ANALYSIS: Another Troubled Autosurf, Another Bizarre PR Approach; Some INetGlobal Supporters Attack The Messenger
Steve Renner
If you follow news about the so-called autosurf “industry,” the mind-boggling PR approach by some supporters of Steve Renner’s INetGlobal is apt to remind you of the bizarre approach employed by Florida-based AdSurfDaily and some members of the now-defunct Surf’s Up forum.
If you’re new to the ongoing saga of AdSurfDaily (ASD), the developing story about INetGlobal and the autosurf “industry” in general, ASD’s case is instructive. Although ASD claimed to be a professional advertising and communications firm, one of its first efforts to counter the federal government’s allegations was to compare prosecutors and the U.S. Secret Service to “Satan” and the 9/11 terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people in New York.
ASD President Andy Bowdoin later asked for an evidentiary hearing in the civil-forfeiture case against the company’s assets — the same sort of case INetGlobal is facing — but Bowdoin then took the 5th Amendment, as did his chief executive officer.
In a comment that will live for the ages, one ASD supporter explained that Bowdoin, who was running the company with 10 bank accounts in his personal name and let it slip that ASD had $1 million in an account under a different name on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua, was “too honest” to testify.
One of the issues in the ASD case was the Ponzi issue — specifically, whether ASD had sufficient revenue to pay members “rebates” without resorting to taking money from new members to pay old ones. ASD’s evidentiary hearing lasted two days. The company did not submit an audited and certified balance sheet to refute the government’s Ponzi claims.
Instead, after the hearing — while ASD was awaiting a decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer on whether it was operating lawfully and had demonstrated it was not a Ponzi scheme at the hearing — the company issued a news release.
The news release claimed ASD was expecting a revenue infusion of $200 million from a penny stock company. Performing no due diligence at all, some ASD members immediately raced to forums and websites to announce the company had a business deal worth one-fifth of a billion dollars.
Other ASD members sought to substantiate the company’s announcement and insisted that ASD prove its $200 million claim. The company then deleted the news release.
Meanwhile, ASD also claimed that Ponzi allegations brought against it by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum had been dropped. Once again, ASD members who did no checking at all raced to forums and websites to announce the good news.
In response, McCollum’s office issued a statement that, not only had Ponzi allegations not been dropped, they’d never been filed to begin with. ASD was accused by McCollum of operating a pyramid scheme.
Earlier, some ASD supporters were part of a bizarre campaign to have McCollum charged with Deceptive Trade Practices for holding the view the company had broken the law. They also wanted to charge a Florida TV station with the same offense, apparently for broadcasting a story they deemed unflattering to ASD.
Like ASD’s Andy Bowdoin, Steve Renner — now ordered by a federal judge to wear a GPS tracking device as he awaits sentencing on federal tax-evasion charges and plans his defense for the civil Ponzi allegations against INetGlobal — is being portrayed as a victim of a corrupt government bent on destroying small business.
The approach is absurd. It did not work for Bowdoin, and it won’t work for Renner.
Renner, of course, is entitled to have supporters. Regardless, his supporters will be hard-pressed to persuade — let alone convince — the Ponzi-hating public that government evil is driving events at INetGlobal when the Secret Service already has produced an affidavit that says a bank closed down Renner-connected accounts prior to the raid because it suspected money-laundering.
Moreover, federal records show that one of Renner’s companies — a money-services business known as Cash Cards International (CCI) — previously had provided services for a Ponzi scheme that resulted in lengthy prison sentences for four people associated with the scheme.
When the receiver in the Ponzi case asked Renner to convert electronic credits to cash to fund the estate for Ponzi victims, Renner could not do it because he had spent the money as though it were his own, according to court filings.
As was the case with ASD, some INetGlobal members are attacking the media, amid claims there has been a rush to judgment.
Blaming Renner’s predicament on the media or suggesting the media have rushed to judgment also won’t work. The media did not invent the allegations; it simply reported them, as it would do in any other case.
Some INetGlobal members are pointing to an opinion piece on The Independent Business News Network (IBNN) website that the Star-Tribune newspaper of Minneapolis/St. Paul was guilty of “bias” in its coverage of the Secret Service raid on INetGlobal.
The IBNN piece, however, did not disclose that Don Allen, the author of the IBNN editorial, also worked as a spokesman for a Renner company. In short, while Allen was opining the Star-Tribune was guilty of bias, he did not make it clear that his own impartiality could be questioned.
IBNN’s Twitter site later reported that the Secret Service was “leaking” information to the PP Blog. It simply did not happen. The Secret Service leaked no information to the Blog.
While bashing the media in this context may provide some red meat for INetGlobal’s supporters, it does nothing to address the compelling reality that the allegations against Renner and his company are serious:
Ponzi scheme. Wire fraud. Co-mingling. Suspicious withdrawals. Accounts closed by a bank that suspected criminal activity. Money-laundering.
It’s the Minneapolis version of the ASD case. As was the case with ASD, INetGlobal is entitled to its day in court. It is entitled to argue passionately in its defense, and it is entitled to poke holes in the prosecution’s case. If the government does not have the goods, INetGlobal is entitled to win the forfeiture case and any future litigation that evolves.
At the same time, INetGlobal members who support the company are entitled to argue their point of view passionately. They are not entitled, however, to be taken seriously if they spin events in ridiculous ways that cannot pass the giggle test.
One difference between the INetGlobal forfeiture case and the ASD forfeiture case is that ASD did not appear to have gained traction in China. INetGlobal, though, does appear to have a substantial base of members in China. One of the issues in the INetGlobal case is language barriers: Can members who speak Chinese and have limited or no facility in English understand the business they joined and the complex litigation now engulfing the Renner companies?
Neither bashing the government nor bashing the media does anything to address those concerns. Such an approach leads to questions about whether INetGlobal’s members who have limited facility in English are being ill-served by the efforts of English-speaking members to spin the story in ways that avoid the unpleasant realities and cloud the critical issues, which can be confusing even if a member has perfect understanding of English.
On March 16, the PP Blog was provided a copy of an email some INetGlobal members received from their upline.
“[T]he first court appearance which took place yesterday [March 15] went in favor of iNetGlobal,” the email claimed. It did not mention that a federal judge ordered Renner to wear the GPS tracking device as he awaits sentencing on four felony counts of income-tax evasion.
Renner was convicted of the tax charges in December, more than two months prior to the Secret Service raid.
Among the other claims in the email was that “[t]he judge in the case ordered the ‘Feds’ to release iNetGlobal payroll monies back to the company.”
No such order appears to have been issued. Federal forfeiture law puts property that has been “arrested” — money in a bank account that has been seized, for example — in a state of limbo.
Judges may entertain motions to have seized money released, but may be reluctant to release it out of concern the money will be “lost” prior to the conclusion of a forfeiture case.
In general, the law seeks to avoid an inequitable result — for example, a decision to free money to pay employees could lead to a result in which less money would be available to compensate people who invested in a scheme and lost money.
In the ASD case, the company asked for $2 million to be released. Collyer said no after hearing live testimony, weighing briefs submitted by attorneys from both sides and deliberating on the issues for several weeks.
“The $2 million that ASD seeks to utilize are funds that were paid to ASD by advertisers and members,” Collyer ruled. “ASD has not demonstrated sufficiently that ASD is a legitimate business. Thus, the Court cannot release the funds to be used by the Company in its current form. And, if the plan to revamp ASD’s business proves unsuccessful, the citizens who paid that money will receive no advertising benefits and no return on their advertisement purchases. Quite simply, the money will be ‘lost’ forever.
“Despite the obvious hardships endured by the employees of ASD and a great number of its members,” Collyer continued, “the Court cannot ignore its oath to uphold the law, nor can it rightly take the hardships of some and transfer them unto others.”
Some of the same legal issues may come into play in the INetGlobal case, although the fact sets are not precisely the same. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank is hearing the case, and the prosecution already has filed papers that reference ASD and a ruling by Collyer that ordered the forfeiture of more than $65 million to the government.
Another section of the email was worded in a vague way that implied Donovan had arrived at the conclusion that INetGlobal might have the upper hand in the case.
“Also indicated by the judge that inetGlobal should petition the court to have other funds released,” the email said.
The mere act of petitioning a court for a result does not mean the court will rule favorably. That’s already been demonstrated in the INetGlobal case.
Prosecutors sought to jail Renner, arguing he did not abide by the law while awaiting sentencing for his December tax conviction. Instead of jailing Renner, the judge ordered GPS tracking, enabling him to remain free.
In the ASD case, members routinely spread misinformation after Collyer issued orders. When Collyer ordered ASD to file papers by a certain date, some ASD sponsors told downline members the prosecution had been ordered to prove ASD was a Ponzi scheme by the same date or lose the case.
When Collyer ordered the government to file motions in response to Bowdoin’s pleadings by a certain date, ASD sponsors told downline members that the prosecution was in a panic because it could not prove ASD was a Ponzi scheme and was trying to find a way to save face.
For at least a year, the Pro-ASD Surf’s Up forum spread a rumor based on “inside information” that the prosecution had admitted behind closed doors that ASD was not a Ponzi scheme. The rumor persisted, despite the fact that the government filed a second forfeiture complaint against ASD-connected assets after the rumor started.
Like the first complaint, the second complaint alleged the company was operating a Ponzi scheme. Not even the filing of the second complaint stopped the rumor, which was being repeated as though the court filings that disproved it simply did not exist.
Patrick:
The mere act of petitioning a court for a result does not mean the court will rule favorably. That’s already been demonstrated in the INetGlobal case.
I believe you meant the ASD case is that correct?
Hi Jack,
No, I meant the INetGlobal case. The prosecution wanted the judge to jail Steve Renner; the judge chose the GPS device instead.
Although I think I see the point you’re making. In the ASD case, Andy Bowdoin said his mere filing of papers informing the judge he’d changed his mind about his January 2009 decision to submit to the forfeiture “with prejudice” accomplished his goal of reentering the case with no one else having any say in the matter.
In effect, Bowdoin was telling the judge that his pro se strategists had determined she was not permitted to do her own thinking and run her own courtroom.
As you’ll recall, the judge had a different idea about that.
Patrick
“ANALYSIS: Another Troubled Autosurf,
Now THAT’S an analysis with which I disagree.
The “autosurf” and its’ originators were not “troubled” in the least, unless it’s because they were “busted” before the autosurf had run its’ natural course.
It’s only the members who were in any way “troubled” by its’ demise.
The “autosurf” itself was performing exactly as designed.
An “autosurfs” sole purpose is to make as much money for its’ originators and top promoters as possible, then collapse.
An “autosurf” which lasts as long as AdSurf Daily, 12 Daily Pro or CEP is an anomaly, not the norm.
For every ASD, 12DP or CEP, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of others which either don’t make it into the public eye or simply expire “naturally” leaving their “honest admin” to simply change its’ logo and webpage and move on to the next one.
Anyone who imagines for a second that the “founders, admins and/or backers” of any “autosurf” is troubled in the least by its’ demise is doomed to losing more than just their money.
Patrick:
Thanks for clearing that up.
Jack
Patrick,
I am greatly concerned. Here you write an article involving the names of Bowdoin, ASD, Steve Renner, and Don Allen, but there is no comment by that Super Ponzi Buster and all around knower-of-things, RLG. After all, he is the one who first knew of their misdoings long before all of the addle headed and ill willed law enforcement agencies. It is odd that his silence is so deafening. Not that I truly agonize as to his well being, but rather question his facility to post here or anywhere, for that matter. Perhaps your Blog’s filters either work too well or he is somewhere without access to the internet. Or, perhaps, Maria (his alter-ego) is also unable to post on his behalf. Either way, something just doesn’t feel right. Maybe I should check the Maricopa County or Dallas Sherrif website for his visage.
I haven’t heard from him since March 4, when he announced that he had the capacity to “stifle” any software block I put on him:
https://patrickpretty.com/2010/02/24/asdmba-jaffa-partners-websites-offine-registrations-for-both-are-current/comment-page-1/#comment-9686
I blocked him from unmoderated posting Feb. 20 for spamming. On Feb. 24, he tried to defeat the software by changing his username and email address. On March 4, he announced his desire to circumvent the Blog’s security systems in other ways:
“I would simply grab my laptop that I have never signed on with, create another name, using another IP address and post what I want.. You are just another left wing mouth with your fingers..”
In other words, he publicly announced his intent not to follow any rules of decorum and to ramp up his efforts to defeat the Blog’s security systems by switching to a laptop, creating another username and posting from another IP.
One would think that a person on probation for misdemeanor harassment after he pled down from felony charges of violating a court order not to nuisance people through communications would be less eager to announce his intent to, well, nuisance people through communications.
I had given him a wide berth here because he was a subject of our ASDMBA coverage and was well-known to ASD members.
His days of getting any berth are over. He never displayed any desire to exercise any restraint, and ignored all warnings. When he insisted he had the right to spam and the desire to ramp up his efforts to defeat the security systems, my desire to continue to deal with his behavior ended.
Patrick
Yes, he seems to be lacking in social skills. His is also lacking in computer skills, and probably lost the pull-cord to start his laptop. Let us also not forget that he took a plea deal to change from a felony to a misdemeanor. All this after he swore he was innocent and a victim of the system, similar to his responses to his felony conviction for bank fraud.
As Curly, of the Three Stooges used to say, “I’m a victim of circumstances…” Bob, however, is a victim of his own sociopathy.
Out of sight, out of mind (his own).
Steve Renner is not the CEO of iNetGlobal. You dont know,guy!
There’s several posts elsewhere that claims Steve is the CEO, but here:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/steverenner
it says:
Over at Steve’s own site there is an interesting post dated 18th Jan. about an “Inetglobal Freedom Conference New York”. Listed as a “Very Special Guest” is none other than the one and only Jim Fobair. Jim Fobair is the sort of person who Phill “The Crime Wave” Piccolo aspires to be. It’s worth looking up Jim Fobair & the Laundry CD, and compare it with just about any other MLM pyramid scheme in the last 10-15 years.
If Steve Renner is not the CEO of iNetGlobal then I wonder who is? Jim Fobair?
Just found a post at MMG that says:
If Jim Fobair is involved, run away. It’s a scam. Jim Fobair is radio active in the same way that Phill Piccolo is.
Patrick – You keep talking about the “autosurf industry”. Problem is, you have never delved into what iNetGlobal is really all about. Autosurfing is the tip of the iceberg as to iNetGlobal products which their members and customers use — and use with internet-marketing IMPACT! Please take a look at this: http://cheapclix.net/why-inetglobal-is-not-a-ponzi-scheme/
Follow the money, as they say. Is it poetic? When I do a Google search “inetglobal seizure”, Cheapclix beats you! Maybe you have a problem because the iNetGlobal products and tools are as good, — or maybe even better, than what you use, — or maybe what you sell and/or endorse! Maybe we should start looking into your “ulterior motives” at PatrickPretty.com. As they say, “follow the money”. Respectfully, Ken Haugen.
[…] https://patrickpretty.com/2010/03/20/analysis-another-troubled-autosurf-another-bizarre-pr-approach-s… […]
The fact that the autosurf apect of iNetglobal is illegal, makes it irrrelevant that it has legal, and possibly useful, services as well. The autosurfs operate illegally because members earn from the payments made by newer members. INetGlobal has been unable to demonstrate, so far, that they received sufficient outside income to avoid this illegal practice. Their Founder is being investigated by the authorities after a raid by the SEcret Service on some very serious charges.
As a long time follower of Patrick Pretty’s blogs, I would consider it clear to anyone reading them that his motivation is an abhorence of financial frauds, and especially ponzi fraud, and his desire to inform the public about them. He is, after all, a professional journalist with a background in law enforcement.
My question to anyone supporting illegal schemes, or schemes that contain illegal elements, is “why do you wish to see the continuance of them?” They are illegal because of the damage they cause to the majority of their participants, not to mention the economies of the countries they operate in, not because of a whim of the legislators.
This sentence should read
“The autosurfs operate illegally because members earn from the payments made by newer members. AND the advertising services they provide are not considered to have real and intrinsic value to their “advertisers””
Have just read the Cheapclix link to Ken Haugan’s spirited defence of iNetGlobal, which reads as little more than a “cheap” ad hominem attack on the writer of this blog. lol
It is a sad reflection of the autosurf “industry” that the only form of defending themselves is to shoot the messenger.
Perhaps Nixon should have blamed the Washington Post for Watergate!
Ken,
I did look at it; I didn’t find it a persuasive argument. Parts of it were downright silly, especially the comparisons you drew among INetGlobal, Google, Yahoo and AOL.
After saying INetGlobal recently paid $2.5 million in tax, you went on to say, “Google pays billions. Is Google a Ponzi Scheme?? Is Yahoo a scam? Is AOL guilty of not having real products?”
Nor did I find your attempt to slime the Star-Tribune, especially the all-caps challenge for its reporter to “GO AHEAD AND PEE ON MY GRAVE IN A DECADE OR TWO, BUT MAKE SURE THAT YOU ASK FOR GOVERNMENT PERMISSION TO UNZIP YOU PANTS FIRST” persuasive or in any way helpful to INetGlobal.
It left me scratching my head and wondering why you’d expect people to take you seriously. Inviting a reporter to “pee” on your grave is hardly a PR masterstroke.
Naturally, it did not come as a surprise that you’re now attacking my Blog:
http://cheapclix.net/patrick-pretty-on-inetglobal-a-study/
Some of the AdSurfDaily/AdViewGlobal folks did the same thing. They had a feeding frenzy that lasted for hours on the Surf’s Up forum. One of them — a witness in the ASD case — opined that he personally opposed abortion, but suggested that a decision by my mother to abort me might have been understandable to some folks.
One of my critics created the posting identity of ScamBuster Buster, and went on to plant that seed that I was a Google scammer. He was so proud of his work that he posted it in two threads about AdViewGlobal and then emailed it to me to make sure I saw it.
Any number of folks attacked the advertising elements on this Blog. This was strange, considering they were doing so in defense of companies purportedly in the advertising business.
I see from your new post that you, too, introduced a conspiracy theory about the PP Blog:
“SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU ARE A BIT TOO INTERESTED TO MAKE ME BELIEVE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE SOMETHING AT STAKE IN THE EVENT THAT INETGLOBAL GOES DOWN.”
ASD/AdViewGlobal members (and members of other companies) also have speculated that I’m a plant for the government. When they discovered I have been a reporter for more than 20 years and have broad experience covering crime, some of them painted it as a conspiracy.
Ken, I have no “stake” in the outcome of the INetGlobal case — just as I have no stake in the outcome of the ASD case. The PP Blog’s editorial well consists of 681 articles/editorials and other pieces on the subjects of Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes, allegations of Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes, and online crime in other forms.
The Blog has published more than 7,300 comments from readers interested in these topics. Only three readers ever have been banned from posting. These were for spamming, posing chronic maintenance problems and/or trying to defeat the Blog’s security software.
On your site, you expressed your “IRE” with this Blog. You’re also welcome to do so here.
Some of my readers are apt to challenge you. In no case will I take you seriously. I think your “pee” comment and the comparison among INetGlobal, Google, Yahoo and AOL actually is damaging to a company that currently is fighting a major legal and PR challenge and that your attempts to defend the company make it look even worse.
Along those lines, I find the claim that the Hospitalera Blog “apologized” for what it wrote about INetGlobal in September 2009 baffling — especially since the Blog denies it ever apologized.
Here is the story on your Blog:
http://cheapclix.net/hospitaleracom-apologizes-to-inetglobal/
Hospitalera says it never happened — that whoever published the news release announcing the purported apology fabricated it.
Here’s my story on it:
https://patrickpretty.com/2010/03/07/website-of-spokesman-for-renner-entity-claims-government-leaking-info-to-pp-blog-about-inetglobal-ponzi-probe-didnt-happen-ever-blog-says-meanwhile-a-bogus-apology-claim/
You’ll note, of course, that the IBNN Twitter site also claimed that the government was leaking to the PP Blog. Never happened, Ken.
On your Blog, you’re also challenging Don Allen, who operates IBNN and also was a Steve Renner employee, to “look into” my motives.
I find that strange, Ken. And I view it as a bid to chill this Blog’s reporting — just as I viewed ScamBuster Buster’s slime (and slime from others) a bid to chill the Blog’s reporting.
If you’re an authority on all things INetGlobal — and your Blog suggests that you are — then I figure you must have carefully planned the approach of attacking the messenger and the government.
What I don’t understand is how you possibly could believe the approach was beneficial to INetGlobal. My guess is that some INetGlobal members are baffled by what you’re doing and wonder why you’re not defending the company in a way that can be taken seriously as a reasoned, reasonable approach.
Inviting a reporter to “pee” on your grave? Introducing a conspiracy theory and suggesting another reporter has a “stake” in the outcome of the INetGlobal case and that IBNN should “look into” him — all while your Blog asserts the Hospitalera Blog apologized, even though Hospitalera says it did not?
I can’t take you seriously, Ken, and I’m not even going to try.
Patrick
Ken: in case you haven’t realized what just happened to you, let me summarize. You just had your lunch stolen, eaten, and you were left with a wedgie.
Here’s a suggestion, but I’m sure you will ignore: Start acting like an adult instead of a petulant child. I doubt if you even know how, but you should give it a try.
One more thing, you can’t hold a candle to the ASD crowd and their conspiracy theories, rants, and actions. Compared to them you are in the pee wee league. Pun intended.
This brings to mind an earlier article on this blog entitled “Readers Ask: Are The Surf Promoters REALLY That Stupid?”
https://patrickpretty.com/2009/01/27/readers-ask-if-autosurf-promoters-really-that-stupid/
Exactly how are non-English speaking people that do not have a business in any way, shape, or form to begin with having any form of ‘IMPACT’ on internet marketing other than devaluing real internet marketing sites such as clickbank? You scammers really bring nothing to the table when you get caught.
Hi Patrick,
I see you also have the pleasure of being attacked by Mr. Haugen. For me it started actually earlier, before the forged press release appeared, with this blog post of his: http://cheapclix.net/inetglobal-is-not-a-scam-hospitaleracom-is-a-scam/ I was seriously considering to send him a C&D, but then decided that this would mean I take him seriously. The bit that really made me laugh was
“LATER, I IGNORED YOU BECAUSE I DID NOT WANT TO GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR A “CLICK†ON YOUR STUPID HOSPITALERA.COM WEB-SITE. NOW I AM TIRED OF YOUR CRAP, and I am going to “key-word†you to death with “hospitalera.com sybille yates crapâ€.”
That really shows how much he knows about how search engines work ;-) (The last sentence was ironical, in case somebody wonders).
Have a nice day everybody, SY
Hello Patrick,
I badly know English language, but I think you should understand me, time I understand you/Google the translator to me in it will help/.
My name is Tatyana, I from Russia, in the company iNetGlobal about two months. At you very useful site only very aggressive. You cannot understand that pushes people on business on the Internet, I can tell for myself: at me the small child and I temporarily keep the house, I have got used to work and I do not have not enough cerebration. I do not know than will end company check, but I can tell one – for two months I have created the site, not bad it have untwisted, have got acquainted with a considerable quantity of interesting people worldwide and began to be engaged in programming Even if the company will close I to it only I will be grateful. And fools suffices in any sphere of activity, therefore it is a pity those who has enclosed 5000$ and simply clicked, this business was initially not for them. Therefore before to put up somewhere money think – whether brains will suffice at you.
What she said….
me too
Which One?
Tatyana,
I think you are falling into the trap of many people who join schemes like iNetglobal and that is argue that they are ok, as long as you dont invest more than you can afford to lose.
I am glad you feel you have received some benefit from your membership of iNetglobal, but the problem is that they do not seem to be operating legally. Even if YOU have found them useful, there are many others who have joined “under false pretences” because many of their promoters try to avoid the subject of the “autosurf” part of iNetGlobal.
Autosurfs that pay large returns to their “advertisers” for viewing other people’s sites, are NOT considered real advertising companies by law enforcement in most countries in the world. Looking at ads for money is not considered genuine advertising. The conversion (sales) rate for the sites viewed is very very low and does not justify the price. They generally pay their members with the money paid by newer members and that makes them ponzis. Any money you receive will, surely have come from another member and not company profit from outside sales.
The business is NOt for anyone investing 5000$ and clicking and it is not for anyone who has a genuine business to advertise either. It is not for anyone who wants to earn money on the internet and keep the law either.
the majority of the people posting here DO understand internet business very well. They also understand the difference between a legal business with a genuine product and a fraud. Regrettably businesses like iNetGlobal fall into the category of fraud. The US Secret Service raided iNetGlobal on some very very serious charges and they do not do this without a lot of evidence of law breaking, otherwise the court would not have given them the warrant to raid.
I joined ASD several years ago thinking it was an honest business and also met a lot of interesting people. HOWEVER it was still a fraud, and time has shown that the law enforcement agents were right.
I suspect that when you find out the whole story behind iNet Global, you will, discover that you too have been, unwittingly, involved in a fraud.
Unless iNetglobal can prove that they have outside income to pay members for looking
I’m posting my message everywhere, On every blog, on every thread, on every webpage I can find… So no one else will get scammed like me and my friend and my family and my room mates… And all my downlines…
DO NOT JOIN INETGLOBAL!!! DO NOT JOIN INETGLOBAL!!!! DO NOT JOIN INETGLOBAL!!!!!
It’s a scam, 100%!!!! I wish I never joined them. When me and my friend first joined, we were promised big bucks for just clicking on a few ads a day. At least $8 US minimum, plus whatever our downlines click. You know how much we are getting a day? Take a wild guess!!!! $1 to $2 a day, plus we have to pay back $40 per month from their stupid automated repurchasing plan!!!!! That means we make pretty much $0 dollars a month!!!!
Inetglobal is B.S. I hope they’re found guilty. It’s been 4 months now, And I have not received my V-Cash card, nor have I seen a single penny. 4 MONTHS ok??!!!! How long does it take to send something from the states? A week or 2? What a waste of my $2060. I hope that Steve Renner guy rots in jail because that’s where he belongs. I just hope the FBI will use the money they froze from his account to pay us something back.
Bruce,
inetglobal is a advertising company, not an investment company. When you check off to agree to the terms and conditions, I bet you a million dollars you did not read it. If you did, you would know inetglobal does NOT guarantee you will earn large amounts of money. It also states that when you surf, you earn REBATES back based on company SALES. NO SALES MEANS NO REBATES. The optional $40 per month(where you check the box if you want recurring monthly charges) you pay is for using the many web services(i.e. V-mail, V-webs, V-local, etc..) for free. So far over half of what you said has been false and you post to many sites these misinformed information when you do not completely understand yourself what INETGLOBAL offers you. The company is not responsible for any lies, deceit, or misinformed members, and if Inetglobal is aware of these members wrong intentions, Inetglobal will terminate any ties with that member and closed their accounts. So let’s start by having everyone state the FACTS if you are going to attack a company reputation and put alot of U.S. employees out of work. The company DID NOT SCAM YOU, you might want to check on who refer you or who told you misleading information and inform inetglobal so they can take action on those individuals. Also, if you have an issue with your account, I suggest you put in a support ticket or contact customer service. As for you card being delayed, you can blame that on the U.S. government, I believe they have your card because if they seized property from inetglobal, then most likely they seized your card too. Any more questions Patrick? Bruce?
Thus proving that “deja vu” is a very real and powerful force.
Has time stood still ???
Have I suffered some sort of cerebral electrical disturbance ???
Marty McFly, Dr Brown……..is that you in the DeLorean ????
Are u ok? Maybe you need Dr. Brown to take a look at your head. It seems like you have a huge crush on Michael J. Fox. Enough said!
Jesse,
Unless my reading ability has failed me, I understood that the Founder of iNetGlobal, Steve Renner is “now ordered by a federal judge to wear a GPS tracking device as he awaits sentencing on federal tax-evasion charges and plans his defense for the civil Ponzi allegations against INetGlobal”
This member said When me and my friend first joined, we were promised big bucks for just clicking on a few ads a day. At least $8 US minimum, plus whatever our downlines click.
So were the recruiters who added him and his friends to their downlines terminated from iNetglobal for “misrepresenting” the company?
iNetGlobal is facing some serious charges. No autosurf promising returns on advertising spending of the level that iNetglobal promised in their recruitment material (other than sales from those ads) is considered legal by law enforcement. The advertising is not considered true advertising when people are PAID to look at it, as the sales conversions are usually crap. They are ponzi schemes.
Unless iNetglobal can demonstrate outside income to pay the members, then payouts using new members money makes it a Ponzi.
I think you are having trouble reading the verified information on this blog.
jesse,
Let me see if I’m reading you correctly.
You’re here because you support INetGlobal. Correct?
You’d like people to know that you’re knowledgeable about the company and that your desire is to help the INetGlobal undo some of the damage to its image after the Secret Service raid. Correct?
In this response (below) to Bruce, you’d like to let him know that he was an undesirable customer of INetGlobal. Correct?
And in this response (below) to littleroundman, you’d like to let him know that he’s crazy because he references famous lines from the movie “Back to the Future” to make a point that history repeats itself.
Because littleroundman is culturally literate, you perhaps deduce he has a “huge crush” on Michael J. Fox, the star of “Back to the Future.” It’s your view that a doctor could cure littleroundman of the “crush” you perceive, but because of this perceived “crush,” you need say no more to prove your claim that INetGlobal is a viable business. Correct?
I’m not sure of what you mean, so please do take time to clarify.
On a side note, I was sure of what this poster meant when he was defending the Ad-Ventures4U autosurf. He made himself perfectly clear.
Make sure you read the entire post at the link below, jesse:
https://patrickpretty.com/2009/08/07/and-the-ponzis-will-die-as-one/comment-page-2/#comment-5773
Patrick
Interesting reading here, guys and gals.
Lyndell (Lynn): Frankly, I would rather be a petulant child than be on Riddlin, — perhaps the problem in the USA is that we don’t have enough petulant children, — people that will stand up to fight the tyranny of “guilty before proven innocent”. If we would do that, perhaps we would not have scenes such as that depicted when I read about the FDA raid on the Pennsylvania Amish Farm.
Tatyana: “Forgive them for they know not what they do”. You should realize that comments like those from Don and Jack are examples of typical American arrogance. I wonder how well they would do writing something in your language. I thought you expressed yourself very well, and I commend you for speaking out. I especially like this: “And fools suffices in any sphere of activity, therefore it is a pity those who has enclosed 5000$ and simply clicked, this business was initially not for them. Therefore before to put up somewhere money think – whether brains will suffice at you.” Please also understand, in America, our Government has come to think that it is their God-given duty to protect us from ourselves. Note, for example, Alasycia’s comment: “I am glad you feel you have received some benefit from your membership of iNetglobal, but the problem is that they do not seem to be operating legally.” The upshot of the “do not seem” is that it is OK for the Government to seize $26 Million so that they can protect us from ourselves. Secondly, the USA Government operates on the premise that most people are stupid and the Government is all-knowing. Congratulations to you Russians. It appears that people like you are finding your path to freedom while we in America continue on the dismal path to tyranny — all done with “good intentions”, of course. Good intentions are all that count, here in the USA. Fairness and justice — umm — doesn’t matter much, so long as the Government’s intentions are OK.
Whip: Your comment: “Exactly how are non-English speaking people that do not have a business in any way, shape, or form to begin with having any form of ‘IMPACT’ on internet marketing other than devaluing real internet marketing sites such as clickbank? You scammers really bring nothing to the table when you get caught”. Excuse me, Whip. Are English speaking people the only people that have businesses, or market on the internet?? This is the World Wide Web, Whip! Furthermore, you speak of Clickbank being a “real internet marketing site”. If so, then why is it that I can join free, then buy the product from myself and save the commission? So why would I buy it through someone else? Those kinds of buyers need to be protected from themselves!
Patrick: As to the “conspiracy theory about the PP blog”, as you put it — you, Patrick, say that you have no “stake” in the iNetGlobal outcome. Since you say it, that makes it true I guess. Never-the-less, if the right person should come along and say that it is not true, then look out, because the Government might decide to raid your office, despite the fact that you know better — all with good intentions, of course!
I will apologize in advance for the satire. Respectfully, Ken Haugen.
Ken
You have still not given any verified information as to how iNetGlobal is oeprating legally. You have made some very clever comments, but have said absolutely nothing about the legitimacy of the company, which has just been raided on serious charges.
Do you really believe that there is some kind of Big Brother conspiracy and that the Secret Service raid businesses because they feel like it? They have to have compelling evidence to even justify an investigation, never mind apply to the court for its permission to raid. They simply dont have the resources to spend time on wild goose chases in order to deprive americans of their liberties. Yeah Ken – innocent until proven guilty, but in a civil action like this, but there is already enough information about iNetGlobal publicly available for us to make an informed opinion.
Civil Forfeiture is a tool used to stop illegally made money from “disappearing” while legal proceeding take place. ASD is a perfect example of its value. We know that they did not get ALL the money paid by ASD members. Andy Bowdoin, its founder himself admitted to having a million offshore in Antigua under another name and which has never been recovered, and in addition, he has spend over a million on legal fees and that had to come from somewhere and he is still spending. But at least a large part of the money was recovered, because it was rescued by the Government when ASD was raided. There will at least be something to return to the members who were defrauded by ASD.
If iNetGlobal is found to be legal, it will get its money back and if it isnt, then law enforcement has done a good job.
Whilst I agree with you that it is often forgotten that the world wide web extends beyond the United States, Whip’s comment about non english speakers in iNetGlobal is still very valid as the business was an English Language one and many people involved neither read, wrote nor understood the language of the scheme that took their money. Clickbank is an English Language site too. I give full credit to Tatyana for managing to write in English, but she clearly chose to join an English language scheme and knew that she had to deal in that language. The same doesnt seem to have been true of many of the people recruited.
And by the way, are you one of those people who think that Americans should live without any laws or financial controls over those people and businesses who handle their money? Even after the recent banking crisis?
Not as easy done as you paint it, if you look at the Clickbank conditions for getting paid here: https://www.clickbank.com/accounting.html#A15
“Customer Distribution Requirement
ClickBank will withhold payment of any account balance until the following criteria is met:
* Sales made with 5 or more different credit card numbers; and,
* Sales made with two different payment methods (either Visa, MasterCard, or PayPal). Note: PayPal purchases do not count toward the minimum 5 different credit card numbers.
This requirement is in place to help prevent Affiliates from abusing the ClickBank Affiliate program by using their accounts for the sole purpose of fraudulently collecting rebates and/or discounts on their own purchases.
Once you have met the Customer Distribution Requirement, your account will begin issuing payments normally, in accordance with our Accounting Policy, beginning on the next payment issuing date.”
Hope that clears things up, SY
Hospitalera: Yeah, I know about the Clickbank policy, but I have never abused it. I cannot think of 5 different products that I would want to buy. Their requirement makes the assumption that the affiliate does not know 5 people with 5 different credit cards. Beyond that, does the 5-person requirement make it a pyramid? I have already apologized for the satire, so will not do it again. Get my point? Ken
Alasycia: It is quite simple. Go to the iNetGlobal landing page. Take your choice of four languages. More were coming soon, but for the seizure. Also, as to “illegal money”, when did it come to pass in the USA that “profit” is illegal money? As I have already said, over $25 million was frozen, against $11 million member liabilities. Please do a Google search. Ask for the “definition of ponzi scheme.” I did. “A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme – Definition in context. As for your “informed opinion”, mine is also an informed opinion — but last I heard, the law is still “Innocent until proven guilty”. Sorry, I don’t drink the Kool Aid, nor do I take Riddlin. I also have an informed opinion about people who handle our money, and it is quite naive to not see who the primary culprit is. Get my point? Ken
Ken, it’s fairly simple for any company to prove it isn’t a ponzi scheme. All iNetGlobal needs to do is to hire an independent, accredited accounting firm to audit all it’s financial records and present those findings to the court. The case could be dismissed forthright, and if iNetGlobal is as legitimate as you say then that’s exactly what we should expect them to do. However if that isn’t what they do then your faith in them would seem misplaced.
You’ll have to forgive some of the attitudes around here, we have quite literally seen all of this happen before, more than once in many cases. You can blame the government all you like, everyone of any political persuasion can fault with it in some aspect or another. But that isn’t the real issue here, is it? How many legitimate companies get closed down on charges of being a ponzi scheme? How many are acquitted of those charges? Again, it’s very easy to prove if the money being used to pay profits to one person didn’t come directly from another persons investment and that’s all iNetGlobal needs to prove. Most ponzi programs never hire a legitimate accountant to review and attest to their financials because it would prove the governments case against them. Do you know if iNetGlobal has hired an accounting firm to provide an independent and verified financial statement? If not, why do you suspect that might be?
Glim. The answer is yes. Based upon personal discussions with legal counsel, the answer is yes. This I quote: “Our moving papers will be filed this afternoon. A copy of the same will be made avasilable to all members.. In my mind that will be the company’s official statement until we get a hearing date.” Unquote. Let’s wait and see what it says, but I do know this: The iNetglobal attorney that is handling this case is a former U.S Prosecutor, and he does not file papers unless he knows that they are “substantively true and correct.” Perhaps we will be surprised — we will know soon. Thanks for your concern. You sound like a very fair person. A reminder, though, that we do still have the rule of law that is presumption of innocence – for now at least. In cases such as this, it is disturbing to me when people say “that’s all iNetGlobal needs to prove.” Rule of law has been “that’s all the U.S. needs to prove.” Not yet having done that, however, they have seriously impacted thousands of small businesses and put our internet marketing efforts in peril. Clearly, iNetGlobal has legitimate products. I know. I use them, but right now, their company has been forced into a skeleton crew that is working day and night to keep our server maintained and operations running. It is very easy to sit in our ivory towers and not think about the employees, their health insurance, their house payments, and so on. Fact is, speaking from my own experience, the iNetGlobal staff is comprised of really fine, hard working, dedicated, and competent people – ordinary folks that have done a great job with doing their level best to serve our marketing efforts. I stand with this statement: Innocent until proven guilty. Also, I have said before, Honorable Judge Frank has shown me to be a fair and just man. I was an observer in the courtroom last week, and I like him. What he says, after the moving papers are filed, will be very important information. Until then, it occurs to me that people that are writing on this blog should think about the social implications of assuming guilt. However the result, after the company’s filing, — the products services are superb, and given the assurances that the company has real and legal earned profits — I agree with Tatyana from Russia: “Even if the company will close I to it only I will be grateful.” That is some pretty powerful stuff coming from an ordinary citizen, in another part of the globe, who also has had a whole new opportunity opened to her/him because of iNetGlobal and it’s considerable network of users who teach, who learn, and who deserve a fair shake. Thanks. Ken
Ken, I’m not sure what the “moving papers” in the quote you gave us refer to. I’m sure iNet’s attorneys will file all required responses as the case develops but that isn’t the same thing as having the companies financial records audited by an independent third party. I urge you to watch for this as the court case progresses, if no reputable accounting firm is brought in to testify on iNetglobal’s behalf you can almost take that as an admission of guilt.
As to your point about “innocent until proven guilty,” I mean no offense in stating this but I assume you’ve never studied financial crimes at length before. Why were Bernie Madoff’s trading and personal accounts seized before he was convicted of a single crime? Because the government quite rightly believed that if those accounts were left open during the prosecution of the case some or all of the money in those accounts would be unavailable for distribution to Madoff’s victims should he be found guilty. I presume you’d agree with their judgment in that case, well the same reasoning applies to Mr.Renner and iNetGlobal.
Ken, you’re making an open and honest effort to present the “other” side of an argument and compared to many taking that role you are doing an admirable job. I wish to thank you for that and encourage you to continue. And yes, iNet hasn’t been convicted of a single thing so far, and it’s important to remember that when discussing the case. But the government thus far has been extremely careful and methodical when making these type of charges, it’s important to remember that as well.
Not to belabor my previous point but when you find the name of the accounting firm that will certify iNetGlobal’s financial propriety please do share it with us. You’ll have my thanks and I’m sad to tell you, my abject surprise.
Best of luck Ken.
Hello dear interlocutors! (I apologise for literacy I write these lines through translator Google)
My name is Vasily I from Kazakhstan.
It is assured by much of you this country it is not known.
I do not know as at you there in America affairs are, by what principles you solve who before you the liar or the frank person, but I will tell one me have acquainted with InetGlobal and this possibility of earnings very much was pleasant to me. But it was before federal agents HAVE attacked on InetGlobal.
I do not know for what reasons all it occurs, I the usual user, but during search of possible earnings on the Internet I have studied enough of programs, the organisations with their products and offers and very much it was pleasant to me InetGlobal.
As I understand InetGlobal works for a long time and for all this time all went well who did not complain, and here when the company has started to grow (by the way it really so) there were federal agents and have hung up on Steve GPRS. It is interesting to me to know your answer. At us it is called as the order. I.e. someone merges misinformation and in a consequence that on whom has been made the order remains out of work.
I to All of you will tell that all these events say that your American government is not perfect, but All of you equally continue to beat breast and say that “We the most free country in the world!”
Your government does not allow to simple citizens to leave “rat race”.
I am very upset by an event.
I have already prepared money for payment, and here your federal soldiers.
But I can add if InetGlobal remains afloat after that with it have made I I will join and I will receive money. “And YOU WILL LAMENT, And to SAY THAT it is LIE!”
Yours faithfully Vasily!
Vasily,
The answer lies in the independently audited accounts. If there are any, they will demonstrate whether or not iNetGlobal is a legitimate business or a ponzi scheme.
Audited accounts were not produced by the ASD attorneys when their assets were raided by the US Gov. A balance sheet that showed outside income available to meet liabilities could have had the case dismissed from the Federal Court, but no such documents were produced.
The same situation has applied to the many other ponzi schemes that have been sucessfully prosecuted. They could NOT prove that members were being paid with money that did not come from other members.
It has already been commented, both here and on other blogs, that the services provided by iNetglobal are available for a fraction of the price, if not free, from highly reputable and easy to find companies. The autosurf element is, prima facie an illegal business model in the US and in many other countries in the world.
However much you may like iNetGlobal, you would be wise to follow the court proceedings and see what kind of FINANCIAL information they provide, as Glim has already suggested.
Hello alasycia!
So I say to you:
Why did not receive any public data about the conduct of the case against InetGlobal you begin to speak out negatively?
There is the presumption of innocence!
And here’s another question all the negative mood:
Tell me, what wrong with you made the project InetGlobal?
Yours Vasiliy!
Inetglobal told its members that everything is O.K. Very soon they will pay its members and the govt. already told everything in the company’s favour.
Baljit, don’t get your hopes up too soon. I suspect if the charges had been dropped most of the iNetGlobal supporters who blog about the topic would be trumpeting this news from the rooftops. So far, they are not.
Rumors like this one are common when autosurf programs face prosecution. Before Ad Surf Daily had it’s first day in court it’s supporters were telling each other that the prosecutor had admitted, off the record of course that ASD was not a ponzi scheme and were certain that they would be acquitted in court. They threw online parties to celebrate how well they though the hearing had gone for them, until the ruling went against them.
I guess what I’m saying is don’t believe everything your upline tells you. The court will report the verdict when it is reached, until we read it from an official source, we wont know for sure.
I have many friends who fell for this.
Since December 2009 they did mot pay their consultants any ‘icash’, blaming ‘internet pirots’ who disturbed their Servers and other computer problems. They still continue to give this excuse and go on without crediting or paying any amounts while the uninforned consultants spend more than half an hour per day surfing. These poor fellows hope to get their money back by supporting the company.
The Feds have frozen their Bank with several millions and many were not aware of this and continued to recruit new members.
The Feds should give the monies to the members/cnsultants in the list directly and close the account.
Ari,
It would be illegal for the government to do what you say. They must treat all victims equitably, which turns out to be a long, non-trivial process……
Wouldn’t you think that companies using Steve Renner and iNetGlobal as a major testimonial, third party verification would remove him from their site at least for the time being?
http://www.fortune5minutes.com/
One can only wonder. LOL
ARWR
When I used to search “Don Allen” on your site, a whole bunch of articles came up. Now just this ONE article comes up. What the hell?
Try Donald Allen, John. You might need to page down a bit, because the results also might return other stories that perhaps use Donald or Allen.
Patrick
Ah. Thanks.
Of course, you know he goes by “Don” so much that it wouldn’t even occur to some of us to search that way.