for Narc was like working for the U.S. “Census Bureau.” He also produced check-waving videos and declared that plate data is “public information.”

    When visitors to Jah’s BBB rant site click on the link to your site, they are shown your URL when hovering over the link. But when the page loads after visitors click on the link, the URL in the browser window is Jah’s URL. This is potentially confusing to people who click on the link because it creates the impression that Jah’s site and your site are one in the same.

    Your page loads, but the URL is http://crowdsourcingintl.net/BBB/, the URL of Jah’s BBB rant site.

    Are you OK with that in light of the fact that Jah declares at his site that he provides “Due Diligence About The CSI Opportunity” but then declines to answer questions — even after saying he “truly” knows the program?

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  34. To Tony H, Re Shooting the messenger. In ancient times, messengers who bore news that displeased the king were often killed, sometimes on the spot. This is the root of the phrase “shooting the messenger” as it is used today.

    Applying this to our situation, I, as the “messenger”, have been “shot” (attacked personally), while my message (the BBB can’t be trusted) gets little or no scrutiny.

    “Shooting the messenger” is a cheap debate trick.

    Can you now see how it has been used against me quite often in this thread and understand why I am obliged to point it out when it is?

    Re You All: You have some personal stuff on me now. I hope you find it adds to my credibility. It should. Dig a little deeper and you will find how I came to advocate so strongly against the BBB.

    Why I do I advocate against the BBB? It is because the BBB today needlessly damages the reputations of millions of businesses. It does this in a number of ways. Advocating against the BBB is a good and worthy cause and I am happy to be a small part of this effort.

    The damage the BBB does on a daily basis to good, honest, hard-working people makes anything the CSI does, even in your worst CSI nightmare, look like child’s play. And I am not the only one who feels this way.

    In my opinion, Mr. Pretty’s report uses the findings of a shady outfit (the BBB) to strengthen his case against CSI. Mr. Pretty knows there are problems with the BBB, but does not point these out in his report. Because he doesn’t, his report gives more credence to the BBB than it should and so is unfair to CSI. This is why I got involved.

    All this being said, no one, not even anyone involved with CSI, can blame you for having a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to CSI. You are entitled to your opinions of where CSI is heading, but, you project too much evil-doing and disaster on too little information in my book.

    Of you all, a seasoned Mr. Dunn says it best: “If CSI is legit, the company has repeatedly been invited to document the facts required to prove it – and it’ll survive.

    On the other hand, if it’s a scam, it’ll attract the attention of the authorities and CSI will come to the same fate as the other “ducks” it looks like and quacks like.”

    What is he says is still hard on CSI, but it does gives CSI a little breathing room to find its footing.

    And that’s fair enough for me.

    May I now recommend that you go and do to the same kind of investigation and reporting on the BBB, for the sake of the millions businesses it disparages every day?

    Any such effort would be greatly appreciated by more people than you can imagine.

    Scott Jordan

      (Quote)

  35. Re: Mr. Pretty when he wrote:

    “Narc/CSI pitchman “Jah” also advanced a conspiracy theory I was Whip. Ever correspond with him?” And all related comments . . .

    I honestly didn’t think you would take something said tongue-in-cheek so seriously!

    Wow, if only you would only address what I have written about the BBB as serious, we would be getting somewhere.

    So far, you refuse to qualify BBB information when you use it to make your case against one of your targeted companies, in this case, CSI.

    I, and others, have consolidated a preponderence of information about how the BBB really operates and yet you still choose to ignore it.

    I don’t know why we have to keep going around and around about this. Do you?

    And no, at first read, I don’t find any misrepresentations about Jah’s use of the information at my website and others.

    Like I said before, I can’t vouch for CSI, but I know for a fact you can’t trust the BBB.

    Time will tell if CSI used my site and others to advance illegal schemes. If they do, no one will find anything on my site that supports CSI one way or the other. The same as here.

    I have only questioned your use of an extremely questionable BBB against another company (that just happens to be CSI). I don’t know why this is so hard for you to understand.

    Let me give you some ideas for some investigation into CSI where you can come with some hard data against them.

    Jah says CSI cleared their operations with 10-12 AG’s. Have you looked into this claim? If CSI is really operating this far above board, wouldn’t that be an indication that CSI is legit? Wouldn’t this be easy enough for you to debunk and bury CSI accordingly, if AG’s have condemned CSI operations as illegal? This seems easy enough for you to do.

    Think about it, if you can get an AG or two to come publically against CSI in a state where CSI is operating, what more would you need?

    Also, according to Jah, CSI also has some pretty impressive attorneys working for them, ones whom, you would think, would think twice about signing up with a questionable outfit. Have you looked into deeper into their backgrounds?

    You may have fertile ground here to take down CSI, if you really wanted to. That you may not need to take what a shaky BBB says at face value to make your point on CSI is what I am saying.

    By the way, Jah also linked to at least one article about the BBB I hadn’t seen yet–yet another news article addressing the wackiness that is the BBB rating system and how it hurts businesspeople and consumers alike. How many does that make now?

    A preponderence of evidence from mulitple sources . . . and you choose to ignore it all?

    At the end of the day, I don’t think you will continue to ignore the ever-growing pile of evidence against the BBB.

    For good reason, I have faith in you all that, when push comes to shove, you will do the right thing.

    Scott Jordan

      (Quote)

  36. Hello again, Mr. Jordan;

    You said, “At the end of the day, I don’t think you will continue to ignore the ever-growing pile of evidence against the BBB.”

    Are you unwilling – or unable – to see that the primary focus of this blog is internet investment and “business opportunity” scams?

    Whatever the BBB might or might not be doing, its activities fall outside the normal scope of Patrick’s blog, and your bullying (and boring) rants don’t change that fact.

    You have a venue for your views – and other sites, perhaps scam.com, would be more appropriate for your monomaniacal comments.

    (Merriam-Webster defines monomania as:
    1 : mental illness especially when limited in expression to one idea or area of thought
    2 : excessive concentration on a single object or idea
    Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monomania)

    – PWD

      (Quote)

  37. Scott,

    Jah has repeatedly been shown to never have any relevant, verifiable data to back any of his arguments either here or elsewhere. In fact, it is normally quite easy to refute with data all of his arguments regarding NTC/CSI. While that alone does not invalidate his arguments against the BBB, if I were in your shoes, I’d try to distance myself as far as possible from that guy. He’s the kind of “friend” you don’t need to bolster your case against the BBB — you know, the crazy criminal Ponzi promoter kind of friend…..and no, that’s not slander.

      (Quote)

  38. wow. this is simply stupid. a bunch of adults who must hold on to nonsense in order to have something ‘meaningful’ to do. what i mean is your alleged understanding and use of the word SCAM.

    currently, i am not involved in any NWM or MLM; i however, understand the business and the risks/rewards involved.

    there is nothing wrong with being objective. if you want to say, “this business wouldn’t good because…” that makes perfect sense.

    first, the problem is everyone loves to get quite philosophical when it suits their agenda. …oh, just what is a ‘scam’. bullshit! gettig got by people like bernie madoff is a scam. oh no, but he was a trusted professional right? i’ll define what a scam is to you.

    you are scammed when you pay for something upfront…and get nothing in return.

    a scam is when you pay for a product and it doesn’t perform as promised, not because of ‘user error’…but because it simply does not contain the proper ingredients/parts to ever provide the expected outcome.

    a scam is paying into something with the expectation of a return as promised by the solicitor…and getting nothing.

    get the idea? you pay something and you get nothing. not metaphorically, literally you get nothing.

    if there is a NWM/MLM business that does not pay reps after they’ve done what was expected to earn a commission…THEN THAT IS A SCAM!

    many people have never been employed on commission status…so they’ll never understand a NWM/MLM pay structure and chalk it up as a scam! you fools! don’t know that some of the professionals you interact with ad ‘trust’ earn commissions.

    many of the pay structures are the same found with NWM/MLM…Realtors, Loan Officers, Insurance Salesperson, etc.

    think about it…why the hell would these companies pay an hourly rate to the reps? your a company promoting some product and not only do you have to pay for production you have to pay thousands of reps an hourly rate…many of which are doing absolutely NOTHING.

    do you know how silly the notion?

    a more accurate assessment is whether or not the product/service is unique or that it even works!

    amway has gone to court, won it’s case…advertise nationally and sponsor professional athletes. AND PEOPLE STILL SCREAM SCAM.

    finally, do everyone a favor. if you’re going to label something a scam use the criteria i referenced. ask yourself the question, “are people NOT compensated for the products they’ve sold?”

    question the product or service.

    when you simply categorize something as worthless without making an objective observation…THAT is a SCAM!

    if anyone wants to get a better take at whether or not a company is ‘funny-money’ use ripoffreport.com.

    take care, you squares.

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply