468x60-TrafficMonsoon

Program Name: Traffic Monsoon Product/Service: Advertising… Processors: Payza, Solid Trust Pay… Pay Plan Type: RevShare… Basic Details: Launched On October 10, 2014… Earn 110% Hourly Shared Revenue… AdPacks Are $50.00 Each… 2% Daily Revenue Cap… Earn Extra Cash with Cash Links PTC Ads… Instant Withdrawals… 10% Referral Commission… No AdPack Limit… Surf 10 Sites Daily… No Repurchase Rule… Admin: Charles Scoville… How It Works: Read Home-About-Ad Plans-Security-FAQ page… 100% Referral Cash Back…

Thank You,                                                UPDATE: This Program Is Currently
Admin & Team                                          No Longer In Business, Due To SEC

P.S. Join with the Know How Team, because we know how to show you how to earn, we know how to be here daily to help you, and we know how to keep you content & updated.

Note: This is the end of our brief program description, and your comments are welcome. The information below is included to make it faster & easier for you to make a comment.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We Will Provide and You Must Decide
We Do Not Review|We Leave It Up To You

“Why Reply? Whenever you reply with new program information here at Know How To Earn, you will be branding your brand/exposing your linked website/and helping others with their need to succeed.”

[Your very first post here at Know How To Earn will be manually approved by the admin as soon as possible after we receive it. However, any and all of your new posts will be posted here automatically!]

Here are some of the questions that you could answer below about the program above: (1) Who is the Admin, and what is his/her previous online history? (2) Can this Admin be trusted? (3) Is the Pay Plan and Referral Commission sustainable? (4) What is/are the main product(s) and/or service(s)? (5) Can you earn as a Free Member? (6) How long does it take to profit? (7) What is the minimum and maximum withdrawal amount? (8) Is the withdrawal instant or manual? (9) How Does The Program Work, and is it available worldwide? (10) Who is the Web Host, and is it a shared or dedicated server? (11) Is there security with SSL, Robot, and DDOS protection? (12) How long is the domain registration? (13) Is this program a legally registered company? (14) What is the “Who Is”? (15) Is this program Legit, or is it a Scam? (16) What is the best strategy to earn the most profit? (17) What are the daily requirements to earn? (18) What is the minimum and maximum purchase or investment amount? (19) Is the advertising responsive? (20) Is the support system responsive? (21) Is this program unique, or is it just a cookie-cutter-copy? (22) How long will it take to reach your BEP (Break Even Point)? (23) Are there any foreseeable future problems with this program? (24) How does this program compare to other current and similar programs? (25) What is your Honest Opinion, or final analysis, about this program? Please “keep it real” by revealing any personal bias that may sway your opinion one way, or the other. Also, try not to use “frivolous reasons” for any criticism(s). On the other hand, feel totally free to express yourself below, with no unnecessary restrictions. Answer one or more of the 25 questions above, or create & answer your own question(s).

P.S. You May Reply Again Anytime with new information, appropriate verification, to respond to a previous comment, to ask a question about this program, to update your original opinion, etc. For Some Free Advertising, you can add your website link below in the specified space provided.

“Before You Go, Leave A Reply Below,
and Let Us Know, What You Know,
so We Can Grow, From Your Info.”

On-Topic & Off-Topic: (A) You can defend any program… (B) You can briefly introduce yourself… (C) You can compare admins… (D) You can show payment screenshots… (E) You can be mad, glad, or sad about any program, but you must stay mostly on-topic, and never too far off-topic…

Your questions or comments are always welcome and appreciated here at Know How To Earn, but please do not spam… Show us some love, by using our program link above… We are always here to help and/or support you whenever it is necessary… You can subscribe, on the right side.

Note: Posted programs that “pass muster”, or scrutiny, may also be listed here eventually on an appropriate page. Disclaimer: We cannot guarantee the performance of any admin, or program.
Yes U Can: If someone asks a question, and you know the answer, you can answer the question.

50 thoughts on “Traffic Monsoon

  1. Admin|Update Post author

    With TM… We’re going to press forward through the appeals process.

    See FAQ at the end of this post. We feel we have solid ground to stand on.

    — 10th Circuit Court —

    SEC vs Smart Assets & Brian J Smart. In this case, for example, the SEC illustrate the fraud was Brian J. Smart represented that investor money would be placed in low-risk financial instruments, but he used their money for his own personal expenses, pay earlier investors, and engage in high risk ventures.

    In Traffic Monsoon’s case, I never represented anything other than the sale of an ad service (on the website, youtube videos, or even in person).

    Even the judge from 30 Nov 2016 Hearing said, “Is there a distinction between those cases, which are I suppose admittedly pure investment schemes, and this case, which was marketed as the sale of an advertising product and a non-investment?”

    It appears, at least, during the 3rd and final hearing in the preliminary injunction that the judge recognized that the website was offering advertising services and not offering any investment.

    Illustrating that within the traffic exchange industry and paid-to-click industry people commonly receive a reward of money or advertising credits for visiting ads– which traffic monsoon offered to both free or paid members, however the adpack buyers received a reward for surfing which was variable based upon money the company already had received.

    So, customer money was not represented to be placed into any financial instrument of any kind. The website fully disclosed that their ad service purchase would provide the company money to deliver the services through other websites, through its internal traffic exchange, 10% of the purchase would go to the person who referred them, and the remaining profit margin belonged to the company and could be used to reward people for surfing ads in the traffic exchange.

    The website also disclosed that their purchase is not considered an investment or deposit, and did not promise any returns of any kind, however rewards for surfing as exists in the traffic exchange industry were made available from the money the company had already received in the sales of advertising services. These were expressly explained as rewards for surfing, and not any sort of returns of any kind– and not to buy with the expectation of any returns because there might be no rewards for surfing at all.

    http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510527046-tenth-circuit-ponzi-scheme-perpetrator-owes-4-7m

    Douglas F. Vaughan, The Vaughan Company, Realtors, Inc 2012 WL 4848964 (Bkrtcy. N. M.)

    10th Circuit case involved a promissory note program that promised investors a rate of return of 20% per year.

    Judge Jill Parrish said, “Because it seems to me that in almost all of those cases you have the classic situation where someone says I’m investing in real estate, I’m guaranteeing you 20 percent a year, and, in fact, there’s no real estate investment at all, for example, which seems a bit different than we have in this case.”

    – She was right to explain that she wasn’t seeing this sort of scenario in this case, and it is clear by definition established by precedent that a ponzi truly doesn’t exist in traffic monsoon.

    Judge Jenkins pointed out in his Management Solutions case indicated “new investor funds” to pay “earlier investors” — situations like Charles Ponzi that was saying you’re investing in “this” and there was no “this” there.

    Also identifying debtor-transferor utilizing after-acquired investment funds to pay off previous investors.

    The identifying and substantive concept here is there was no debtor-transferor situation here. Nothing was owed to anyone. The terms of the offer, the terms of service, and the messages seen at check-out clearly indicate that a purchase of service is not an investment, and there are no refunds. In other words, by the very terms of service the customers are agreeing to– they are agreeing to the very offer of ad services, not investing, and not being owed any refund.. No Debt.. which means they are agreeing that after a purchase of service they are agreeing they are owed nothing other than the services they have paid for.

    By the outline of ponzi; offering to invest in “this” and not having “this” actually be there, but using the invested funds to pay earlier investors rather than invest in “this” — this sort of model does not actually exist within traffic monsoon.

    I believe we have a real shot of asking the judge to over-turn the decision by Judge Jill Parrish based upon established precedent.

    Based upon the precedent cases.. Impossible to have money to pay everyone their account balance in a ponzi. The fact that TM can certainly means it’s not a ponzi.

    We’re hoping for a judge that rules according to the words as they are written in the statutes. Judge Jill Parrish did exactly the opposite in her decision. There is hope yet that justice can be achieved through appeal!

    FAQ:
    1. I am unsure in what this means, is an appeal now a full blown court case or another thing like before?

    Answer: It is another thing before having any jury trial. The judge in the 30 Nov 2016 hearing said, “You need an initial answer from me. I understand that and I’m obligated to give you the initial answer. But I also am cognizant of the fact that my initial answer might not be the way the Tenth Circuit sees it.”

    She also said, “we also can’t get to a point where the assets are distributed before we have some appellate review.” So she has provided the initial answer, but we’re going to take it to the appeals court to see if they see things differently than Judge Jill Parrish.

    2. Timeline on answer to above?
    Answer: Appeals can take about a year.

    3. What happens to everyone’s money?
    Answer: All assets will remain frozen until court ordered differently. The goal here is to bring accounts back exactly as they were before, and move forward with the business.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

    Reply
  2. Admin|Update Post author

    Traffic Monsoon vs Amway

    In MLM there is something called spill-over, and also spill-under. In case you’re unfamiliar with these terms, spill-over is when people who are referred by someone in your upline land within your downline. For example, if in mlm there are 3 people on level 1 and 9 people on level 2.. if you’re on level 1 and your sponsor signed up 4 people, that 4th person would land under you if you’re in that 1st spot on level 1. Spill-under is when people in your downline refer others and help fill-up your downline. To be able to qualify for spill-over and spill-unders, companies generally have requirement to meet certain business volume to qualify for commissions from sales.

    Traffic Monsoon took this concept and changed it. Instead of some people getting lucky to get “spill-over” or “spill-unders” compared with other people involved in the same opportunity, essentially everyone in the company became level 2 for everyone else. No business volume has to be met, but it is only available for adpack buyers. But they couldn’t simply buy an adpack and expect to receive commissions from sales or be rewarded without doing something to earn or qualify for it. That’s where I built in surfing to be a qualifying mechanism. I also felt that was the best because traffic exchanges offer rewards for surfing a certain number of pages.

    The SEC’s suggestion that this whole “surfing to receive a reward” thing to cover up investment returns is speculation and doesn’t give credit to the fact that I’m in a whole different mind set within traffic exchange industry and ptc industry, which is centered around surfing or viewing other websites and receiving a reward for doing that… rewards = money, advertising credits, other things. My reward happened to be money the company had, but placed cut off point without specifying any amount anyone would receive.

    MLM companies do no guarantee spill-over, but they do let people know that it is there and possible. They want people to know how it works. So, I explained how traffic monsoon works. In an MLM spill-over doesn’t happen unless someone in their upline refers someone and that individual lands underneath them. In Traffic Monsoon’s version of spill-over, I said it wouldn’t happen unless people are buying the services and the person needs to also be an active surfer.

    So telling potential customers that they could potentially receive a reward for surfing is the same as telling people in MLM that they could potentially receive spill-over. In both cases, money is available from the sale of a product/service before rewarding it for surfing or for spill-over commissions. An investment was not offered, and just in case someone thought some sort of investment was being offered I clearly indicated that there is no investment being offered, only ad service.

    Point is, in a ponzi money is purported to be available when making records available to the “investor” but the money isn’t really there to back-up the figures. If everyone wanted to be paid what was on those reports at the same time, the ponzi would collapse because there isn’t enough money to pay everyone.

    At that point, commonly there are delays in payment that are longer than normal. People start to wonder what could be causing the delays. Some ponzis are able to gain some more investors at that point and give money “owed” to earlier investors with money coming in. Having some people get paid gives others hope they will be paid too, but looking under the hood it is found that the reasons for delays are lies, and the real reason is because the money isn’t there.

    See, the fraud is — there truly is an investment being offered. Promises made to meet certain rates of return for the investors. There is no product or service provided to the buyer. Only a promise of returns. Behind the scenes, what the ponzi operator is doing with people’s money is different than what the operator is telling people as he lures people into this scheme. He’s not using their money to invest anywhere to gain the returns he tells people he’s capable of obtaining.

    What makes traffic monsoon not a fraud is– only advertising services were for sale. There were no promises made for any amount of income. It was described that if there are sales the company would have money, and if the company has money to reward for surfing then it would reward those who surfed a number of pages. Rewards didn’t require the buyer to buy more each time they received a reward. They just had to surf, which the SEC said is too simple of a task which doesn’t equal the amount of reward. So in that way they are actually saying I’m being too generous, and that’s wrong?

    100% of the people don’t surf every day. People forget, people have conflicts, people get lazy, etc. Just like 100% of people aren’t in church on Sunday, or 100% of a large college aren’t in class that day. I knew I couldn’t have click rewards last forever, because in mlm those who receive spill-over don’t receive it if they don’t renew their auto-ship, or meet business volume in their order, etc. So one purchase in MLM does not allow for spill-over forever. So I simply chose to cut those surf rewards off at $55. I never guaranteed that cut off point would ever be reached. But in mlm if the customer wants to receive downline earnings, they’re going to have to buy more.

    The SEC is saying that in an mlm, since people are required to buy more in order to qualify for downline commissions– this is an investment. Well, TrafficMonsoon didn’t require anyone to buy anything to receive referral commissions. Many people who never bought anything were referring others to buy the services and earning commissions from that. But the SEC has a problem with people who bought adpacks being rewarded money the company already has in its possession from the sales of services the company offers. Adpacks are a service. The way the SEC says the word adpack it sounds like some evil thing I was selling. It’s just a word short for advertising package.

    I have reasons for what I do which is different than what the SEC say my reasons are. I must admit, there are many times what I do or what I say have reasons misinterpreted by others.

    I know I described for you before that another company offered 1000 impressions for $49.99, and give people an opportunity to click ads and be rewarded from the money the company had received. I wanted to offer something better for the $50. I offered 1000 visitors, not impressions, and 20 click credits to a banner. I felt I had a competitive edge in service pricing and what was made available for the price of their adpack.

    In the paid-to-click industry I knew that banner clicks were offered at much lower prices, so I competed with that – offering an alternative service at a lower price for people who would ever say they wouldn’t buy from me because of price. Those services were there for them. I wanted those customers too.

    I also knew people who were familiar with the pricing of paid to click ads, so I made sure to make those services available too. My pricing was competitive in that market.

    I also was aware of the traffic exchange industry, and as we were trying to stand out in the traffic exchange industry– our traffic exchange services needed to be competitive in pricing to traffic exchanges.
    So when Daniel Wadley says that traffic monsoon is offering a security because the adpack price is different than prices to buy the services ala-cart… it simply was because I was intending to compete in 3 different industries at one time– and be a 1-stop shop that meets everyone’s needs.

    They also say the advertising services were fake, but ignore that the services offered on traffic monsoon were ranked very high in the traffic exchange industry; usually #1 on at least 2 top lists which tracked delivery of visitors and results in campaigns.

    Sadly, there was a paypal limitation immediately after a large jump in sales. Services slowed down, and since all the company’s money was being held by paypal — there wasn’t any way to deliver the services. So, we helped people understand the problem. People could see that by buying more service (even though they didn’t need more) — it would prime the pump. But the problem we faced next is, we used allied wallet which wasn’t giving the company the money either. We couldn’t use that money to deliver the services, so the services kept building up more and more, and the ability to deliver it continued to be nearly nothing compared to what it was previous to the PayPal limitation.

    People held on, knowing that paypal would have to eventually release the funds– and it was only 6 months. Some people couldn’t hang on and wait, but many did… even those who couldn’t wait were ready to come back when PayPal released the funds. But then that’s when the SEC filed their lawsuit, so everyone who has been waiting already since Jan 11, 2016 to be paid commissions earned for their hard work continue to wait and hope.

    Some people couldn’t wait through the paypal limitation. They also called paypal and were told they weren’t holding onto any money for traffic monsoon. They were told there was no money in the traffic monsoon account, and were suggested to contact the sec and fbi. With that going on, and recordings of calls going viral, and emails being received from paypal’s customer service going viral– disputes spiked up.. chargebacks spiked up within PayPal. An amount near $20 million in chargebacks had been processed by paypal between the time of limitation and the time the SEC filed the lawsuit.

    Even with the $20 million in reversals, the company can still cash-out 100% of the member account balances, and can still deliver 100% of the undelivered services. Since every account balance can fully be cashed out, and all the services delivered while still leaving millions to spare… how could any judge think for a second that this is a ponzi?

    She says it’s because buyers of adpacks who qualified for a reward.. the money for that reward came from other customers buying adpacks. But, change the words buyer and customer into investor– and that now turns the whole thing into a ponzi; according to the judge and SEC, anyway. But was an investment truly being offered on Traffic Monsoon? No. There wasn’t.

    So what this really is.. are customers who bought a product/service which doesn’t guarantee anything more than the product/services they paid for, with a potential of being rewarded money by meeting a qualification. Sounds like every mlm and spill-over. If the upline to you doesn’t work hard you won’t get spill-over. According to howey, that would be “depending upon the efforts of others.” Which would make every single mlm company a ponzi too, because when you refer others who also build your business– that’s “depending upon the efforts of others” too. So every MLM meets howey in the same way the judge lined traffic monsoon up with the howey test. So she’s saying it meets howey, so it becomes an investment.. which turns everyone into an investor… and seeing where the money is coming from to reward in surfing.. it’s coming from the purchases of other investors…

    This is major and complete mental gymnastics (mind manipulation) to turn a thing into a ponzi when there truly isn’t one. When people compare our case to when AMWAY had their lawsuit with the Federal Trade Commission in 1979, now you can understand a bit more why– it’s because AMWAY wasn’t an illegal pyramid scheme, and Traffic Monsoon truly isn’t a ponzi.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

    Reply
  3. Admin|Update Post author

    Please read the following fully and completely so you know where we are, and what’s happening next.

    The are 8 steps in the legal process of a civil case.
    Step 1: Pleadings. This step includes someone filing a complaint, the answer to the complaint, counter claims, etc.
    Step 2: Motions. A motion is a request for a court order.
    Step 3: Preliminary Injunction.
    Step 4: Discovery. The main discovery tools are depositions, interrogatories, requests to produce documents, and requests for admissions. This step takes a bit of time.
    Step 5: Pre-trial hearing.
    Step 6: Trial. Part of the trial step is Jury selection which takes time, and the trial can take time but usually a few days or weeks.
    Step 7: Appeal
    Step 8: negotiation, mediation, and arbitration

    In our case, the judge has marked her decision in the preliminary injunction with the permission to appeal. She did believe the funds shouldn’t be released without appellate review. So we’re going do that, but each step along the way can’t be skipped. I wish we could skip to the end of the book!

    The appeals process places the motion to dismiss on hold. So if you’re thinking 28 days, scratch that. 28 days is no more, because the motion to dismiss is now placed on hold awaiting the decision reached through the appeal. An appeal could take a year or more. If this goes to trial, that’s years away from now for that to happen.

    All that has happened here is the judge has kept everything as it is. She’s granted the case to move forward, and denied our motion to release 90% of the business. She’s also allowed me to earn money again, which means I can also start a new business while this case is going on which isn’t materially the same as traffic monsoon. As the case moves forward, the judge says in her opinion the SEC’s case has merit.

    The judge seems to be missing what a ponzi is compared with an investment.. a ponzi is an investment OFFER without a common enterprise…

    Traffic Monsoon was not offering any investment… and there couldn’t be a common enterprise to make it an investment under Howey if there was no common enterprise OFFERED to invest in- and no mention of returns on investment- — only the sale of ad service was offered. Rewards for referring customers were offered, and potential rewards for surfing were offered.

    There was no return on investment offered. That’s why Loren kept focusing on what was written on the website and what’s in the terms of service, because the website provided the offer, and no investment was being offered.

    John Durkin once said— it can’t both be a ponzi and a security. He compared this case to selling flour as cocaine and getting charged both for fraud (selling fake drugs), and also getting charged for selling drugs. He explained that a ponzi is flour to a security. It’s not a real security. He’s said it’s impossible to be charged both for selling a fraudulent security, and also charged for selling securities.

    The ponzi specifically offers an investment, but there isn’t any real investment activity going on. There’s no real common enterprise being invested into. So that’s where the judge can’t both meet the howey test and at the same time meet the definition of ponzi.

    So it’s just baffling for this judge to rule in the SEC’s favor on Morrison when no previous judge has, and it’s also in opposition to a Supreme Court decision, rule in the SEC’s favor alleging traffic monsoon is a security, and at the same time also rule with the opinion that traffic monsoon is also a ponzi.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

    Hi Charles

    What we should be following are real updates about this case based on what is really going on and not what you think will happen. Because what you say may not be the same as what the judge says–which what really counts here.

    The people deserves that much. Check this link regularly for real updates from the court itself: http://dm.epiq11.com/#/case/traffic/info

    The website even says “This website will be the main method of communicating with customers and the public. We strongly encourage interested persons to check the website frequently as it will be updated as new information is obtained. ”

    So let’s follow this link from now on and focus on what is really happening.

    Patrick Reforsado|Facebook

    Reply
  4. Admin|Update Post author

    Charles Scoville
    March 28

    The judge has made a decision on the preliminary injunction and motion to set aside the receiver (which would have given us 90% of the business back). She has granted the SEC’s motion for preliminary injunction, and denied our motion to set aside the receiver.

    Let’s remember, Mark Cuban had the same thing happen to him and in the end he was cleared of all charges. By legal definition of things as I have shared before previously, and what our attorneys have filed with the courts– things truly should resolve in our favor in the end.

    We’ve filed the motion to dismiss, and now the SEC have 28 days to respond.

    I have a call scheduled with my attorneys tomorrow morning, so I’ll find out more. If there is anything worth reporting I’ll update you after.

    Charles Scoville
    March 29

    Remember .. Final decisions are not made by judges. They are made by juries. Preliminary injunction is just 1 step in the path to trial by jury.

    Granting preliminary injunction doesn’t mean the SEC wins the case. It means simply we are headed towards the next step.

    Message From Charles Scoville
    March 29 2017

    Reply
  5. Admin|Update Post author

    Who here wishes Judge Jill Parrish could line TrafficMonsoon side-by-side with the law and make a decision? We all do. As I have posted things about legal definitions of things, it’s been pretty clear which direction she should decide.

    Many wonder why it’s taking the judge so long if this matter is so simple? That’s a very good question. I wonder what’s going on inside the judge’s mind, or if she’s even looking at this case.

    Why don’t we contact the judge and ask her? No one can have contact with her to ask.. it’s against court rules to have contact with the judge. If I reach out to her, that’s known as ex-parte and could turn things against us. So no one knows if she’s even looking at our case or not, or what she might be thinking through.

    Some people have wondered why don’t I start a new business or get a job while this is going on. The reason is because the court order prohibits me from earning any money right now, and any money I earn would need to be turned over to the receiver. Since we want to win the case, that’s why my mom is seeking to raise funds to pay attorneys by getting member support.

    People have also wondered if we’re waiting on a judge’s decision, why are there still bills from the attorneys. The answer is– attorneys are still working. They worked on filing the motion to dismiss, for example. We are billed AFTER they do the work. The receiver contacts the attorneys about issues such as potential living allowance, and attorney fees being covered by the funds they are holding. There are discussions surrounding how long this is taking and what actions we can be taking to help the process speed up.

    People have wondered why don’t we get the media involved. The media twists things. Look what they did with Mark Cuban when he tried to get the media involved => https://youtu.be/qMpwt4hGLo0 After watching that.. Hard to believe Mark Cuban won his case and was acquitted of all charges! But he did!

    People have wondered– what about getting Congress to take a look into what’s taking this so long? Well, that’s a bit more complicated. Congress is part of the legislative branch in the government. The judge is in the judicial branch. Someone in congress might be able to help resolve things with the SEC, but they can’t do anything about a federal judge. Federal judge’s are appointed by the president.

    There are checks and balances within the USA, and the legislative branch may propose amendments to overturn judicial decisions, but since the judge hasn’t made a decision it appears there is nothing the House of Representatives and the Senate can do.

    People also have wondered why don’t we get Donald Trump involved. Have you seen all the things he’s facing right now in the media? He’s clearly too busy.

    People have suggested contacting the head of the SEC to try to work something out with the top officials. Well, the chairman is “acting chairman.” He’s not the director, and as acting chairman he can’t make decisions relating to cases. It might be worth trying to get them to see the light, but you have to understand– we’ve already attempted to help the SEC recognize they are wrong. To file a lawsuit they need to get a certain number of higher-ups in the SEC to approve the lawsuit.

    For whatever the reason, they want to allege that TM is a ponzi, even though it doesn’t match the definition. This does scream that there’s an agenda rather than actually pursuing this case for moral, ethical, and legal reasons.

    Everyone’s got an idea for what to do – but in speaking with attorneys who are on this case and other attorneys who aren’t on this case.. the best thing for us to do is patiently wait for the judge to make a decision. While it’s easy for us to see this is an injustice, and many of us are suffering day-in and day-out due to the affects of this case… all we can hope is that the people who are causing this incredible and unbelievable injustice will have karma come back and get them for what they are doing to everyone of us who is suffering through this with hardships and burdens.

    If I had any control over this situation I would have resolved it a lot longer ago. Some wonder when I’m going to say something more, but that’s not in my hands– it’s in the hands of the judge.

    I know my updates are pretty much the same thing– reminding people we’re in the right… placing definitions of things out in front of people to show people that by legal facts of law we should prevail… and I do that for a couple of reasons. Some people really don’t know what’s going on, and haven’t read the updates. I know that’s surprising, but many people are still in the dark.

    Some people really don’t know whether I have done something wrong, or if the SEC and PayPal have done something wrong. I like to make sure people know the facts of the situation, because I’m not the cause of what’s happened with PayPal or the SEC. I didn’t break any of PayPal’s terms of service, and I didn’t break any laws either. Human beings often learn and retain information through repetition. That’s why I repeat things – education, retention, and to connect messages with people who haven’t seen them yet.

    Since there’s nothing more we can do than wait, building up each other’s confidence in a win seems to be a fitting use of time while we wait.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

    Reply
  6. Admin|Update Post author

    Thank you ever so much for your wonderful donations towards our legal funds every donation is truly appreciated and we thank you all.

    I just wanted to share you are able to make a donation via a debit or credit card incase you are unable to donate via Payza, Bitcoin or via direct wire to the fund.

    To make a bank or credit card donation you will need to go to:
    Funded for Justice https://fundedjustice.com/f1C8h8 go to browse and look for the picture below of Mom’s Fund for Charles Scoville it maybe on Page 1 or Page 2 and then follow the steps it’s very easy to donate this way.

    or you can make a donation via:
    PAYZA: sldfund16@gmail.com [lowest fees]
    BITCOIN: 12Xkjbqknaub1JnSbKff73k66nYQ96dR4m [low fees]
    WIRE FROM YOUR BANK: Go to your bank with the information below and ask your banker for help in sending a WIRE directly from your account into the fund. [consider bank fees]

    Scoville Legal Defense Fund
    BBVA Compass Bank
    Routing number: 107005319
    Account number: 6740871364
    SWIFT code: CPASUS44

    Thank you once again to you all 🙂
    #TMFAMILY #keepstrong
    Anita Langley|Facebook

    Reply
  7. Admin|Update Post author

    When the SEC filed a lawsuit against Traffic Monsoon alleging that it operated as a ponzi, it sparked controversy throughout the industry. Chaos erupted among members both online and off. A Federal Court Judge, Jill Parrish, signed the order to freeze assets, setup a receiver to hold the assets, restrict any business activities, and basically place the lives of many people all around the world in holding while decisions are made in court.

    One of the arguments found both online and off about Traffic Monsoon is that it’s a pyramid scheme. A pyramid scheme pays compensation for recruitment, and requires paying a participation fee which isn’t for products, services, or property. It’s sometimes called gifting instead of buying anything, because nothing is truly sold. The only thing for sale is the opportunity to recruit others, and it’s from recruiting that money is earned; not the sale of any product, service, or property.

    These (gifting) schemes are sold with the offer to make money fast by gifting some amount to someone, which qualifies the individual, then they can make a whole lot of money (or so they’re told) selling the opportunity to as many people as they can. The problem most people face is they aren’t able to get anyone to get involved in this type of scheme, and their gift with the dream of making money is not realized.

    This is a fraud because people are lead to believe they can make money yet no value, no product, no service is actually offered in exchange for the sale — only the dream of making money off their purchase by having others do the same.

    People get pyramid schemes confused with legitimate multi-level marketing, which sells products/services and only pay compensation when products and services are sold. MLM is not a pyramid scheme, even if people look at its structure and think it looks like a pyramid.

    Another argument facing supporters of Traffic Monsoon is the accusation that Traffic Monsoon is a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme offers an investment. Usually the operator is telling people he can get high rates of returns due to some genius trading technique, or because of some software he uses that no one else has available to them. He lures investors in by a feeling of low risk and high returns.

    As soon as the ponzi obtains their first investor, they cannot possibly meet the obligation to provide the returns. The money invested by investors is not used the way the ponzi operator describes. He’s not taking people’s money and investing it in any common enterprise. He’s not utilizing the money to trade stocks, trade commodities, or trade currencies. So he certainly cannot provide any returns to the very first investor.

    He’s in debt from day 1, because he cannot meet the obligation he’s agreed to with that first investor. To attempt to meet the obligation to the first investor, the operator must obtain more investors, but with each investor obtained the commitment for returns exponentially becomes greater and greater.

    Eventually, with the steady returns people request to be paid what they have supposedly earned in interest or returns, but they are not able to get the money they believe belongs to them. Their money was paid to earlier investors, and no longer available. The figures on paper aren’t real. It’s a fraud, and what people thought they were investing in wasn’t really there either.

    Traffic Monsoon sold valid advertising products which actually are cost savings over many mainstream advertising services. Anything that originated from the company specifically offered ad service, and no investment. Traffic Monsoon certainly made no commitments to meet obligations it couldn’t keep, nor needed future sales in order to keep current commitments. The company sold ad service, then had money from the transaction of that sale. Commissions were paid to the person who referred the customer.

    There’s no requirement to purchase anything before selling the services. Those who click ads could be rewarded for their surfing from the money the company had already received. They could continue to click each day to qualify for rewards. At all times the rewards given for surfing came from money the company had already received. So if everyone wanted to cash-out all their account balance at the same time, everyone would be paid.

    Those surf rewards wouldn’t go on forever, and the company specified that surf rewards would stop at $55, or if the company didn’t have any funds to give any rewards for surfing. Rewards and reward amounts depended on how much money the company had already received. Figures are real, and the ad services customers paid for are real.

    So now you can see why many say that Traffic Monsoon is not a ponzi scheme, or a pyramid scheme, and should win this case.

    So regardless of whether you support or oppose Traffic Monsoon, at least when someone brings up ponzi schemes or pyramid schemes – you can say: now I get it.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

    Reply
  8. Admin|Update Post author

    Hi Guys URGENT

    I wanted to say that we know that Traffic Monsoon has done nothing wrong. We showed in court how we are

    NOT A PONZI … we are a simple system that allows you to buy Traffic and earn an income as we have an Amazing CEO. If we had been a Ponzi trust me the case would have been over already…

    So many other businesses have popped up since TM and are all operating fine its frustrating knowing that they operate just because they are away from THE SEC

    Pay Pal created the freeze and slowed our business down ⬇ but we fought on and then The SEC came along and told lies to help their case

    They are weak in their argument. They have nothing…

    The situation is this: Due to the SEC, TM have no funds

    Charles Scoville can not ask for any donations but he has always been here for us all and I know many of us think

    Why should we donate?????

    Well it is simple. Why should the SEC get what they want. And that is make sure they fight until TM runs out of funds

    The (TM) Lawyers need to be paid for what work they have done to date and this months bill is due

    DO NOT LET THE SEC STEAL OUR DREAMS . DO NOT LET THE SEC TAKE AWAY OUR BUSINESS AND OUR MONEY 💰

    All I ask is for $10 each can you imagine 10,000 donations this would secure our Legal Team to BLOW THE SEC OUT OF THE WATER AND CRUSH THEM: http://trafficmonsoon.org/legal.htm

    Sharon James|Facebook|February 19, 2017 at 11:36am

    Reply
  9. Admin|Update Post author

    ++ Great News – We CAN now ACCEPT Donations in Payza towards our legal fund ++

    Please send your donations to : – sldfund16@gmail.com

    You can also send in Bitcoin, FJ or Direct to the SLDF Bank account. http://trafficmonsoon.org/legal.htm

    1) Payza
    2) Bitcoin
    3) Funded for Justice
    4) Direct to the SLDF fund

    Remember everyone this is your business too – we have to do whatever it takes to make this happen – without donations we don’t have our amazing attorneys – we all know the facts of the case here and we need to pull together even more now.

    If we had been a Ponzi trust me the case would have been over already … and its not that’s why we are still waiting for a decision!!

    We will keep asking – we won’t stop and we won’t take this lying down – we have to fight for what’s ours and this is what we will do!!

    All I ask is for $10 each can you imagine 10,000 donations this would secure our Legal Team too 🙂

    With thanks in advance

    TM Family Forever 🙂

    Reply
  10. Admin|Update Post author

    Why is this case lasting so long? We have only theories and guesses. Here are some of them.

    1. The judge is so busy with her schedule filled up with other cases she doesn’t have time to make a decision.
    2. There are much more pressing matters, and with TM not really being a ponzi nor is there any real fraud to worry about, she’s placing priority in other matters.
    3. The facts line up in our favor and she needs to be solid as she makes her decision.
    4. Maybe the tough thing for her is that all the facts line up but the SEC was compelling in their arguments which caused her to step back and place it on hold so she can think about things while focusing on other matters.
    5. She knows the case the SEC has brought against TM is weak, and thinks with a simple agreement the SEC and I could work this out among ourselves without her having to make a certain judgement which if aligning that decision with laws and how they are stated should resolve in our favor.

    Judge Jill Parrish said, “…I don’t know if there’s a middle ground that you are advocating and you want to propose something for me to look at in that regard. I don’t know if the SEC wants to, I mean, maybe take a hard look at what it’s proposed and see if there are some things that are maybe overreaching in what was initially proposed given where we are.” (Transcript 30 Nov 2016 Page 114/146 lines 4-10). So maybe the judge is hoping for both parties to take a hard look at our positions and come to some sort of agreement.

    So the judge is balancing out the SEC’s argument that there might be room to infere something different than what was actually offered and agreed to within the terms of service, but also having to look at the laws that protect consumers and companies through clicking agreement to the terms of service, and having the offer clearly described (as it was) on the website.

    With such a busy schedule she might simply not have time to make a decision while focusing on much easier matters to resolve. She also might be hoping if this goes on long enough the SEC and I might feel compelled to work something out without having to dismantle the business.

    I’m exploring with TM’s attorneys the possibility of making a few small modifications which wouldn’t overall change the business model, but add MORE value for the previous buyers of adpacks and improvements which may satisfy the SEC. Clearly the SEC made some comments during the last hearing which leads me to believe they don’t really think TM is a ponzi.

    A. They said originally that surf rewards issued from money paid for by adpack buyers makes TM a ponzi. However, in court they explained they didn’t have a problem with that, only that the rewards cut off at an amount greater than $50. So they actually contradicted their original claim as to what makes something a ponzi.
    B. They said the adpack is a security, but if priced differently it wouldn’t have been. So yet again there is a contradiction in their original claim.

    These 2 reasons certainly don’t match up with the definition of ponzi and also don’t match up with the definition of an investment.

    Is something truly an investment based upon rewards cut off point and pricing? Do either of these things truly make something a ponzi? The clear and definite answer is no. However, as I said the SEC does infer something different than what was actually and factually offered.

    -Charles Scoville|Admin

    Reply
  11. Admin|Update Post author

    🛑 SEC EXPOSED 🛑

    There are many who ask questions about the future. When will something happen? What will it be?

    I recognize this comes from a place of pain and stress. We just want to be relieved of the injustice which has fallen upon all of us because of PayPal’s sudden turn against our business, and the SEC twisting things around to paint an image of something that truly doesn’t exist.

    Foundation:
    It’s been proven that there is more than enough money to pay everyone what they have already earned, deliver the services, and have money to spare. There was no ponzi and that’s plain and clear to see. New sales weren’t needed to meet current obligations.

    Those who have been involved in TM for a while certainly have seen results in their advertising, and learned first hand that our services are not an illusion. When PayPal limited TM, certainly all who were involved for a while noticed a drop in visitors to their sites. This is something I don’t have to prove to anyone, because each of you experienced it for yourselves.

    All along I have always positioned the offers on TM as strictly advertising services. Video clips of me at meetings have been shared and spread to show most undoubtedly that I explained that when someone makes a purchase of an adpack, they receive the service they paid for. The transaction is complete. The money they spent was exchanged with the company for the service they paid for. Now that the money is held by the company, it was used to deliver the services, pay commissions to the sponsor, and from the remaining amount left over amounts were rewarded to people surfing ads in the traffic exchange.

    I’ve always been clear what is offered on TM. Anyone who thought TM was an investment were mistaken, plain and simple. TM never worked as an investment. it’s always worked as a business which sells ad services, and rewards people sales commissions for selling the services, and rewards people with cash and advertising credits for viewing other people’s websites. The money always came from the sales of services, meaning money the company ALREADY HAD in hand BEFORE issuing any commission or reward for surfing.

    Explanation:
    Pretty much everyone can see already that TM isn’t a ponzi and never offered any investment. So why did the SEC get involved? To protect people? They wanted to make sure people weren’t harmed from some ponzi scheme? How many people feel protected by how slow this is moving? Scheduling a hearing the SEC was so busy with so many other things, including vacation. So while you’re all suffering, they’re off enjoying themselves. They care about you?

    Simple. THEY WANT THE MONEY. All they had to do is freeze all the assets, get a temporary restraining order, and make it so it would be nearly impossible for us to defend ourselves!

    The image I’ve uploaded along with this post clearly indicates that part of the funds obtained by the SEC will go to the whistle-blower. PayPal. What benefit does PayPal have to work with the SEC to make TM look bad? They get a PAY OFF from the SEC.

    What does the SEC get for winning against TM? Well, looking at the image it’s clear. Only SOME of the money would go to the people involved in TM. The rest goes to the SEC’s treasury.

    The SEC plan to setup a website for members to submit a claim for money. It isn’t going to be found or even used by 100% of the people who’s money this is. Low percentage of people will know about it, and low percentage of people will even use it. The rest goes to the SEC.

    The receiver benefits from the money while she holds onto it. So you can imagine why she wants to work towards making TM look bad. She wants this case to last a long time too. Longer it lasts, the more she gets to use the money.

    In a system where the SEC and receiver benefit from seized assets, the motivations behind enforcement become questionable. They appear to be manipulating the system for their own gain! If the receiver and SEC didn’t benefit from seized or frozen assets, I believe they would be more likely to be honest and fair. Probably by now they would have already admitted they were wrong, or never even opened this case to begin with.

    Image Source http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659760.txt

    -Charles Scoville|Admin

    Reply
  12. Admin|Update Post author

    🚦 Read Each Word Carefully 🚦

    I’ve said many times that by legal definition Traffic Monsoon should prevail in this case. I’m about to show you legal definitions to things so you can see for yourself I’m right.

    To determine if something is a ponzi, first it has to be an investment. If you truly review the TM website, there was no offer of any investment. If you review the videos uploaded by me to youtube, none of my content ever positioned services offered on TM as an investment.

    But with what was offered aside, there is a way to determine if something is an investment. First is whether there is an “investment contract.” Looking to the terms of service, the agreement made was purchases are for services and a non-investment.

    There’s another way to determine if there is an investment contract present. It’s called the Howey test. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/328/293/case.html

    “The test of whether there is an “investment contract” under the Securities Act is whether the scheme involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with profits to come solely from the efforts of others.”

    SOLELY is the key word. Surfing to receive a reward substantially indicates there is no investment contract present, because the qualification to receive a reward by completing a task relies upon the efforts of the user, and not SOLELY upon the efforts of others. Since part of the definition of a ponzi is an investment scheme, right away it’s proven it’s not a ponzi.

    Let’s drill deeper. A ponzi solicits investors by telling the investors profits are obtained by using the investor’s money to invest in something else such as real estate, currencies, commodities, etc. The fraud in a ponzi, is the investor’s money isn’t actually being invested in anything, but simply being paid as returns to earlier investors.

    Another hallmark of a ponzi is a promised return. Traffic Monsoon doesn’t promise returns at all! A ponzi for example would claim it can return 60% profits in 6 months, and 120% profits in a year. The only way to meet those returns the ponzi must bring in more investors, and with each new investment into the scheme it falls further and further in debt. It’s in fact in debt from its very first investment, because they can’t possibly meet the obligations they’ve commited to within their investment contract.

    This means, money is not there first before people are “paid” on paper. So if people request their money to be paid to them, it’s delayed until they receive more money in.

    With Traffic Monsoon, money from ad service sales is already in hand before rewarding the surfers for completing the task. So if everyone asked to be paid at the same time, everyone could be paid without the need of more sales.

    As mentioned before, the SEC has failed to prove any fraud. They have failed to display a ponzi actually exists within the TM business model. Furthermore, they have failed to display an investment contract exists, and therefore they don’t actually have jurisdiction over the business.

    Not only does the SEC not have jurisdiction upon 100% of the business due to the above explanation, they most definitely don’t have jurisdiction over 90% of the business which came from outside the USA.

    According to REG-S within securities laws, sales of securities within the USA to customers outside the USA don’t need to be registered with the SEC because the SEC doesn’t have jurisdiction over the sales of securities outside the USA.

    So even if the SEC could prove TM was offering securities (which by legal definition they couldn’t!) they most certainly don’t have jurisdiction over 90% of the business!

    But since there is no investment being offered by legal definition and there actually is no ponzi scheme going on by legal definition, the SEC truly has no jurisdiction over 100% of the business.

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has defined a Ponzi scheme as:
    “a scheme whereby a corporation operates and continues to operate at a loss. The cooperation gives the appearance of being profitable by obtaining new investors and using those investments to pay for the high premiums promised to earlier investors. The effect of such a scheme is to put the corporation farther and farther into debt by incurring more and more liability and to give the corporation the false appearance of profitability in order to obtain new investors. Hirsch v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 72 F.3d 1085, 1088 n.3 (2d Cir. 1995)”
    https://www.law360.com/bankruptcy/articles/554968/is-your-investment-fund-a-ponzi-scheme-

    Another definition of Ponzi Scheme
    “A Ponzi scheme, simply put, is a business model that promises to pay out more money than it takes in.” http://emord.com/blawg/the-defining-characteristics-of-a-ponzi-scheme/

    Traffic Monsoon did not operate like that, period. As clearly displayed when a sale takes place commissions are paid, and money is held by the company. Surfers can then complete a task to be rewarded from the amount of money the company has received. In other words, there’s no debt, no loss, and certainly no promise to pay out more than the company receives in.

    It’s been clearly displayed that Traffic Monsoon truly has more than enough money to pay everyone what they have earned, and can deliver all purchased servies with money left to spare! This truly displays that Traffic Monsoon is not operating at a loss!

    Rewarding people for surfing from money the company received in ad service purchases. Company has the money first from the sales of services, and as people view ads the company rewards money never to exceed the amount already received. Very simple way to explain it. I am in the business of selling ad service, and built giving money to surfers from the sales of services into the business model.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

    Reply
  13. Admin|Update Post author

    A message from our CEO Charles (translated message via Sharon James):

    What Charles knows at this moment in time is that Judges do not have a time limit for making decisions on a civil matter this is NOT a Criminal case.

    Decisions can be made at any time we believe that the judge will make a decision as quickly as possible (as during my presence in court she said she knew how important how serious this is with the TRO and the Asset freeze) and the impact on Charles’ life and
    everyone else)

    Historically Civil cases have taken several months or even several years. However we are hopeful this will be resolved as quickly as possible. We also know based upon fact of Legal definition which our attorneys have done a fantastic job on bringing to the judges attention Is that There is NO INVESTMENT offered on Traffic Monsoon I am referring in terms to Investment Contracts under LAW.

    In other words ultimately the SEC does not have Jurisdiction over this business and is Over Reaching. We have also well defined what a Ponzi is and point by point proven by Legal definition that Traffic Monsoon is Not a Ponzi.

    We have also illustrated There is MORE than enough money to pay everyone what they have already earned and there is No Need to generate more Sales in order to make current obligations in delivering service and paying people what they have already earned.

    We have shown the judge that the business model has been fully and completely represented to the customer which explains to the customer what the offer and services are, and to those who intend to earn money on How to Earn, where the money comes, from tasks to perform rates and provides no guarantees of income and while surfing as a qualified member the pages in the traffic exchange does merit reward for Adpack buyers, we have also shown that rewards are always limited form actual sales revenues that the company already has in hand prior to issuing any reward for surfing in the traffic exchange and we have shown that this has been described fully on the website and within videos.

    So some how we wander why the judge is taking so long to make a decision on this case when it is So obvious and I believe the answer is because the judge over this case is not assigned to our case alone she has many different cases that she is responsible for multiple case before ours and multiple cases after ours and she is likely has a stack of cases she is working through and making decisions while at the same time working through a busy schedule being in court sitting on the bench being a judge for many other cases every day so we are waiting in line for the judge to reach our case it is in her stack and we hope that she takes the necessary steps time to review the business.

    How it lines up with Applicable Law and make a decision after it is thoroughly weighing out the facts. We also hope that she makes the decision based upon Law rather than have this case move forward to a Trial. We all want to see this resolved in the shortest amount of time as possible.

    The legal system within the US is a slow moving process and we will continue to working through each step of the way towards a WIN and I have posted many times about Legal definitions of things and shown some of the strong arguments we have in favour, and My requests to you is please to FORWARD those things on to people who have doubt.

    We have within us TRUE WINNING POTENTIAL and the #Truth is On our side. How long this will take? No one knows but of course timing in not on our hands but the hands of the judge and the process in place of the court system.

    -Anita Langley

    Reply
  14. Admin|Update Post author

    There’s been many people asking to know what’s happening. Welcome to the legal system of the United States of America. It’s slow, takes time, and we don’t know how much longer the road ahead is towards victory.

    The lawsuit was filed 26 July 2016. It’s now 17 Dec 2016. Many have been waiting to get paid what they have earned since 11 Jan 2016 when PayPal decided to limit the account and hold the money owed to people for the work they have done.

    We’re all wanting the waiting to be finished. There have been 3 hearing sessions, and the judge has taken things under advisement and we await any decision she makes. She might even call us back in for another hearing session. We don’t know anything yet. We’re waiting.
    The judge has not given a date or time frame she expects to provide any decision.

    We’ve clearly shown that traffic monsoon is solvent. We can deliver all traffic and pay everyone what they have earned. The judge specifically has asked the SEC to provide evidence of fraud, and the SEC wants the judge to ignore the website completely. The SEC continues to twist, manipulate, and blatantly lie.

    Some of the SEC’s arguments apparently have caused the judge to step back and reflect, but she isn’t buying everything they have said.
    Many of you have seen that Vemma had a lawsuit against them filed in 2015 with the FTC, which has recently been resolved. It takes time through the process. We’re taking one step at a time to clear the false accusations made against Traffic Monsoon. What the next steps will be will be determined by whatever the judge decides.

    We’re all hoping for the best, and we’re all tired of waiting. We all just want to get paid what we have earned and get back to work. We’re doing all we can, and we know this is a process.

    We haven’t heard anything yet from the judge. When the judge makes her decision we’ll let you know, but this might not be over anytime soon but who knows– it could be. All the time passing by since 11 Jan 2016 certainly has tested all of of our patience. It’s easy to give up and quit, but I just want you to know that although it can be discouraging at times, I haven’t given up.

    Thank you for all the support from those who also haven’t given up, but have given donations to the legal defense fund which was started by my parents.

    -Charles Scoville|Admin
    Facebook Group: United States TM Events

    Reply
  15. Admin|Update Post author

    Basically there are 2 ways to earn sales commissions on traffic monsoon.

    1. Refer customers to use the services.
    2. adpack customers are incentivized to view other people’s websites.

    I believe the core of the case pivots on a single difference of 2 separate ideas.
    -Idea 1. offering returns on investments. Traffic Monsoon says that’s not how it works. It clearly states not to be offering any investment just in case anyone might have thought so.
    -Idea 2. incentivizing customers of adpacks sales commissions when services are sold by viewing a qualifying number of websites in the traffic exchange. Traffic Monsoon says that this is what it’s doing.

    The difference is in a ponzi– if you offer a potential investor returns on investments, and the company can’t provide any promised returns unless the company solicits more investors, then the returns promised to the earlier investors (debt) is being paid by the deposits of new investors… and there now is a debt to the new investors which can only be satisfied by a newer investor making deposits. Each time that offer is extended, the debt multiplies, and crashes when everyone chooses to take their promised returns but the scheme doesn’t actually have money to pay everyone what the operator claims they have earned in returns.

    Within traffic monsoon, there is no offer of returns on investments. There is an offer of advertising service, and incentives to view ads: sales commissions. Commission meaning in the same way someone refers a customer to buy a service, that someone would earn 10% commission from their referred customer’s purchase. AdPack buyers can view a qualifying number of websites, which if there are sales of services they have placed themselves in position to receive a portion of also. If there are no sales, nothing is owed to them. At all times there is more than enough money to pay everyone what they have earned no matter what! Clearly not a ponzi, and hopefully the judge by now can see that distinguished difference between what traffic monsoon actually is, and what a ponzi actually is by definition.

    Regardless of what some people might have thought, or what the SEC wishes to allege… it comes down to a single truth. The actual offer extended, and the offer accepted based upon the words written on the website at the time of check-out, terms of service, and faq. At all times, in my videos, personally, private, publically, or anything else for that matter– I have remained consistent in my speech with what’s written on the website when it comes to what traffic monsoon is offering, and at all times any potential customer has full opportunity to see for themselves what the offer is. If they accept the offer by making a purchase, I should only be held accountable for what the offer was stated to be at the time of check-out, and on the website pages (ad plans page, member area videos, descriptions at check-out, terms of service, etc).

    If sales commissions for referring customers is unlimited, some of wondered why place a limit on adpack buyers qualifying to earn commissions by viewing websites.

    The incentive is meant to have proven buyers view other people’s websites. “buyer’s lists” are much more valuable than a list containing people who never buy anything. The more someone has spent, the more valuable their visit is on someone’s website. Therefore someone who spent more money on ad service would have higher incentives for doing the same amount of work. How valuable someone is (or how valuable each of their visits on a website is) is definitely determined by how much they have spent in ad services on traffic monsoon.

    How many adpacks someone has bought certainly is a realistic gauge for their value in viewing other people’s websites. Each adpack purchase has a max, so if the customer stops buying services on traffic monsoon that incentive is no longer there because they are no longer a buyer at that level. If they do continue to buy, that each of those positions would continue to indicate their value, and their incentives would be comparable with what they have spent. Those who do not continue to buy lose their value, and lose the incentive when they reach the max.

    The thing I notice is we have a very value driven membership base who recognize the value of their purchased services, and have continued to buy more – and thus, increasing the value of our advertising services we’re offering for sale.

    Think about it: If you were selling something, who would you most likely want to view your website? Someone who has never spent anything? Someone who has spent a little? Someone who has spent a lot? Why is it wrong for traffic monsoon to offer incentives which mirror the level of value the visitor is bringing to the customer’s websites?

    Why not cut those earnings off at $55 (instead of forever) in order for someone to either choose to maintain their value through buying more services, or stop being rewarded for no longer being an active buyer?

    If Daniel Wadley says it’s not a ponzi if those earnings are cut off at $50… (which are commissions from sales of services customers can qualify for by being the “buyer’s list” in delivering the services customers have paid for) .. then how could it be a ponzi if cutting off those commissions at $100, $150, $70, $10, $15, $35 or even $55 actually be any different, if the source of those “sales commissions” are from new (and existing) customers who are buying ad services, no matter which service is being bought the most?

    These are not “returns” – as it clearly specifies there is a no-refund policy. These are sales commissions. The same as when someone refers a customer to buy a service. The person who recommended the services to another is paid a 10% sales commission. The people who buy adpacks can earn sales commissions by viewing a qualifying number of websites (not banners).

    All effective companies function on profit margins. If it’s legal for the company to keep the profit margins of each sale which would be left over, what is so wrong with granting this amount of money to the people who are helping deliver the service for the customer? Especially if they are “buyer’s list” individuals who have proven spending power? The more someone has spent on ad services, the more valuable they are to the customers buying ads, and therefore their incentive for meeting the same qualifying number of ads would be higher.

    Hopefully the judge will see traffic monsoon is a business which operates from its sales, which of course like any business in the world would fail without sales from its customers and must find ways to remain relevant in the marketplace… but as long as the services remain relevant within the marketplace, and people want to buy the services offered on traffic monsoon, then like any business it should remain in business, and only go out of business if it loses traction within the marketplace, and loses relevancy.

    Charles Scoville, Admin

    Reply
  16. Admin|Update Post author

    It truly is incredible how many people are coming together for TM none of us have earned for almost 4 months and yet we are still here This goes to show you that TM has touched so many lives and to have our amazing CEO have his Freedom so let’ do this come on guys one last push do what you can over the next coming week.

    Many, many thanks for your very kind donations so far – we need to keep going in raising funds for our Incredible Attorneys – whatever you can afford to donate is very much appreciated.

    12 Days to go – 30th November – Our Day is Coming 🙂

    Please help fund our attorneys so that they can bring our business back to us where it rightly belongs.

    Do you have any funds in your Payza or Bitcoin that you can send across??

    You can make a donation via debit card or credit card by going to the Funded for Justice Campaign or sending a donation to the SLDF fund.

    Please go to the following website http://trafficmonsoon.org/legal.htm To see your preferred method of donation to our Attorneys fund

    1) Payza
    2) Bitcoin
    3) Funded for Justice Campaign – via Debit Card or Credit Card
    4) for donation above $300 please send direct to SLDF

    Thank you sooooo much to you all – every donation makes a difference

    LET’S DO THIS

    -Sharon James

    TM

    Reply
  17. Admin|Update Post author

    Anita Langley
    November 6 at 2:25am

    Fantastic Update via Sunil Patel

    From Don Olson

    I’ve had a lot of people ask me, “Don, what did you learn in the courtroom observing the SEC vs TM case. What are your thoughts?”

    My thoughts are simple:
    We will pound 3 nails into the SEC coffin and bury them.

    Nail number one– SEC believes TM is insolvent. Fact: Traffic Monsoon will always be solvent. Our TM Lawyer proved the SEC wrong with simple mathematics. TM will always have more money, than what is owed to the members accounts. Pound that Nail!

    Nail number two– SEC believes we don’t “really” have a product; Really? Not only does Traffic Monsoon offer “real” advertising services, but TM has been consistently number one in comparison with all other traffic exchanges. Pound that Nail!

    Nail number three– The SEC believes that every Traffic Monsoon customer who owns an adpack is guaranteed to receive $55 in revenue sharing. Our Terms and Conditions explicitly state that purchasing advertising is not an investment nor are members guaranteed to reach $55. From a legal perspective, as long as the T&C’s are conspicuously located on the website (which they are), the T&C’s will hold up in court. Pound that nail!

    In summary: The SEC has built their entire case around one false assumption: that an adpack owner is guaranteed to receive $55 in revenue sharing. Nothing can be further from the truth. We are going to inexorably pound and pound and pound these 3 nails until the SEC coffin is shut tight.

    Our lawyers, Loren Washburn and John Durkin, are intelligent, passionate, and competitive. They want to WIN this case. They have seen the injustice, the scorn, and the indignity the SEC has brought upon our intrepid leader, Charles Scoville. For our lawyers, this battle against the SEC has become personal. This case has become more than just winning. These lawyers watched the heartfelt, 4 hour video that Sunil Patel so graciously put together.

    These lawyers were blown away when they met Sharon James and the great Team Utah that flew thousands and thousands of miles to support Charles. They couldn’t believe how cohesive the Traffic Monsoon family is. They felt the love, the excitement, the energy, the truth, and the kindness that the Traffic Monsoon family exemplifies. It doesn’t matter what religion, what race, what country or what background we come from. We are all Family. We want justice for all. These lawyers are now part of our family, and they believe in Charles Scoville, and they believe in Traffic Monsoon, and they believe in all of us.

    Pound, pound, pound…….

    Reply
  18. Admin|Update Post author

    Anita Langley
    August 22 at 2:40pm · London, United Kingdom

    via Charles Scoville

    I’m so tired of seeing people say they lost their money in TM. First of all, you paid for an ad service. That’s what the website is offering to you. You made the purchase for the service. The terms of service clearly advises you not to spend more than you can afford on ad service. The site in multiple places advises you that your purchase is not an investment.

    Don’t you understand the impact on a business when PayPal is holding onto over $60 million ?? Do you think the company can’t pay you until that amount is released? Do you think that maybe that’s the reason I couldn’t use any of the money to buy the services on external websites to deliver your visitors faster?

    PayPal crippled the business with their limitation, and held onto funds longer than 180 days. I announced in a Manchester meeting that PayPal is releasing funds, but I didn’t make a big announcement because I did truly want to surprise people, and I knew I had to get to the USA and move the funds in person from my bank branch. I couldn’t transfer that much while I was with my wife in the UK.

    The last transfer to my bank from PayPal occurred (I believe) the 22nd of July. That Friday I attempted to book a ticket to the USA to move the funds into Payza, but there was a problem with my bank. Fraud alert was on my card and I had to wait until Monday to speak with my banker because he was in the mountains camping for the weekend.

    Not only was there this fraud alert on my card, but also I had received fraud alerts about checks being presented against the business account. I texted, emailed, and spoke with my bank account manager. I was told I needed to get into a branch to close that account down and open a new account. Since I was out of the country, I moved the funds to a seperate account within the same chase bank to protect the money from the risk. When I could get into the bank branch I could close that other account and open a new one, and transfer all the funds into Payza and start releasing people’s pending balances which had been on hold since PayPal’s limitation.

    Then, the SEC filed their lawsuit just as I was about to fly out. My apartment, car I bought in 2013, money, everything was gone. Everything frozen. This suddenly made me homeless and penniless overnight.

    There was way MORE than enough to pay everyone what they had earned, and deliver everyone’s services without any additional purchases. If no one paid a single cent more for service, the available money was more than enough to meet every single commitment to customers.

    There are people who want to blame me for not paying them. Wake up. PayPal had been holding onto that money. If they hadn’t held onto that money I would have paid you. Come on. Open your eyes! If the SEC didn’t grab hold of everything, I would have been into the bank branch and moved those funds for payouts, and everyone would have been paid what they earned. I’m not to blame here for people not getting paid what they earned. The root cause is PayPal, and now it’s the SEC. I didn’t scam anyone!

    Reply
  19. Admin|Update

    Traffic Monsoon

    Anita Langley
    August 8 at 3:06pm · London, United Kingdom

    If the event of Charles' Death Traffic Monsoon was safeguarded it has been put in place to carry out this business forward.

    These safeguards are in play, but he is not dead.

    We all together constitute traffic monsoon. This business is not just his. This is ours. We have benefited from the service. We earn money from this business. We all owe Charles a huge debt of thanks for all the time, effort, and sacrifice he made to make this service.

    We all stood behind this business. We have established this business. We should all stand proudly by our achievements together. This is our business, and I know you will not let all your hard work go down the tubes.

    We will not let this PayPal end the business. We will not allow this united states security and exchange commission stop this business.

    We know that the SEC is wrong. Charles does not provide any investment. Advertising is his service, and generously gives us surfers money from the company's profits.

    We need to stick together now more than ever.

    Is Charles Scoville behind this site? No, he is not. When he is cleared of these false allegations, we will be happy to put this site to him.

    This has nothing to do with Charles, because he has authorized in the event of death some will take action to carry on the business.

    Since he is not in the capacity of operating traffic monsoon, and has a court order not to operate Traffic Monsoon , and people needed to jump into action without any permission. We are for him to do so. We offer you, us, our team, and each member to do so.

    Now – we invite you to support the arrival of the monsoon in traffic monsoon surf with us, and the reason is Charles.

    We hope that this business will be back in this industry in full confidence.

    We believe that each member will login and surf out of sign of respect. Surf to get visitors to your website.

    Log in :- http://www.trafficmonsoon.plus

    Thank you very much my dearest friend.
    Anonymous Staff

    Reply
  20. Admin|Update Post author

    Update via Charles Scoville –

    My business in a nutshell: If you need website visitors, come surf for free and get yourself some visitors to your website. You want to buy some visitors instead of surf? Great. I’ll give you some visitors without you having to spend a whole lot for them. If you purchase an adpack, you’ll receive the ad service you selected and paid for. And you know- I recognize that I need not just buyers, but surfers too.

    So, if you buy an adpack and surf in the traffic exchange, I’ll go ahead and give you some of the money that comes into the company because of the sales of all the ad services on my website. I won’t pay you any more than $55, though – but whatever the company receives in ad sales, I’m going to give it to you as long as you surf a minimum number of ads. I recognize I wouldn’t be able to sell these services without surfers, so why not give some of these sales profits to the people who are doing the surfing?

    Simply because I’ve chosen to give the money that comes in from ad services sales to the people who surf, people are saying I’m such a terrible guy. Gain some perspective please people. Traffic Monsoon has never offered an investment, only ad service – and that’s it. I’ve chosen to simply pass the profit margins to the people who have chosen to buy the adpack service and who are actively surfing in the traffic exchange.

    There would never be any amount given to these surfers more than actual money received 24 hours or more ago. The company is not in debt. The company is not falling into debt. The amount members receive may go up or down depending upon sales of services sold, but the major factor is– people who tell others about the services offered on Traffic Monsoon earn far more than what people would receive through revenue sharing anyway.

    People have built up a real full-time income by selling these services to others. People depended upon this income to support their living expenses. Free members all around the world earning an extra bit of money to help them support their families clicking on cash links. Suddenly PayPal chose to part ways with Traffic Monsoon, and has held Traffic Monsoon account holder’s earnings for 180 days. This was a crushing blow to the people who truly depended upon this income, and had no other means to provide for their families.

    All this waiting, all this time, and people were finally feeling an excitement to finally get paid after so long. Then, the SEC files a lawsuit against Traffic Monsoon and me alleging that I’m operating some sort of illegal ponzi scheme. Choosing to give active surfers money for surfing ads is not a ponzi. Selling ad services is not illegal.

    But, through this, people have not understood the business model, they have not understood that PayPal truly was holding onto the money, and even now there is a lot of confusion about what the SEC is doing. I’m even confused why the SEC is doing this. They continuously label customers of ad services “investors” when in fact no one is an investor. Not in reality.

    -Anita Langley|Facebook

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 − 2 =