You Are Here:

Traffic Monsoon

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.

65 Thoughts to “Traffic Monsoon”

  1. Admin|Update

    Insane how the receiver got people to believe there aren’t records and to send her their info– to cause her to work and process the send in of their info.. and bill the hours for the work but all the info is already had within our system.

    She wants you to register for her to pump your mind full of lies like this. She’s sitting on a lot of money and trying to create work for herself so she can bill towards that money. Her intentions here are obvious.

    Don’t give her more work. It uses up more of your money. Avoid contact with the receiver and don’t do what she tells you to do unless there is court order to back it up. She only is seeking to waste time which costs money paying her for those hours, and that money is coming from your money.

    Don’t get tricked into her getting you to spend your money by giving her more work. Don’t give into her ploys to contact her. It will only waste more of your money if you do.

    SEC, Receiver, Haters are just nervous after what was filed Sept 12th. Best to ignore their tantrum reactions to our firm standing up for truth. Please get this message out to everyone you know who was in TM.

    Charles Scoville | Admin

  2. Admin|Update

    This case in a nutshell: A Security is something that offers clients a place to invest or deposit their money, offers to manage the money through a common enterprise to get returns, and those returns are owed back to the client.

    A ponzi is an investment offer which lies about their common enterprise. It doesn’t actually exist. Returns are simply paid using new investor funds. Going through the website a security doesn’t exist because a security was not offered nor described to be how the business works, so by definition a ponzi doesn’t exist either, because there is no investment and no returns (nothing was owed back) –

    So the money given in rewards is simply money the company had earned on a profit margin and chose to give to adpack customers as a reward for surfing. This is why we should win this case. This is why there doesn’t need to be a receiver, and why the assets shouldn’t be frozen. This is also why there shouldn’t be a case in the first place.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

  3. Admin|Update

    As we work through the appeal, I want to show you some things about this case, reasons why we should win everything back for everyone.

    Blatant contradiction: The SEC allege that no financial records were kept, while at the same time they give some specifics about financial transactions.. in fact the forensic accountant pieced together a full financial picture from start-to-finish of all transactions both in and out from Traffic Monsoon.. so when the receiver says there are no financial records… then which records did they have to create a full financial overview of the business for the preliminary injunctions?

    Obviously there really are records. These are the types of things people do NOT look at when thinking through this case themselves.

    A thought I had also about a ponzi is deception. That’s an element with a ponzi, because a ponzi is telling investors money will be used a certain way, but it’s not actually being used that way. They say that returns are coming from a certain investment project, but that’s not really where the returns are coming from. So from a consumer protection angle, it’s important that consumers know what they are spending their money on.. and in an investment, the investor needs to know where their money is going, how everything works, track record, etc verified by 3rd parties.. so the investor can make a wise decision whether to invest.. but in TM’s situation, the SEC even say everything is disclosed, and so the deception element is missing.. everything is fully described how it works fully.

    Everyone is made fully aware that their purchase is for ad service and not an investment, and made fully aware that for their purchase the only thing the company promises to give them is their ad service they selected and paid for. That’s pretty clear and up front. Then the company describes with your money we’ll deliver you visitors to your website using 3rd parties.. and this creates a profit margin for the company from that transaction, and with money left over we’ll use to give away surf rewards when people meet a certain number of pages.

    So the ins-and-outs of how money is used from a transaction is fully disclosed, and therefore anyone who made the purchase is made fully aware of what’s happening through the transaction before the transaction takes place.. so the consumer is properly protected by giving them all necessary information before check-out. If someone didn’t agree with how this works, they wouldn’t have made a purchase– because by signing up and making a purchase, it confirms agreement to the terms of the purchase, which is completely outlined to be an ad service and not any form of any sort of investment in any way-shape-nor-form. Having a fully-disclosed ponzi is an oxymoron.

    Usually, one of the details undisclosed in a ponzi, is that the ponzi actually cannot cash-out everyone’s account balances, but are constantly chasing after being caught-up but never being able to reach it, because in reality the ponzi is operating on a profit loss and not a profit margin. Traffic Monsoon’s transactions each operated on a profit margin, and rewards for surfing were only given using money the company already had at the time rewards were given. Since there is more than enough money to cash-out everyone’s account balance, deliver all services, and meet all company commitments, it’s another sign that there is no ponzi involved with Traffic Monsoon.

    This isn’t even very complicated at all. I’ll show you how simple this is..

    There is a company that sells “Legal Bud” — known as legalbuds.com

    If you go to the website you can see what they are selling. They are most certainly not selling marijuana. They clearly make sure their clients know it’s not marijuana. It looks like marijuana, but it’s not. Someone might buy it thinking they will get high, but if they thought that– clearly they didn’t read the website because it clearly let’s the person who is considering buying anything know these buds won’t make you high, and there is no THC. So it’s legal. Why? There’s no THC.

    So looking at Traffic Monsoon, it’s a company that sells ad service. If you go to the website or watch my videos it’s very clear that’s what I’m offering. Traffic Monsoon most certain was not offering any investment. It was made very clear any potential customer knows it’s not an investment, no deposits, and no refunds. Very clear the offer is ad service that will not give anyone any returns on investment… but if they thought that, clearly they didn’t read through the website because clearly anyone considering buying anything is made full aware none of the purchases on the website will provide any returns on an investment.

    There’s no liability. There is no promise found or statement which places liability on Traffic Monsoon for surf rewards to be anything at all. So, if surf rewards are anything at all, then the company can choose how and what they do, because there is nothing binding them to have any rewards at all. So it’s not a security, because there is no liability. It’s the liability which makes something a security just like it’s the THC that makes marijuana illegal vs these “legal buds” without THC.

    Without liability there can be no security. The only liability upon Traffic Monsoon is to deliver the services, and there is no form of investor contract being entered whatsoever.

    So it can easily be seen that there is neither a security nor a Ponzi involved in TM. 😀 and additionally easy to see that the problem we are facing is a lying government. That’s the only complication in this case- the SEC is lying.

    Another thing that makes this hard is in affording bills. After this stage of appeals the case goes back to the district level where bills become approx $40,000 per month through discovery & depositions.. There’s no job in the world that would pay me $40,000 per month… so if you want to help support our fight back against the SEC for their allegations and the impact their lies have upon you, me, and everyone.. then you can get details for how to donate toward the fight against the SEC here: https://scovillelegaldefensefund.wordpress.com/how-to-donate/

    Charles Scoville|Admin

  4. Admin|Update

    I want to remind everyone. This case is not about whether I’m guilty or innocent. It’s not a criminal case. It’s about whether I am LIABLE or not; which means– did I take upon myself liability to do something I couldn’t actually fulfill.. and the answer is no.. I never made any sort of promise that couldn’t be fulfilled.

    Liability for a business is found in their user agreement, but the SEC want to ignore the website and toss out the user agreement, website, and all content generated by me or recorded by others of me speaking at live events. They want the court to believe I was liable to pay $55 on each $50 adpack. They want to say this liability created a “security” which applies the securities laws. If it’s a security then there is a placement of money into an investment. The investment manager will use it through some method.. managed through an investment project or entrepreneurial pursuit.. and then be liable to give those returns from that common enterprise to the investor.

    If an investment pays returns without any investment project, then it’s a ponzi… because liability entered with the investment agreement (to pay from an investment project) couldn’t possibly be met using their money to payout to earlier investors.. That’s the lie, and the real fraud. Liability entered wasn’t being fulfilled, and what the ponzi did with people’s money was a lie.. it wasn’t going into any investment project, but was simply paid to earlier investors.. Liability within an investment could only be met if money was used as agreed to through the common enterprise to gain returns for the investor. but that sort of liability which would have made TM an investment/security doesn’t exist..

    The liabilty they want to pin on me is not found in the user agreement. There is no liability to give customers any money back for their purchase, in fact there is a no-refund policy. That means the company is most certainly 0% liable for any money back. Other than service, content shows the company is liable to pay the balance which exists on member accounts, which members have earned through their own efforts. Since there is more than enough money to cash-out 100% of member account balances, then I most certainly can meet that liability.

    This liability is not found on the website or any content generated by me. The liability upon the company points to only 1 thing. The service a customer selected and paid for was all that was promised to be given for the purchase, without any promise to any income or reward for surfing whatsoever. So absolutely no liability. They are trying to pin liability on me which came from misunderstanding for what the business is actually offering, and what agreements customers actually made with the company when they checked the box and agreed to the terms of service.

    Without the liability, there is no security. That means there are no strings to the purchase to anything other than to ensure the service the customer paid for is delivered. That would mean rewards for surfing truly are not “returns” but simply a company which has built giving into the business model.

    So this imagined liability is not based upon reality of what Traffic Monsoon actually is! Traffic Monsoon was a top performing traffic exchange which ranked #1 on more than 1 traffic exchange rank site. Reputable 3rd party rank sites independently tracked our ad services and using their own metrics determined Traffic Monsoon out-performed all the other traffic exchanges. The Alexa rank was HIGH, which means the ad service on TM was not fake, especially with how much traffic the website truly received every single day.. definite eye-balls viewed people’s websites… and the cost on TM for the service to bring your website in front of eye-balls is still far less than what google offers.

    So what is the real problem, actually? In reality– based upon the website, TM simply chose to give money away to adpack customers as a reward for surfing. The company said where it got this money for this gift. That’s all. The service selected and paid for had been marketed and specifically warned not to be any sort of investment of any kind, not a deposit, no refunds, and informed the buyer that any potential rewards for surfing were not guaranteed, therefore do not spend more money than you could afford to spend on ad service.

    So again, the liability is completely imagined. Every step had been taken to ensure the customer had been adequately educated and informed on the service they were selected and paying for before making a purchase. So even if someone had been lead to the website by someone who “sold the business wrong” — each individual was stepped through to learn what TM is before making a purchase, and in fact had been required to setup an advertisement before a purchase button even appeared. There was no secret to what was being offered on Traffic Monsoon, and also what was NOT offered on traffic monsoon.

    This was published NOT a place people could “put money” on deposit and earn returns from some investment project. This was a place to get advertising service, and if you paid for the service– surf and see if you might get some reward for it. If not, oh well.. better luck next time.. if yes.. great… and if yes occurs there was a limit of $55. There is absolutely no liability upon the company for those surf rewards to be anything at all!

    Think of it this way… if you gave money to someone who you never promised to give money to… and then you had all your life taken away because of that… what would you think?

    Charles Scoville

  5. Admin|Update

    UPDATE: The Receiver Decides Traffic Monsoon Victims Will Not File Written Claims… A common trait of multi-million dollar Ponzi schemes is a lack of independent accounting on the backend.

  6. Admin|Update

    When we filed our notice of appeal to the temporary orders entered by the judge on the preliminary injunction, we placed ourselves in line awaiting to have our case seen by the appeal’s court judge. The time frame for waiting for a response for an appeal is approx a year, so if the appeal’s brief is filed early on, it’s just a lot of waiting while we’re in line. So when you see an extension in filing the appeal’s brief, we’re really only using up “wait time.” We still have our place in line, and that doesn’t change. So that’s some good news in case you were worried any extension was prolonging the case.

    If we can succeed in proving that TM is not an investment, then the whole case becomes void. If that happens, the SEC is likely to challenge the outcome by appealing the the supreme court. Why am I so confident we’ll win? Let me give you an example.

    Oprah gives us an example of how TM operated. She gives people gifts who come onto the show. For example, one time she gave everyone in the audience a new car. Her gift was well above the ticket prices, but those gifts only go to people who buy tickets. Does that make the ticket an investment, and the car received a return on investment? That’s precisely how the SEC are stretching things in this case, and Judge Jill Parrish signed off on it.

    I simply gave people a reward for surfing using money the company already had within a profit margin to customers of adpacks. Certainly we can show by legal definition this is not a ponzi, and not an investment.

    Some people might buy tickets to her show hoping for a gift. Some people might buy ad service on Traffic Monsoon hoping for a surf reward. In both situations there is nothing promised, guaranteed, and what people paid for was given to them. Tickets were given to the ticket buyer, and ad service was given to the service buyer. That’s what was offered and promised for their purchase. No amount of reward was promised, only stated that if $55 is reached through surfing the rewards would stop. That’s like having someone look under their seat until they reached the car keys. If there are no car keys the ticket was not a rip off or scam. If there is no surf reward the ad service purchased is not a rip off or scam. There just happened to be rewards from within the profit margin since day 1 which has amounted to be a little more than $1.00 per day. There was no promise for what this reward amount would be except that, whatever it would be, it would come from within the company’s profit margin.

    I offered ad service which delivered through multiple different other ad services, this created a profit margin, and I decided to give money from within that profit margin to adpack buyers who surf a qualifying number of ads. Certainly we can show by legal definition this is not a ponzi, and not an investment. This was a business which built giving into the business model.

    I’ve also learned that as some of our best arguments were in the briefs, that judge’s usually don’t read what’s in the briefs. They read what’s in the benchnotes prepared by the court clerk, and some of our best arguments were left out of the oral arguments, so it is possible some of our best points were never seen by the judge, which may have explained why she misappled the “Howey Test”.

    While it might be surprising how little whether TM was a ponzi or not was discussed during the hearings, it makes sense if you were to have been in the hearings. It genuinely appeared as though the judge was annoyed by the SEC in this case, and appeared as though the judge understood that what’s in the law truly doesn’t match up with what’s on TM. That might explain why my attorneys spent the majority of their time discussing application of the Morission decision by the supreme court, which applies to securities sold outside the USA. In a way, the attorneys were saying TM isn’t an investment, but even if it was– the SEC doesn’t have jurisdiction over 90% of this business due to sales outside of the USA.

    If for whatever reason law is still not applied correctly on appeal, we may appeal again, or take the next steps in the case which would be discovery/depositions.. which can take years before a trial. The reason I’m sharing this expectation is– some people still are holding their breath hoping TM comes back any day now, but through the court system it could realistically take years until this case has reached it’s final conclusion.

    For those who truly understand the words within the english language, who read the legal definitions, and line those definitions up against what TM is doing– and you will see for youself that things truly don’t match up, especially when you fully understand how TM actually really works, and what was actually offered– not the imagined version the SEC are wanting to apply the law to.

    Charles Scoville

  7. Admin|Update

    Story about TM (Traffic Monsoon) on Coin Desk website.
    -Charles Scoville

    Initial Coin Offerings: Where the SEC Might Stand

  8. Admin|Update

    Watch this video (below) what people said about Mark Cuban at the time the SEC filed a lawsuit against him. Listen to what all the anchors and experts said about Mark Cuban’s SEC case.

    “Your client, Mark Cuban, is saying he’s innocent. I’ve read the complaint from the SEC; the civil complaint we should point out, and it looks like they have a pretty darn good case. I mean they lay it out very clearly and concisely. How do you defend against it?”

    Guess what, Mark Cuban won–

    Why did he win? Because by law he hadn’t done anything wrong. That’s the same thing in our case. I keep displaying legal definitions and laws how they are written so you can see what happened to Mark Cuban is happening to me. False allegation are impacting me, my life, and everyone involved in TM.

    I’m fighting back against the SEC for what they are doing to each of us. Thank you all for your support and fighting back with us. We’re not giving up until we win!

    The District Court Clerk was given a deadline to confirm the record on the 10th Circuit is complete, and if not to supply anything missing. That deadline was 22 May. The district court missed the deadline. There is a new deadline for 5 June. The district court confirmed the record is complete on 26 May. We’ll be filing the opening brief and appendix either in July or Aug. So nothing new will happen for a while. I just keep posting so people see I’m not leaving this be. I’m going to fight until we win.

    (NOTICE: In Mark Cuban’s case the SEC tried to make him look like an insider trader when he actually wasn’t an insider. The SEC is trying to twist Traffic Monsoon into being a ponzi even though there was no offer for an investment, no common enterprise, no promise of returns, and the business can payout every account balance and deliver all purchased services, etc)

    The receiver lied, by the way, of having no records. In your back office everything was accounted. Your payment history, amount you earned and where it came from, which referral.. Cash link clicks and so on. Every bit of financial detail was tracked down to the .00000001 … Such b.s. to say there are no financial records. I hate all the lies from the receiver so much

    On your purchase history it displayed purchase was from which payment processor or using account balance. Everything was fully recorded. There is no lacking in records

    -Charles Scoville|Admin


    Mark Cuban’s Attorney Defends SEC Allegations: Mark Cuban’s attorney Christopher Clark defends the SEC’s insider trading allegations on FOX Business Network’s Happy Hour

  9. Admin|Update

    I know many people don’t understand the legal process in the USA. Some people think the opinion on a preliminary injunction is the end. It’s NOT.

    Interlocutory = Provisional; interim; temporary; not final;

    Even if we didn’t appeal the interlocutory decision the case would be far from over. Remember, there is a discovery period. Since the SEC’s case is weak, this period would probably be long. In Mark Cuban’s SEC case, for example, the case was so weak discovery lasted years. After 5 years the case came down to a trial with a jury which lasted only a couple of weeks.

    Jurors found the information Cuban acted on wasn’t confidential and that he hadn’t promised not to trade on it. This means by legal definition he hadn’t done any insider trading.

    Keep in mind, before getting to a trial by jury Mark Cuban had a judge who allowed the SEC to prevail on a preliminary injunction just like us.

    I believe when push comes to shove– Jurors will find that Traffic Monsoon wasn’t offering any investment and certainly didn’t promise any returns. I believe they will see that Traffic Monsoon simply sold ad service, and with money the company already had- rewarded surfers for viewing websites and offers.

    The company is solvent, and certainly wasn’t in debt and also wouldn’t have gone in debt because it only would have rewarded money it had already received and within the profit margin. That means TM isn’t a ponzi!

    While each of us see this as an open/shut case– so was Mark Cuban’s case. I’m sure they were shocked that the SEC prevailed on the preliminary injunction too.

    We’re appealing the preliminary injunction decision– but even if the SEC prevails on the preliminary injunction appeal, it wouldn’t be the end. We still would have discovery and a trial– and I believe it’s so clear what was offered, and what was not offered when viewing the website, my videos, terms of service, faq, and even the check-out page when people were making a purchase of an advertising services.

    Yes, unpromised rewards for surfing were offered for surfing, but since it used money the company already had received and within the profit margin– we feel very confident that we’ll be able to prove that a ponzi didn’t exist within Traffic Monsoon.

    A ponzi = an offered investment pooling money promising returns from an investment project, but the investment project doesn’t exist.. the operator is providing promised returns from new investments. It’s always in debt because returns promised are always more than the amount of money invested. More investors are needed to keep up with the promised returns.

    Clear as day– Traffic Monsoon wasn’t offering an investment, wasn’t offering to pool money invested to place into any investment project, and surf rewards certainly are not returns on an investment. There were no promises what surf rewards would be– only a maximum– which means since there is no promise, there is no debt.

    The company can fully keep all its commitments- which means every account balance can be fully cashed-out — and all services can be delivered without more sales.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

  10. Admin|Update

    The interlocutory opinion of the judge was that this is NOT the run-of-the-mill ponzi scheme (but she says it is one nonetheless), probably she said that it’s not a typical ponzi because there was no investment offered, no promised returns, and the misrepresentation element was also missing. Everything had been fully disclosed how things work and operated honestly.

    Judge Jill Parrish simply recognized that rewards for surfing is coming from money the company already legitimately owned from customer purchases of services.. change that to the SEC’s narrative and adpacks are investments and its returns paid from investors buying adpacks, and they claim surfing was just to skirt the law.. but the actual reality is– Traffic Exchanges reward surfers, and Traffic Monsoon’s surf rewards were given by the company from company’s money it had because of the sale of service. Adpacks are a service, and not an investment.

    Ponzis also don’t typically reward people using money they already have. They need more money to cash-out interest they promised their investors and fraudulently made appear they already had through some investment project– The investment project in a ponzi doesn’t exist, and returns are only coming from investors– and because of that.. without more investors they wouldn’t have the money to keep up with the promised returns or cover the payout without new investors.

    Traffic Monsoon didn’t need new customers to cover account balances. 100% of all member account balances could be fully cashed out without more sales. All services can also be delivered without more sales and without surfers. Traffic Monsoon was not in debt.

    Ponzi schemes try to keep new money flowing in to keep up with the cash-out requests, but Traffic Monsoon didn’t need new sales in order to cash-out all of the account balances. So there’s many elements of a typical ponzi scheme which are missing, which means a ponzi actually doesn’t exist within Traffic Monsoon.

    Interlocutory = Provisional; interim; temporary; not final;

    Appellate courts have the discretion to review interlocutory orders. The federal courts of appeal are governed by the Interlocutory Appeals Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1292). This act grants discretion to the courts of appeal to review interlocutory orders in civil cases where the district judge states in the order that a controlling question of law is in doubt and that the immediate resolution of the issue will materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation.

    I believe that since the offer was for ad service, no investment was offered, and no returns were promised — that the case SHOULD resolve in our favor, and taking this interlocutory decision on appeals COULD bring the truth to light– that surf rewards came from company’s money NOT from investor money. There were no investors; only customers. When a customer made a purchase of service their money was given to the company for the service being provided to the customer.

    The time frame for the appeals process is unknown. It could take a year, it could be less, or it could be more.

    Charles Scoville|Admin

  11. Admin|Update

    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

  12. Admin|Update

    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

  13. Admin|Update

    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

  14. Admin|Update

    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

  15. Admin|Update

    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

  16. Admin|Update

    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

  17. Admin|Update

    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

  18. Admin|Update

    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

  19. Admin|Update

    ++ 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 🙂

  20. Admin|Update

    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

Leave A Comment

Note: Your comments are welcome, but they must be in response to the topics of this page.

18 − 12 =

%d bloggers like this: