PatrickPretty.com

Tag: Gregg Evans

  • PP HOLIDAY READING: AdViewGlobal Stories Dominated Reader Interest In 2009; ASDMBA And ADV4U Coverage, Bowdoin Proffer, Guest Columnists Commanded Attention

    PPtop10UPDATED 1:25 P.M. ET (U.S.A.) AdViewGlobal-related stories comprised eight of the 10 “Most Popular” posts on the PatrickPretty.com Blog in 2009, as determined by a software scoring system that measures a range of data. The result suggests that readers were intensely interested in coverage of the controversial autosurf.

    The finding also suggests that AVG members were worried about the future of AVG and their participation in it. At the same time, the data suggest that AVG members were turning to the PP Blog to monitor AVG developments because they were not satisfied with the information provided by AVG and sought a “Big Picture” analysis, as opposed to relying exclusively on AVG to form their opinions.

    AVG-related stories and conversations dominated reader interest, largely beginning in the second quarter of the year. The most popular PP story of 2009 — weighing a range of factors beyond the single metric of post views — was an AVG story published June 3, under the headline, “AdViewGlobal Promoter Says Prospects Can Bypass Company And Purchase Ad-Packs Directly From Sponsors To Ensure They Get Credited With 200 Percent Match Before Deadline.”

    The June 3 story, however, was not the PP story that attracted the most readers, using “Single Post Views” as the only factor weighed by the software. That honor, if it can be called that, belonged to a March 24 post titled, “BREAKING NEWS: AVG Loses Banking Privileges.”

    The only two posts in the “overall” Top 10 — as weighed by several factors — that were not largely or exclusively about AVG were an April 18 column by guest writer Roxy Lewis and an Aug. 28 article about a claim by the AdVentures4U (ADV4U) autosurf that it was suspending cashouts amid reports that its purported owner, Steve Smith, had been threatened.

    Lewis’ column, titled “GUEST COLUMNIST: ‘Shocked’ And ‘Scared’ To See Her Name In Friedman Lawsuit Paperwork; Says She Was Told To ‘Examine Your Finances’; Sees Move By Dallas Lawyer As ‘Intimidation Tactic’ And Says She Won’t ‘Roll Over’ — was the 9th Most Popular post overall, as weighed by several factors.

    PatrickPretty.com has published 521 posts in the past year.

    In the Lewis guest column, the self-described member of the AARP generation told her story about various email interactions concerning her attempt to get a refund for her contribution to ASDMBA, an organization whose de facto head is ASD story mainstay Bob Guenther. Some ASDMBA members complained about obnoxious behavior by Guenther in their interactions with him, saying ASDMBA provided accounting that was less than transparent and bullied members who questioned its operation.

    ADV4U’s announcement, meanwhile, put the Ponzi forums in an uproar — and provided yet another compelling example of the “wink-nod” nature of autosurfs. On one hand, people throw money at the surfs to collect surfing “earnings” and sales commissions, and deny they are illegal. On the other hand, they become paranoid when a surf begins to show signs of trouble and then demand refunds or flock to Ponzi forums to complain, even though no autosurf has ever passed the test of time and demonstrated legality and mathematical sustainability.

    The story about the ADV4U announcement was the 2nd Most Popular Post, as weighed by several factors. Because ADV4U was known to be popular among members of AVG and AdSurfDaily — and because autosurfs in general are known to have common promoters — the data suggest that many people raced from one autosurf disaster to another in 2009.

    In the bizarre world of the autosurf, the people who entice others into joining one disaster after another — and pocket commissions for doing so — are known as the “leaders.”

    The Top 10 ‘Overall’ Posts As Measured By A Range Of Factors

    Here, in reverse order of popularity, is a list of the Top 10 Overall Posts on the PP Blog since December 2008, as measured by a range of factors, as opposed to the lone one of “Single Post Views.” To give you an idea of how the software works, consider that Tiger Woods may not lead the PGA Tour in all statistical categories, but may be the “overall” statistical leader when a range of variables are considered and averaged. Readers should view these results as a somewhat reliable estimate, as opposed to a scientifically pure one.

    No. 10: (July 1, 2009): AdViewGlobal Withdraws Announcement Of New Payment Plan; Initial Announcement Baffled Members

    No. 9: (April 18, 2009): GUEST COLUMNIST: ‘Shocked’ And ‘Scared’ To See Her Name In Friedman Lawsuit Paperwork; Says She Was Told To ‘Examine Your Finances’; Sees Move By Dallas Lawyer As ‘Intimidation Tactic’ And Says She Won’t ‘Roll Over’

    No. 8: (Aug. 5, 2009): 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

    No: 7: (June 25, 2009): AdViewGlobal ‘Surf’ Firm Suspends Member Cash-Outs, Threatens Media With Copyright-Infringement Lawsuits

    No: 6: (July 10, 2009): AdViewGlobal’s June 1 News Release Had Typo That Directed Traffic Away From Website Firm Was Showcasing

    No. 5: (Aug. 7, 2009): And The Ponzis Will Die As One . . .

    No. 4: (June 30, 2009): BREAKING NEWS: AdViewGlobal Cited As Extension Of AdSurfDaily In RICO Complaint Against Andy Bowdoin

    No. 3: (June 23, 2009): Members Say AdViewGlobal Problems Are Mounting

    No. 2: (Aug. 28, 2009): BREAKING NEWS: AdVentures4U, New Darling Of Surf World, Says It Was Threatened; Note Says Cashouts Will Be Suspended Soon And Members Will Have To Make Do With Their ‘Advertising’ Purchases; Ponzi Forums In Uproar

    No. 1: (June 3, 2009): AdViewGlobal Promoter Says Prospects Can Bypass Company And Purchase Ad-Packs Directly From Sponsors To Ensure They Get Credited With 200 Percent Match Before Deadline

    ** Finishing just out of the Top 10 overall — in 11th Place — was this story about a dramatic announcement by the government in the AdSurfDaily Ponzi forfeiture case, published April 24, 2009: PROSECUTION BOMBSHELL: Bowdoin Signed Proffer Letter Prior To Submitting To Forfeiture And Told Investigators That Government’s Material Allegations Were ‘All True’

    *** No. 12 went to this post, published May 19, 2009: Patrick Pretty ‘Poof’ Penalty Plagues Portal Posters

    **** It is possible that the Bowdoin story now in 11th Place could eke its way into the Top 10 by the end of the year, as it currently is in a virtual tie for the No. 10 spot. Adjustments involving other stories also could occur.

    Sampling Of Top 10 Stories Scored By ‘Single Post Views’ Since December 2008

    No. 1: (March 24, 2009): BREAKING NEWS: AVG Loses Banking Privileges

    No. 2: (Sept. 23, 2009): WHO’S IN CHARGE? AdViewGlobal Surf Domain Now Resolves To GoDaddy; Registration Appears To Have Expired

    No. 6: (Dec. 13, 2008): Giant Wall Street ‘Ponzi Scheme’ Collapses; Potential Losses In Madoff Fraud Pegged at $50 Billion Amid ‘One Big Lie’

    No. 8: (Dec. 13, 2008): Two Friday Bank Failures Will Cost FDIC $212.5 Million

    No. 9: (Dec. 14, 2008): Judge Orders Freeze Of Madoff’s Assets; Investigators Will Try To Determine If Funds Were Co-Mingled In Ponzi Scheme

    No. 10: (Dec. 15, 2008): Madoff Victims Include Foundations, Business And Entertainment Icons, Mom And Pop

    ** Four of the other Top 10 stories measured by Post Views since December 2008 were updates instructing readers about our progress in switching to the WordPress publishing platform. It seems readers missed us when we were offline or down for maintenance. :-)

    *** The Most Popular Story in the past 90 days is this one, published on Sept. 30, 2009: ASD Mainstay Bob Guenther Lectures Federal Prosecutor, Says He’ll Call On ‘Political Connections’ To Embarrass Justice Department; Claims Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio Not Tough Enough On Crime

    **** The 2nd Most Popular Post in the past 90 days is this one, published on Oct. 1, 2009: Guenther Softens Comment That ‘Sheriff Joe’ Arpaio Was Soft On Crime; Says Recent Email Lecturing Veteran Federal Prosecutor Was Sent At Behest Of Crime Victims

    ***** The 3rd Most Popular Post in the past 90 days is this one, published on Oct. 12, 2009: Site That Used ASD’s Name And Made Odd Claims While Bowdoin Was Negotiating With Prosecutors Goes Offline

    ****** The 4th Most Popular Post in the past 90 days was this one, published on Oct. 14, 2009: EDITORIAL: Our Best Wishes To ‘Gomer Pyle,’ AUSA

    ******* The 5th Most Popular Post in the past 90 days was this one, published Sept. 29, 2009: OBSTRUCTION? ASD Spokeswoman Whose Name Appeared In Secret Service Filing Says She Instructed Members NOT To Fill Out Government Form; Now Appears To Be Advising Members To Clam Up If Contacted By Agents

    ******** This post, published on Sept. 28, 2009, is in a virtual tie for the 5th Most Popular Post in the past 90 days: BREAKING NEWS: Prosecutors Go Back To Court, Provide Judge Copy Of Transcript From Bowdoin’s Call Last Week

    ********* This Jan. 3, 2009, post by guest columnist “Entertained” scored very well overall for the year and finished in the Top 20 overall posts for the year: ‘Black Box’ Method Exposes ASD Sustainability Myth

    ********** This July 9, 2009, post by guest columnist Gregg Evans also scored very well overall for the year, finishing in the Top 30: GUEST COLUMN: Payment Processors That Give Refunds Unilaterally Help Surf ‘Industry’ Live To See Another Day

  • GUEST COLUMN: Payment Processors That Give Refunds Unilaterally Help Surf ‘Industry’ Live To See Another Day

    Editor’s Note: This is a guest column by Gregg Evans.

    Online Payment Processors, Enablers of Scams

    By Greggory B. Evans, PhD

    Recently it came to light that online payment processor Solid Trust Pay had decided unilaterally to refund some participants in the besieged autosurf ASD Cash Generator. In doing so, it appears STP may have violated Canadian abandoned accounts regulations, but even if by some quirk of lightly regulated Canadian processors, this policy is ripe for abuse and almost assuredly resulted in inequitable treatment.

    ASD accepted payments from any number of methods, including direct deposits into bank accounts, as well as other online payment processors. In giving refunds based solely upon their own records, STP has no way of knowing if they are refunding people who are in fact otherwise in profit and made withdrawals from other processors.

    If these funds had been in the United States, where ASD assets were seized last August, this money would have been pooled into a consolidated estate and, according to statements from the Justice Department, been available for refunds to losers in the scam, refunds based upon the complete records of ASD, from all sources.

    Another apparent problem with STP’s refund policy is it flies in the face of traditional practice, where merchants who have funds that belong to customers who have no activity have absolute rights to their property for periods that range from 7 years in most U.S. States, up to the Canadian Policy that abandoned accounts in excess of $1,000 of 10 years at the merchant, and an additional period of up to 90 years, or indefinitely.

    Accounts of more than $100 but less than $1000 are retained by merchants in Canada for 10 years, and then turned over to the Canadian Central Bank, where they are held for 30 more years.

    The stated policy of Solid Trust Pay is to consider accounts “inactive” after 180 days, at which point they have in at least this case refunded some, but apparently not all, of the remaining funds in an account to the accounts from which it arrived.  Their method of determining how much each participant receives is not known, and from personal knowledge of mine, some participants receive no refund at all.  The reasons for this, the formula for determining refunds, and any fees STP retains for their trouble is not clear.

    It’s also not exactly clear that Canada, or Ontario where STP is located, place any limit on the fees a payment processor can charge, and in fact it may be perfectly legal for them to keep the biggest share of the funds and claim it as fees. Well, except for the unclaimed funds laws, which apparently they were unaware of.

    A poster here who identified herself as a representative of STP claimed that their refund policy had the approval of their attorney. I find that hard to believe, it sounds more to me like they didn’t realize that all merchants have to comply with laws that most people not versed in business practices don’t even know exist.  It seems to me that a lot of what the processors do is much like the Ponzi schemes they support, made up as they go along. In the same post, the STP representative said that they try to screen their customers for legitimate businesses.  This is a claim I find laughable at best.

    STP and other online payment processors exist in, support, and largely make possible the easy-money Ponzi scheme culture of HYIP and autosurf programs. Without them, the “industry” could not exist. Scammers, crooks and money-launderers need a transfer system that provides irreversible payments, and they also provide some measure of invisibility for the “Admins” of online money scams.

    Regulations in Canada have tightened up the invisible part, but these processors are still providing one-stop shopping for Ponzi schemes and autosurfs — and, to be sure, any number of criminals who at least have the sense to keep their activities a bit more low key.  But I digress.

    Let’s look at some of the customers STP has had in the past, these pillars of business who they were very careful to check and make sure they were legitimate businesses.  Aside from ASD, some of their more notable clients are P2P, or Pathway to Prosperity, an Internet HYIP Ponzi whose leader is currently wanted in Canada and is a fugitive from Justice.  Megalido was also an STP customer, this program popped up right around the time ASD was raided, and played to the ASD crowd as a way to recoup their losses.

    Mrs. VIP/Global Marketing Solutions was another STP-supported program; they suspended payments when they said they got new owners in December, the payments were supposed to begin again in 6-8 weeks, it’s been 7 months and no sign yet of them resuming payments.

    Another one I’m researching is DR Fund, a program heavily promoted by Jake Amedee and friends over at ASA Monitor, which is itself a clearing house for fraud and Ponzi schemes. I could name dozens more of these “legitimate” businesses, which I’m sure STP knows have stolen tens of millions of dollars from the public, much of it money from people who were told they were investing in real businesses, and of course, with their assurance that they screen their customers, STP is at least partly responsible for those losses.  At least more so than Bank of America, named in a lawsuit lawsuit brought by some ASD victims.

    Meanwhile, in a reply to a post I made asking questions about their business practices, the STP spokesperson whined about customers complaining about their policies on refunds. A quick look in the forums where Ponzi scams are promoted will reveal that when a program suspends payments for a short period of time, people begin discussing where and how they can get the payment processors to consider refunds.

    Unilateral Refunds Institutionalize The Abuse

    Payment processors should never give refunds directly to the people who play these scams. Legally, until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise, the money still belongs to the person who owns the account. Any unilateral action by the processors short-circuits the legal rights of whomever the money rightfully belongs to, whether that is the scammer, or if the authorities so determine, the victims of the scam.

    Regardless, that’s not a decision the money-handlers should or even could make with any fairness. A few situations like that and it’s likely the participants will begin as a practice of making all deposits with the processor most liberal in refund history, and all withdrawals from another account. So what.  Tell your customers you cannot refund their payments, the whole point of your business is irreversible payments.

    Granted, your customers are for the most part people who play scams for whatever reasons, most of them have no regard for the people who lose in order for them to make profits. They engage in illegal money frauds, and now they want the protection that “real” businesses afford them.  Too bad.  They’re in a lousy industry for fairness or ethical business practices. The same goes for STP and the other payment processors who cater to HYIPs, autosurfs and unregistered online investing.  You built your business on being the pseudo legal link in criminal enterprises.

    You might, and I stress the word “might,” be following the letter of the law. Or you may be trying to stay on the legal side of the law and due to your own ignorance be falling a little short, as I suspect your refund policy does.  But let me ask, if your grandmother asked about your business, and wanted the full unadulterated truth about the things you do, would you feel good telling her?

    Would you be proud explaining at the family reunion how you make your money? And not the best face you can put on it, you have to imagine telling granny about every single program you accommodated that turned out to be a cheap Ponzi scheme, how many millions of dollars were lost be people who risked more than they could afford to lose, how many marriages fell apart, homes were lost, children missed meals, and how you make it possible for this industry to thrive?  I suspect not.

    Further, if you really can with a straight face tell me you’re actually proud of the misery you help cause, I suspect you might be a sociopath, and you might have sold your granny out for a few fees.

    I’m calling you out, Solid Trust Pay.  I double dog dare you to tell the crooks who utilize your services to hit the road.  Hire a compliance auditor who knows how to do a little due diligence, and by that I don’t mean checking at ASA Monitor to see how many “I got paid” posts there are, but someone who knows enough about accounting, law, business and investing to look at what a company is doing and what it’s just claiming to do.  I ask, no, let me rephrase that, I DEMAND you make your refund policy transparent and I’ll be checking with the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to find out what the exact law is on your policy and asking them to give your practices a look as well.

    I also feel very strongly that you should disclose the fees you took on the refunds not only from ASD, but also MegaLido and any other funds you decided to return. Court records indicate that ASD moved several million dollars to you days before they were raided, but I see only a pittance in refunds. Granted, not every participant posts their refunds, but surely if you returned a few millions we’d see an aggregate of more than a few thousand dollars in discussions.

    You enable an entire industry of crime.  Eventually, the regulations will catch up to you.