INetGlobal Enters Objection To Magistrate Judge’s Ruling Permitting Government To Approach ‘Current And Former’ Employees In Ponzi Probe

Steve Renner

The investigation into the business practices of INetGlobal is turning into a legal slog reminiscent of the AdSurfDaily autosurf Ponzi scheme case.

In April, attorney Paul Engh filed a motion, saying he represented INetGlobal employees. Among other things, Engh sought an order that effectively would have blocked the U.S. Secret Service from interviewing the employees, as the agency’s Ponzi probe into the company moved forward.

Engh asserted that, by contacting employees on a cold-call basis, the government was  conducting the investigation “on some federalist notion of superiority or entitled sense of un-accountability.”

Prosecutors shot back in May, claiming INetGlobal was trying to derail the probe.

“Mr. Engh indicates that he ‘was hired’ to represent these employees, but refrains from indicating who it was who hired him,” prosecutors said. They added that “many of [Engh’s] purported clients seem to have never spoken with him.”

On May 28, U.S. Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel issued an order that required Engh to compile  “a complete list of the names of current and former Inter-Mark and iNetGlobal employees whom he purports to represent” and permitted the government to continue to contact both current and former employees.

“Before interviewing current and former employees of Inter-Mark and iNetGlobal, law enforcement shall first ask each individual if he or she is represented by an attorney,” Noel wrote in the order.

“If the individual responds that he or she is not represented by counsel, the interview may proceed,” Noel continued. “If, however, the individual indicates that he or she is represented by an attorney, law enforcement shall ask that individual for the name of his or her lawyer; at that time, questioning must immediately cease until such a time as the Government’s attorney obtains the consent of the lawyer named, whether Mr. Engh or otherwise, to communicate with the individual ‘about the subject of the representation.'”

Last week, Engh filed an “appeal from the order,” saying the judge is misinterpreting the law and that INetGlobal employees are entitled to protection from “isolated and surprise contact” by the government.

In February, the U.S. Secret Service said it believed INetGlobal operator Steve Renner was running an international Ponzi scheme through his affiliated companies that largely targeted Chinese members, including members from Mainland China. No criminal charges have been filed, but the government has seized about $26 million in the case, alleging wire fraud and money-laundering.

Prosecutors later filed filed a forfeiture complaint against a San Diego property allegedly acquired for $595,000 by Inter-Mark in August 2009 with criminal proceeds from a Ponzi, wire-fraud and money-laundering scheme.

Inter-Mark is INetGlobal’s Las Vegas-based parent company. INetGlobal operates from Minneapolis. Renner has denied wrongdoing.

Donald Allen

In late April, Donald W.R. Allen II, a former Renner employee, said he’d been contacted by the Secret Service and was cooperating in the probe “100 percent.”

Allen complained that the company had blocked access to a public-affairs Blog he published and that he was being punished by the firm “for coming forward to answer ANY questions the Government has regarding iNetGlobal.”

Renner then got a restraining order against Allen, asserting that Allen tried to extort $100,000 from the company and had engaged in a pattern of abusive behavior, including raising “havoc” with employees, threatening “to destroy him and his family,” posting libelous and defamatory material on the Internet and engaging in verbal harassment.

Allen also was accused to taking pictures of Renner’s offices and employees without their consent.

“[Allen] has attempted to extort $100,000 from Petitioner’s businesses [and] if not paid will go to the FBI and Secret Service,” Renner asserted.

Allen denied Renner’s claims, saying Renner had made similar extortion claims against Steven Keough, INetGlobal’s former chief executive officer and potentially the government’s star witness in the case.

Ponzi litigation against assets tied to AdSurfDaily has been under way for nearly two years. The government has been awarded title to tens of millions of dollars seized in the ASD case, but ASD President Andy Bowdoin has filed an appeal.

About the Author

5 Responses to “INetGlobal Enters Objection To Magistrate Judge’s Ruling Permitting Government To Approach ‘Current And Former’ Employees In Ponzi Probe”

  1. has Renner started his 18 month stint yet?

      (Quote)

  2. Why not throw them all in jail and sort it out as they go!

      (Quote)

  3. Throw them all in and all you will have to pay taxes to support them when they are in. Guess you do not mind prosecuting innocent people Paul. Shoot and ask questions later.

      (Quote)

  4. jesse: Throw them all in and all you will have to pay taxes to support them

    No, no, “Paul” is on the right track but he is too much of a left-wing liberal (or whatever Little Bobbie’s fav phrase was) to see the real solution.
    Lets bring back hanging!!!!! It’s a simple solution!!!!! Just think – no taxes needed to keep them behind bars!!!!! And to pay the costs of a trial & lawyers, lets film the hanging on prime time TV!!!!! Just thing of the advertising revenue!!!!! It would bring in more money than any “business” advertised on the ASD or iNetGlobal rotators combined!!!!!

    (Please note the “5 exclamation points of satire” as used by ASD/AVG promotional emails.)

      (Quote)

  5. jesse: jesse

    Are you the same “jesse” who claimed on May 9 that “the government already acknowledged with good sources that inetglobal is not a ponzi scheme?”

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/05/05/bulletin-steve-renner-operator-of-inetglobal-autosurf-sentenced-to-18-months-in-federal-prison-in-tax-case-tied-to-his-money-services-business/comment-page-1/#comment-10737

    The reason I ask is that you never cited your proof. If you are right about this, it seems the investigation should have ended by now and you should have no reason to be posting here today, weeks after you made the claim the government acknowledged no Ponzi scheme existed.

    Are you aware that AdSurfDaily members made the same claim repeatedly that the government confessed that no Ponzi existed?

    Just so you know, I’ve looked very closely at the court docket in the INetGlobal investigation and have not found a shred of evidence that would substantiate your claim — not from the government’s side, and not from the attorneys arguing on behalf of INetGlobal.

    I mean, there is nothing on the docket that even remotely resembles an acknowledgment by the government that INetGlobal was operating legally. In fact, after the government filed the affidavit in February saying it believed INetGlobal was committing wire fraud and laundering money while operating an international Ponzi scheme, it followed up by filing a separate case against a building in San Diego allegedly acquired with proceeds from a fraud scheme.

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/05/07/bulletin-renner-case-takes-west-coast-turn-prosecutors-seek-forfeiture-of-san-diego-property-allegedly-bought-with-funds-from-inetglobal-advertisers/

    The government then strenuously argued against INetGlobal’s claims that investigators should not be permitted to interview INetGlobal employees.

    How is that consistent with your claim the government has acknowledged no Ponzi scheme existed?

    Just so you know, I scoured every piece of public information in the ASD case, looking for proof of members’ claims that the government had acknowledged no Ponzi scheme existed. I found no such proof in more than 175 documents I read from cover to cover multiple times. Not only did I find no proof, I found nothing that could be construed as proof even if the most liberal interpretation of the word was applied to the claim.

    Not even ASD’s attorneys argued the cases the members argued — just as INetGlobal’s attorneys are not arguing the cases the members are arguing.

    Some INetGlobal members are doing the same thing some members of ASD were doing: Claiming court “wins” where none exist, interpreting upline GIGO as the unvarnished truth and just plain telling lies.

    BTW, Are you the same “jesse” who speculated that an autosurf critic who posts here should be ignored because he might be “crazy” while he at once has a “huge crush” on the actor Michael J. Fox?

    And are you the same “jesse” who apparently arrived at this notion on the theory that any person who quotes movie lines from “Back to the Future” to prove a point that history repeats itself might be both gay AND in need of a psychologist?

    Along those lines, are you the same “jesse” who made the argument noted above and concluded it by saying “Enough said!” — as though the argument were so logically impenetrable and intellectually bulletproof that no counter argument would have a prayer of defeating it?

    http://patrickpretty.com/2010/03/20/analysis-another-troubled-autosurf-another-bizarre-pr-approach-some-inetglobal-supporters-attack-the-messenger/comment-page-1/#comment-10015

    And, finally, are you now arguing that autosurf criminals should not be imprisoned because their imprisonment would create an unreasonable tax burden — or do you simply mean that all autosurf purveyors are entitled to the presumption of innocence?

    Me? I got the feeling that Paul’s post was a satirical one because he is fed up with all the lying and stealing in the autosurf “industry.” I don’t have the sense that Paul is really interested in jailing innocent people, but I do have the sense he is interested in jailing the scoundrels for as long as the law allows.

    jesse, are you capable of framing an argument in support of INetGlobal that is based on a rational assessment of the serious issues? I’d like to read such an argument from you.

    It is absolutely true that INetGlobal has been found guilty of nothing. It is equally true that the company operated in a sphere that was a magnet for criminals and that the company has ties to at least FOUR other HYIP or autosurf fraud schemes, a couple of which already have been proven to be frauds in court.

    At least SIX people involved in these schemes now are either serving time in federal prison or soon will be on their way. Are you interested in addressing that at all or perhaps relating to other INetGlobal members that the fraud cases and the sentences are real?

    Or would you rather speculate that the quotation of a movie line is a sign of mental illness and homosexuality and that Paul wants to trash the Constitution to put innocent people in jail?

    You are hurting INetGlobal — a company you purport to support — by these arguments, jesse.

    It’s odd. You seem to be advancing a notion that the best way to defend INetGlobal is to suggest that its critics are crazy or gay or interested in jailing innocent people. Some of your fellow supporters are advancing the bizarre notion that the critics are either “Nazis” or “Socialists” or some kind of hybrid that incorporates both Hitler and Marx.

    Want to know what’s truly odd, jesse? When surfs begin to fail, one of the first things the purported Capitalist purveyors try to do is save them through the types of redistribution schemes associated with Socialism and even Communism.

    This happened last summer, during this very week, as the AdViewGlobal autosurf was failing. The redistributionists wanted to take away from the “haves” to level the playing field for the “have-nots.”

    You can read about it here:

    http://patrickpretty.com/2009/06/19/capitalism-communism-socialism-is-autosurfism-next-members-say-adviewglobal-surf-considering-bailout/

    Patrick

    P.S. My server logs indicate that some readers of the PP Blog are using a service to translate it from English to Chinese. This suggests to me that some members of INetGlobal who do not read English may have concerns that their sponsors are being less than truthful about events, so the nonEnglish-speakers are coming to this Blog and having it translated to get a better sense of where events stand.

    I’m wondering, jesse, if you believe unsubstantiated claims that the government acknowledged INetGlobal was not a Ponzi scheme could be contributing to confusion among Chinese members.

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply