Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

For further information, all chat on this and subsequent scams is now here:
Google Revolution, Different Name, Same Scam!
and here:
More on Google Profits and Pacific Webworks/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

There is a link that I thought would be useful in the third link of yours. It’s URL is https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01 and it’s supposed to go to the FTC complaints dept.

Except it doesn’t.
I think it’s the wizard they want here: https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/FTC_Wizard.aspx?Lang=en

Some of what they said was interesting. A reminder of this came today for me because I’ve noticed a few people having difficulty registering for this website. So I deactivated my SABRE plugin to see if it made it any easier. (Sabre minimises Registration Spam to very small levels). Any way, it was only off for 30mins and I got the first hit from a Russian camouflaged as the Indian TLD. Needless to say, SABRE is now on. When I’ve tested it, it works fine…hmmm.
The point is that the Google article says that comment/registration spammers are trying to hack in to enable spam ops and any other nefarious activity the permissions will let them do.

Registration isn’t really necessary anyway. As you’ll know, I allow people to comment freely and anything with more than a few URLs in it is held for moderation. It works for me and needs minimal maintenance and intervention while keeping the sharks in the bay.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

And then a link to another help page which tells you how you can report dodgy adwords ads, plus the advice to report scams to the FTC, IC3, econsumer etc.
http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=9110

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What is extremely disturbing to me, is the comments from the report on the Eborn closedown on a local TV/web news station here, http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-feds-investigate-utah-internet-site,0,4801939.story

The comments are here, http://www.topix.net/forum/source/fox13now/T28A5BU37IS57DC8C

I’m disturbed because hardly anyone in Utah seems to think there’s anything wrong with the business and it’s methods and activities. They seem to be of the opinion that “at least it’s giving people jobs”…. “what right have the FTC got to come busting in…?” etc

Presumably, this is what Mafia staff, hitmen, drugs runners, prostitutes, money-laundering bankers etc think when the G-men come knocking?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In light of the Arizona action against a similar fraudster, see http://strangelyperfect.tv/4971/is-this-the-new-google-treasure/#comment-1639, I think the best advice for people is to:

• force a chargeback via their Credit Company
• cancel their card and get a new one
• contact the FTC or whatever and ensure you are on the list of complainants seeking damages

If you are not on their list, how will you get recompense?
The Arizona settlement shows a 3:1 ratio of the fine to damages. Carrying this forward, if the FTC seek damages against Eborn et al of $100m, then the FTC fine will be $300m.
The more people that are on the ‘damages’ or restitution list, then the bigger that fine is going to be! It’s no good just locking Eborn and his chums up – that needs to be paid for and it costs a lot to keep people incarcerated. We must ensure that everyone who’s been hurt by these people get adequate compensation. Crime must not be seen to pay.
I know you got your money back but have you added yourself to the list? The amount of stress you’ve suffered and the sheer waste of your valuable time (every second of your life is precious and you can’t get it back) shows you (and people in your situation)have a case. Some people were on the phone for HOURS and HOURS. This costs! Eborn should pay.

Rees

Like or Dislike: 0  0

While I am still on the subject of the google scams:
(taken from http://scam-googletreasurechest.blogspot.com)
Today I spent some time on the FTC website reading the lawsuit that FTC has filed against the corporation running the Google Treasure Chest Scam (and other Google named scams). Hope you will take the time to go read it also. http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0923060/090622googlemoneytreecmplt.pdf
It is very enlightening and certainly vindicates what I have been saying all along about this being a scam and just why it was a scam. I don’t know what the final outcome of this lawsuit will be but I hope these con artists get locked up and the key thrown away. From what is being alleged in the lawsuit the con artists were no better than a burglar that breaks into your house and steals what they can get their hands on.

What seems to me to be so strange about this in regard to the mentality of the con artists is “What were they thinking?” Did they really think they could get away with such blatant disregard for the law? And another thing, why did it take the law so long to go in and take some action.
I guess the con artists think that if they out-source part of the action overseas that the law won’t be able to reach them but they better brush up on the law concerning the Electronic Fund transfer act and regulations. The law can still reach them and they can’t hide–it just might take a little longer but sometimes that makes the penalty even more stiff when it finally comes home to roost.

The counts being levied against GTC in the lawsuit:
Count 1. Failure to disclose material terms
Count 2. False or unsubstantial representations regarding income
Count 3. False representations regarding affiliation (misleading one to think Google was behind them)
Count 4. Violation of the electronic Fund Transfer Act and regulation E.
(it seems that they should have gotten written authorization or similar pre-authorization
for further debits to your account plus provide you with a copy of such. Also it seems that in the unauthorized debiting of your account they did not even have proper authorization to show to your financial institution to make such a recurring debit. Makes you wonder what other loop holes the financial institutions ignore. I would think that to debit your account electronically that the banks would need to have some kind of proof showing that such a debit could even be made. )
Section 907(a) of the EFTA, l 5 U.S.C. j I 693e(a), provides that a ”preauthorized
electronic fund transfer from a consumer’s account may be authorized by the consumer only in
writing, and a copy of such authorization shall be provided to the consumer when made.”
Section 90349) of the EFTA, 1 5 U.S.C. j 1 693a(9), provides that the term ‘- ‘preauthorized
electronic fund transfer’ means an electronic fund transfer authorized in advance to recur at
substantially regular intervals.”

In numerous instances, the defendants have debited consumers’ bank accounts on
a recurring basis without “obtaining” or “providing” a copy of a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the consumer’s account, thereby violating Section 907(a) of the EFTA, l 5 U.S.C. j l 693e(a), and Section
205. l 0(b) of Regulation E(a) I 2 C.F.R. j 205. 10(b).

My advice to anyone who was involved in this scam and still having a hard time trying to contact these con artists to get their money returned is to copy the FTC lawsuit PDF and take it to the bank to show them how you were swindled. The bank has some responsibility in this matter too as they maybe should have required more proof that the debit had some merit or backing before they sent your money off to the con artists.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think the thing about the Hoeffer/barbecue thing is the absolute lack of skill around the subject…..the more you look, the funnier it gets.

As for the Google ban – I wonder when that kicked in, because I saw some ads yesterday on a few random websites. I also checked a spam this morning to see if there’ve been any changes (it was a grants one). The new thing ‘appears’ to be of a totally different class to the Bobby Slimeball Allen and Honest Micky Greene types….
However, further checking revealed wholly contradictory T&Cs on different pages (referring to the refund methods and policies), plus, an ad for a money-making scheme not wholly unrelated to the Google Money bollox. Stuff like this is wholly against US ‘consumer’ law, and the FTC charges explicitly state this in their analyses of the various web scams.
In fact, I’m slightly amazed about the continuing adverts in this area following the FTC swoop. The reason I say ’slightly’ is that it’s like a blast wave travelling out from an initial explosion. I assume what we are now seeing is the stuff from the thousands of suckers who’ve tucked into the scam hoping to make it rich, blind to their moral bankruptcy, temporarily or otherwise, and now still frantically flogging while the core finance collection system is closed down.
When the ones with the wherewithall to hop to another money processing centre do so, then the whole cycle will repeat.
The fact that Google has put the blockers on that part of the ‘business’ is all a little bit too little and late. Google Treasure Chest closed last month as it and it’s brethren morphed into their next incarnations. The bigger fish at the top of the pyramid (“we are not an MLM or pyramid”) will have already started new Adsense accounts and instigated name, address and website changes. This will then prosper for another year or two before Google close them down, but how many people will have been robbed by then?
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdWords/thread?tid=0e9732d93b7e65bc&hl=en
This forum set discusses the whole thing. The funny thing is the way that everyone refers to people who’ve been robbed as ‘consumers’. I’m still trying to get my head round that one…..if I bought into the Google Money Bollox, what exactly would I be consuming? I like the way that some folk who admit to doing this (one guy has a $1000pw spend on Adwords but is now moaning he’ll have to get a ‘proper job’), in general, still blame the small fry for their stupidity in not reading the ads properly – or whatever. I know the phrases “being in denial” and “codependant relationships”, but this is ridiculous!

Another observation – in searching for the original Google source of:
“Promoting Google Money Tree or ads that promote a misrepresented affiliation with Google. Due to multiple complaints from our users and publishers, we’ve made the decision not to accept these ads”,
…. well I can’t! There are >2000 results, and the only place to read these words apart from in a report, is if YOU have been sent an email by Google. So all the people initially reporting this have been blackballed by Google! There are quite a lot. That knowledge puts some of the postings into a different light!

Thanks again for your continuing work in this area, Not Kevin. We should be earnestly looking for the “next big thing” now, I think. The scammers will certainly be doing just that!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“In fact, when I saw him, his wife and his two sons on this box for a Camp Chef Expedition three griddle range, I laughed and laughed.

I laughed because I knew that everything he said before, every single thing he wrote and every single thing in his voiceover was a damn lie.”

By the way, speaking of Kevin Hoeffer – it looks like Google is finally banning the Adwords accounts of people who have advertised Google get rich quick scams or as they put it ““Promoting Google Money Tree or ads that promote a misrepresented affiliation with Google. Due to multiple complaints from our users and publishers, we’ve made the decision not to accept these ads.“”
http://www.adwordshelpexperts.com/2009/07/adwords-suspended-promoting-google-money-tree-or-ads-that-promote-a-misrepresented-affiliation-with-google/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I followed through some links and one had a link buried right down the page to this webpage:
http://cockeyed.com/citizen/google_money/google_money.php
It’s the original artwork from which derives our Kevin/Paul bloke!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Feds Investigate a Utah ‘Work at Home’ Internet Business, Freeze Assets:
http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-feds-investigate-utah-internet-site,0,4801939.story

The ex employee who is interviewed in the clip posted a warning on complaintsboard.com way back in April (I only came across it today though) and another ex employee replied 5 days ago to say that “I worked for Platinum Teleservices as well. The company shut down this week because the police showed up and told everyone to go home. This place is a complete scam.”
http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/fraud-alert-i-am-a-former-employee-c193173.html

Lots of other news coverage too:
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22google+money+tree%22

These fake news sites and ads have even been featured in stories on Wired.com and Forbes.com recently:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/15/mehmet-oz-oprah-business-media-resveratrol.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/06/fake_news/comment-page-1/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Individual defendants Eborn. Burnside, Miller and Norton have formulated, directed, controlled. had the authority to control, or
participated in the acts and practices of the Google Money Tree Corporate Defendants that comprise the common enterprise

The defendants maintain or have maintained Internet websites, including those found or formerly found at the domains googlemoneytree.com, internetincomeinitiative.com, googletreasurechest.com , deliciousdownloads.com, safedownloadarea.com and redtomorrowfield.com , through which they advertise, market, promote, offer to sell, and sell their work-at-home kit

YEEEEEE-HAAAAAAH!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Excellent news, innit? I’m gonna have some quick fun now before all tyhe links are pulled like for the original Eborn charge…. See what you can dig up extra?

p.s. WELL SPOTTED! (I’ve just got in from the day job)

This is the new FTC video from their website:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoB2PKYbu4Q
It details much of what we’ve alrerady discovered about these scum and the manipulative methods focussed on people’s vulnerabilities.

Like or Dislike: 0  0