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.

61 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

Leave A Comment

Thank You, if you replied... Use the Subscription Form below to get new posts & programs...