76 Responses to “More on Google Profits and Pacific Webworks”

1. Not Kevin on July 16th, 2009 at 12:35 am

   Interesting. Their stock price has shot up recently – check out the chart! http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=PWEB.OB#chart1:symbol=pweb.ob;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined They even have “ripoff” and “scam” complaints on their Yahoo stock info message board! : http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_P/forumview?bn=32497 Which is where I found this thread: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_P/threadview?m=te&bn=32497&tid=35&mid=35&tof=17&frt=2#35 where someone posted a link to this Squidoo lens: http://www.squidoo.com/pacificwebworks – it’s a good read with a happy ending. :) The author also mentions another company called Sellers Lounge and asks “Another Company doing the same thing: The Seller’s Lounge I wonder if this company is related to Pacific Webworks…” and gives the address from their terms as: The Sellers Lounge Attn: General Counsel 831 E. 340 S. Suite 200 American Fork, UT 84003 Well, well, well – it’s the same address as Steve Comer! You can read more about Sellers Lounge here: http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaints/sellers-lounge-c69661.html Google Revolution also had an address with Attn: General Counsel – you have to wonder about a company when they give their correspondence address with instructions to mark it for the attention of their lawyers! Going back to Pacific Webworks… BBB shows that the Utah Division of Consumer Protection told them to clean up their act in 2007: http://www.bbb.org/utah/business-reviews/computer-software-services/pacific-webworks-in-salt-lake-city-ut-2007120 2 years later and it appears they have not yet mended their wiley ways… As the author of abovementioned Squidoo lens put it: “Holy cowburgers! Wake up Utah! You cannot have companies like this doing business in your state!!!!!” Reply

   • Strangely on July 16th, 2009 at 1:13 am

     Holy Cowburgers! You’re gonna like this! I followed the squidoo link to thesellerslounge.net. Yada-yada-yada. Check the address at the bottom of the T&Cs The Sellers Lounge Attn: General Counsel 10 Butsfield Lane Knitsley, Co.Durham Consett DH8 9EN United Kingdom It’s that General Counsel again! My current opinion is that the General Counsel isn’t a legal body. I think it’s a politico-religious thing where they all sit round in a circle and discuss stuff, like the Amish or something. Probably wearing pointy black hats and smoking clay pipes. (ah yes, that’s good Reesy – I’ve got a mental picture now…). Okay. Keep that thought! In this particular case, they’re probably trying to think up some more daft website and company names to disguise the heavy duty porn and scams. There are already a heavenly host of such things. The “best” IMHO, was called “Deep Cyberthought Ltd” which seems to be running superpornmegasite.com Now seeing as how it’s Consett, I’ll finish by saying: Holy Crisp Packets! We can’t have companies like that in nice County Durham! (what we really need is a decent Steve Comer picture….somehow, a visualisation of these crook charmers makes it so much better Reply

2. Not Kevin on July 16th, 2009 at 12:38 am

   Just found this which may amuse you: Pacific WebWorks’ Add Fraud Protection for Customers – 11/30/2007 http://www.spamlaws.com/spamlaws_news10.html Reply

   • Strangely on July 16th, 2009 at 12:47 am

     Thanks. What more can I say after reading that? Gad! Reply

3. Not Kevin on July 16th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

   Cowburgers! Well spotted. As you point out, that 10 Butsfield Lane Knit­s­ley Co.Durham Con­sett DH8 9EN address is heaving with Ltd companies, most in the porn industry it seems. Quite appropriate given the street name! 10 Butsfield Lane is the home of: 421 ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED, Gigastar Ltd, Massive Online Limited, Clickpro Media Ltd, Digital Traffic Ltd , Kobai Group Ltd, Deep Cyberthought Ltd, Stone Quarry Ltd, SONNETT LIMITED – and that’s just from the first 3 pages of Google results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=WLE&q=%2210+Butsfield+Lane%22+Knitsley%2C+Durham+Consett+DH8+9EN&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Haven’t looked into the others but that last one SONNETT LTD has been around a while (since: 20-04-2004) but seems to change either director and/or secretary on an annual basis: https://www.ukdata.com/creditreports/viewCompanyDetails.do?companyId=05104879&full=1 shows a “change of directors or secretaries or in their particulars” in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009! Reply

   • Strangely on July 16th, 2009 at 11:18 pm

     Ha Ha. I wasn’t going to comment on the street address, but I’m glad someone has! It could be that this is one of the key addresses or culprits(?) in the region, when I was thinking aloud, as in “the Mind of Mr J G Reeder”, about the various methods to set things up in County Durham. see http://strangelyperfect.tv/4308/google-revolution-different-name-same-scam/#comment-1669 Because of the concentration of businesses, most being 2-3 months old, tops, there has to be someone in the area to look after stuff. The company/address/person that you’ve spotted could be just such a candidate! Also, have you seen that Jesse Willms has now pulled his picture/profile completely from Facebook? Ha Ha. See http://strangelyperfect.tv/4308/google-revolution-different-name-same-scam/#comment-1677 In light of what you’ve said, he had a bit of an Arnhem moment there (one photo too far), and will now keep his one page sites sat where they are until the smoke clears? Reply

4. Not Kevin on July 18th, 2009 at 1:52 am

   Going back to Pacific Webworks – customers of whom may be surprised to know that their email address is for sale to anyone prepared to pay for it. “These prospects are perfect for mailers offering business opportunities, travel discounts and benefits, various insurance benefits, office supplies, Internet-related products and services, self-improvement products, productivity software, magazine offers, credit card offers, and much more.” http://datacards.geonmedia.com/market;jsessionid=90B200ECBFC17E014316A94CF3CC5166?page=research/datacard&id=177669 Spamorama! Profit Studio Learning: profitstudiolearning.com “Your Personal Google ATM!” – is yet another Pacific Web Works outfit. Unsuprisingly a search on the name reveals a multitude of complaints: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=profitstudiolearning&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=profit+studio+learning&btnG=Search&meta= Reply

   • Strangely on July 18th, 2009 at 11:24 am

     Spamorama indeed! I’ve highlighted this GEON website before. For Pacific WW, it’s a 5000 name minimum order… I’ve BEEN one of those names ha ha! In fact, I still am! The follow through links at the page bottom are worth a peruse as it shows the various “niches” that they like to divide themselves into. Also, take note of how they describe the actual mailing list – there are some subtle differences and wordings that reveal more than at first glance….This is Pacific’s: Respondents are business owners and entrepreneurs who have invested in Pacific WebWorks powerful web hosting platform. Typical initial investment is at least $99.00, and ongoing hosting fees range from $20.00 to several hundred dollars each month. These prospects are perfect for mailers offering business opportunities, travel discounts and benefits, various insurance benefits, office supplies, Internet-related products and services, self-improvement products, productivity software, magazine offers, credit card offers, and much more. It’s basically the “gopher” mentality of double-glazing salesmen that I’ve alluded to previously. A “gopher” was someone on a council estate with a new front door! It meant that they’d bought their house (under the right to buy scheme), and if they’d “go for” that, they’d “go for” anything! This is exactly the same – someone buys into Pacific WW/Google Treasure Bollox etc, and then they are hammered for every promotion going. They’re “gophers”, and behind that little joke lies the whole nest of grasping deceit that this “industry” lives by. Spamorama indeed. What happened to industries that turned a profit by just making things that are useful and beneficial to people’s lives? Not everything has to be Goldmann Sachs inspired does it? Reply

5. Not Kevin on July 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm

   Pacific WebWorks Benefits from Current Economic Environment: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090721005014&newsLang=en “We believe that the current economic challenges have contributed to this growth, as there are many more people that are recently unemployed or looking for a second income but do not have the resources to devote to an expensive product that may or may not be what they need. We provide that opportunity for those with limited capital to invest,” stated Ken Bell, CEO.” Well….that’s one way of putting it! I am sure their many ’satisfied’ customers may have a different interpretation! Reply

   • Strangely on July 21st, 2009 at 4:22 pm

     They’re just dismal, aren’t they? In that link, which is a nice bit of business ad puff, they can’t even say that they are doing well and things will probably get better without a huge disclaimer. Instead of “prospects look good and we hope and expect this to continue”, they say: All statements other than statements of historical fact included in this press release are forward-looking statements. Words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend” and other similar expressions as they relate to the Company or its management, identify forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs of the Company’s management, as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to the Company’s management. These statements are not a guarantee of future performance. Actual results could differ materially….zzzzzz …sorry. I appear to have nodded off there. So right from top bod Bell the shifting devious behaviour starts. It’s as though they have to be like it at all times and cannot behave otherwise. I mean, even top companies like BP etc don’t bother with this claptrap. They’ll say “difficult market conditions..blah blah…expect good performance next year because…etc” I mean, we know they are opinions – it’s obvious. All they have do is say ‘probably’. the opinions expressed above are those of Reesy a.k.a Strangely Perfect. While possibly being strange, this in no way implies he is perfect. And while being perfect, this in no way either includes nor excludes the possibility that he is strange. This also includes the possibility that the statements are both strange and perfect, though their exclusion from this supposition is not precluded by their inclusion on this website. Also if a statement is strange, it does not mean that it, or the author is perfect or strange. Similarly, if a statement is perfect, it does not imply the possible existence of a strange value system, either representing or being a representative of a perfect value system Clear? Now what’s this? A. A spade. Reply

6. Google Treasure Chest and the BBB (Better Business Bureau) | Strangely Perfect on July 21st, 2009 at 11:01 pm

   [...] on this and subsequent scams is now here: Google Revolution, Different Name, Same Scam! and here: More on Google Profits and Pacific Webworks/ The US Better Business Bureau has posted what it thinks of Google Treasure Chest Online here: BBB [...] Reply

7. Not Kevin on July 23rd, 2009 at 1:52 am

   Butsfield Lane rears it’s ugly head again: eauctionlab.com gives their address as: Sensei Systems Ltd 10 Butsfield Lane Knitsley, Co.Durham Consett DH8 9EN United Kingdom But is registered to: Cameron McPherson 8683 Sandy Pkwy 84070 Utah Sandy US This chap: http://grantripoff.com/update2.html Seems that The Seller’s Lounge and eauctionlab.com are the same outfit: http://www.google.com/search?q=EAUCTIONLAB&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a Reply

   • Strangely on July 23rd, 2009 at 10:00 am

     @Not Kevin Very funny indeed. It just shows how lightly they take any possible chance that they’ll get caught – either that, or they don’t believe they are doing anything wrong! I wonder how long before Cameron’s (or whatever his real name is) MySpace is cancelled like Eborn did to his? I particularly liked Cameron’s idea of setting up a company with two names, but they’re both himself! Neat. Cut out the middle man. Reply

   • Strangely on July 23rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm

     @Not Kevin A new name for the scamster catalogue!! I’ve recently had a hit from http://www.tinkeringmonkey.com/index.php/gaarg-ripped-off-by-fedgrantusacom-betrayed-by-bike-nashbar/#more-88 where it’s detailed some dodgy dealings with another Grants cowboy. A comment give us the name of Ryan Riddle, yet another person with a heady mix of names, websites and companies! Check out the CallFerret for a wodge in this area…http://www.callferret.com/866-530-3502.html As always, all roads eventually lead to Utah! there are a few possible sightings of the geezer as well. Reply

8. Not Kevin on July 24th, 2009 at 1:08 am

   Grand Dragon ringleader! That’s a funny post. :) That picture of “Dr.” John Porter looks very familiar – can’t think where I have seen it before though. I did a search for Ryan Riddle and got some sites about an American football player. Maybe it’s a deliberately chosen (fake?) name which matches someone semi-famous so that when people search for it they find the ‘famous’ person? However when I added the word scam to the search I found this: http://www.fresh866.com/qy/20060702210359AAJJKgw which suggests a connection with iworks.com of 249 East Tabernacle St. George, Utah 84770 – (435) 688-0634 Their homepage shows their ‘partners’ include: Google Money Profit, livinglean, Grant Resource Center, networkagenda and fit factory, all of which have lots of unhappy customers complaining on complaintboard.com and ripoffreport! Raven Media was also mentioned in a BBB warning about grant scams in March after almost 500 complaints against them: http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/03/08/bbb-mentions-raven-media-and-grant-instructor/ Reply

9. White Knight SEO-ers ride in on broken horses… on September 4th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

   [...] 06/15/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): More on Google Profits and Pacific WebWorks [...] Reply

10. Sue on September 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    Pacific Webworks are now advertising a free startup kit for making money working for Google through facebook (usually disguised as mystery shopping ad)and are specifically targetting the UK. I was scammed and within 2 weeks of signing up fraud against my contracted mobile phone also occurred! I do NOT think this is coincidental!!!! I have seen the rip off report and the number of complaints has been steadily rising. Somebody needs to put an end to this company trading and there should be heavy penalties and jailtime incurred. Reply

    • Strangely on September 17th, 2009 at 10:15 am

      @Sue Yes. It looks like they are attacking us from new angles. I’ve had a hod-full of spams arriving recently on the email address I used to test their “privacy policy” for things like “competition winner”, “free Dell Laptop if I answer a simple question or two” etc. I’ve even been promised a new kitchen! As you say, this is all UK-type stuff. Other countries prioritise consumer paraphernalia in a different way so we in the UK are definitely being targeted. I wonder if it’s Durham or Essex based? How do you think they got your mobile number and account? You must have filled a box in? Reply

11. silver uk on September 24th, 2009 at 11:44 pm

    These pacific webworks peeps have got me… i stupidly got suckered in by the google toolkit for less than five bucks..now had 3 x 70 bucks installments taken out and had changed by bank card etc but just noticed on my statement today they have taken another £44. (approx $70)! i am getting really depressed about it, am already in debt and struggling i dont know what to do…any help in stoppin them? It started with Pacific Weblinks EAuction but the very recent reference on my bank statement as at 18 Sept has now changed to 0048927121 followed by 8669931421WEBBIZGO (being a new reference which i could not find on an internet search)… Any help/advice on what i can do please help! Silver London, UK Reply

    • Strangely on September 25th, 2009 at 12:06 am

      @Silver You must instigate charge-backs insisting to your bank that the company has fraudulently taken money from you. When you change a card, money can still be drawn against it because of the nature of contracts. As part of your T&C with the bank, it’ll say that you are responsible for monies drawn against the account that have been contractually agreed with a 3rd party (the shop/online store/conman etc). Have you tried cancelling the payments in the ways that should be stated on your statements/receipts? If you have tried, but have not had any terminations then this is definitely fraudulent business practice. You must get those charge-backs instigated and even then money will still be taken although you should eventually get it all back because the scammers invariably fold rather than argue with the card companies. The ref# 8669931421WEBBIZGO is an accounting number by the look of it and is a re-arranged “Go Web Biz” that I spotted a while back but all tied up with Pacific Webworks etc. That number is a big one and shows how many times they’ve suckered people in! This is the investigation into “Go Web Biz”, basically an older scam with new clothes. http://strangelyperfect.tv/4971/is-this-the-new-google-treasure/ This is a RipOff Report I found about the same lot: http://www.ripoffreport.com/Work-at-Home-Business/Pacific-Web-Works-Go/pacific-web-works-go-web-biz-d32y4.htm The important thing to watch out for if you haven’t been scammed is the plethora of varying, but similar names the scammers use. The important thing for you is to get that charge-back in and get your money back. If you don’t know how to get charge-backs going, watch the Chris Malta video. Good luck. httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHxSx47XDtA Reply

12. Dangerous EffectiveCleanse – and Scams Too! | Strangely Perfect on October 21st, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    [...] It’s contact address is in County Durham in the UK again! (just like all the UTAH scams).  This time the address is: LB LFP Internet [...] Reply

13. Matt on October 26th, 2009 at 11:11 am

    I have went and checked out the Microsoft claim and sadly they are a Gold level partner but not for development. For hosting. https://solutionfinder.microsoft.com/Partners/PartnerDetailsView.aspx?partnerid=8b70f4afe6984ce8848b2f09fb952129 Reply

    • Strangely on October 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

      Thanks Matt. Microsoft are strangely non-committal to answering exactly what are the criteria for joining. There’s lots of huff and puff about ‘benefits’ and ‘advantages’ and ‘partnerships’, but no real guts on the stringency of this ‘agreement’…. So I’ve had a go! The answer, is that anyone with a LiveID (like hotmail) account, which is the piss-easiest thing in the world to do, can then login and fill in an online form for your ‘business’, tick a few boxes, give Microsoft some money, and then that’s it! I didn’t go all the way and pay, but I’ve a sneaking suspicion that the more you pay or the bigger the perceived size of your ‘company’, the golder you become! How much reverse checking Microsoft actually does on any business, I don’t know. I suspect as long as you have a real email and physical addresses, then you are considered kosher as long as you pay. This thing seems wholly different to the MCP qualification for It pros which is pretty hard to get and takes a wodge of study. All the developers in the forums with this stuck after their name always seem pretty clued up in my experience. If anyone has any more info on the ‘Partner Program’, which seems to be a much looser thing altogether – well I’m all ears. Reply

14. Matt on November 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 am

    And they are publicly traded on the Over The Counter Market http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ric=PWEB.OB Reply

    • Strangely on November 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 am

      Yeah. We’ve spotted their various share price & company infos previously. What’s interesting on the link you provided is two (main) things: 1. The shares shot up until mid-summer when the big FTC clampdown first happened. Since then they’ve been at a plateau in share price, so all the fluff where they say it’s a 208% rise in fortunes since 2008 is all actually in the first few months before all the anti-scam sites like yourself started hammering away at them, culminating in the FTC raid and the later Oprah court case etc. 2. Despite all the fluff about rising share price, THE COMPANY PAYS NO DIVIDENDS!!!! In other words, the only way to invest in this company is to hope that the price keeps rising, which is exactly the mentality of the banks and traders that led to the Credit Crunch. This means from the off that this company isn’t expected to be ’sustainable’ so for all those ‘investors’ making the ’strong buy’ recommendations as in an early @Not Kevin’s comment above, http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_P/forumview?bn=32497 – I’d not personally trust one syllable of it. Because it’s all anonymous in the forums, it’s probably the Larsen & Bell troops doing the posts anyway. The sales puff in that report makes interesting reading as it reveals the total superficiality of the whole scammy setup. This is a cracker: …ePayment System supports various card types, including Visa, MasterCard, American Express… Well dah? What do you expect from an online credit card processing system? !!! They also have: Amazing WebStores: It allows users to set up a store to sell Amazon products directly from their Web site… …well dah? Amazon do that for you for nothing!!! And for my final “well dah?” from their spiel, this one is good: …WebStats enables the customers to analyze visitor activities on their Web sites to track pages viewed, hits, and time of access. WebStats is a statistics program that provides detailed reports and graphs related to referring pages, geographic location of visitors, browsers, and the operating systems Web site… As anyone with more than a hint of web experience will know, my webhost does all that, for nothing; Google do all that, for nothing; I have a heap of plugins for my website that do all that, for nothing!!! From your link, it’s also nice to know that all those $79 per month ripoffs have raked in $373,000 for the two Bell directors and $181,000 for the Larsen chappie…. Now Larsen. There’s a name I’ve heard before….. Hmmm. Could it be Monavie, the highly expensive fruit drink that makes all sorts of Lazarus type claims from it’s distributors and has an interesting line in charity’? See http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/monavie-scam-was-my-wife-recruited-sell-snake-oil/#comment-152048 plus all the rest of the work on that scam. Finally, your post reveals a change in the number of employees at the business. Earlier I reported 34 from one business website – this link of yours says the number is only 21 now. Hard times ahead eh? Reply

      • Strangely on November 3rd, 2009 at 8:50 pm

        I’ve taken the liberty of seeing what wonderful things the “Amazon Amazing Webstore” can do. Firstly, check out the amazing header image from the website at a typical website, say; https:// secure1.on1inetrack.com/aws1ch/?offer=aws_ch_01 It certainly has all the style and charisma I’ve come to expect from Pacific Webworks! But is it Pacific Webworks? A quick WHOIS pulls out this info for On1inetrack.com: Registrant: IntelliPay, Inc. 230 West 400 South 1st Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84101 US Domain name: ON1INETRACK.COM Administrative Contact: Administration, Domain 230 West 400 South 1st Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84101 US 801-578-9020 Fax: 801-578-9019 Technical Contact: Administration, Domain 230 West 400 South 1st Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84101 US 801-578-9020 Fax: 801-578-9019 Registration Service Provider: Pacific WebWorks, Inc., 801-578-9020 801-578-9019 (fax) http: //www .pacificwebworks.com Well there we are! So What’s the Problem? There’s no problem about someone selling something that is freely available on the internet – caveat emptor, as they say. The fact that anyone can set up their own Amazon web store for nothing, using all the myriad of various tools that Amazon provide, is beside the point. The point lies in the following small selection of complaints: http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-800-497-4988/12 http://www.ripoffreport.com/On-Line-Business/TQG-onlinebizkit/tqg-onlinebizkit-scam-secure0-ff446.htm http://forums.n4g.com/tm.aspx?high=&m=731569&mpage=1#731633 http://freebiescoop.com/amazon-amazing-webstore http://ezinearticles.com/?id=1885064 http://www.amazon.com/AMAZONS-VARIOUS-SCAMS/forum/FxXDFL5SPIFZ2G/Tx2BNT8078LETNO/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0385482485 This is the real Amazon Webstore which you can try for a month. If you are prepared to put in a bit of extra work, free ’stores’ of your own invention can easily be incorporated in any website you choose… http://webstore.amazon.com/ What we are seeing is a rise in the incidence of Pacific Webworks’ Amazing Webstore in the complaints section of various consumer-type websites. What is happening is that the old Google Money Kit complaints are morphing across. The Reason? PWW is just changing the product, that’s all. Everything else is the same, or similar as before. Same phone numbers. Same Terms & Conditions. Same servers. Same IP addresses. (see http://www.robtex.com/dns/visualwebtools.com.html) Same addresses. Same artwork style. So what do you expect? Same complaints. Just check on1inetrack.com in Google search to see how this domain’s complaints change through the years… Reply

15. Not Kevin on November 9th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    “A class action complaint has been filed regarding “Work from Home” ads on the internet, asserting they are deceptive and misleading.” http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bar-tender/2009/11/lawsuit-work-from-home-ads-are-a-scam.html Good on you Barbara Ford! Reply

    • Strangely on November 10th, 2009 at 12:21 am

      Well spotted! This is the kind of thing we want. And just as it appears that PWW is rising up again on it’s hind legs to frighten everyone with it’s pathetic terms and conditions. We need a few more like that -including that ridiculous “work from home, twitter is now hiring” fantasy advert that I spotted recently. Barbara Ford, we salute you. Now will the rest of the conned people join her class action or start one of their own? It’s hard, but in reality, the only people to do it are those that have been conned. Reply

16. Not Kevin on November 12th, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Just did a Google search on Pacific Webworks and the keywords triggered this adwords ad on the right hand side: Work From Home Rip Off? Scammed by work at home offer? You may have a legal claim to get $ http://www.classactionconnect.com :) Speaking of which, a bit more info in this article: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/12/Work-At-Home_Company_Called_a_Scam.htm And speaking of the Pacific Webworks scam empire – their latest offering is ‘Tweet for Cash’ https:// secure4.s3curehost.com/tfc/ Also jumping on the Twitter bandwagon is ‘Twitter Instant Cash’ https:// http://www.securelp.com/29/5/sale Fill in some (false) info on the first page and click and it even claims to be “searching for work at home Twitter jobs in your area” (yeah right!) Amazingly no matter where you live it says “Congratulations…. we currently have positions available”. And you can even pick your own earnings – more than $500 a day for 1 hour of work? No problem! After “checking against qualifications standards in your area” (WTF?) I have been chosen! Amazing! The people behind this pile of poop are CFN Media.com (who?) according to their privacy policy. But that also says “Where personal information is provided that enters a system of records, it is collected in compliance with section 33 (c) of the Alberta Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act. The University of Alberta collects, creates and maintains information for the purposes of admission, registration and other activities directly related to its education programs.” in your area” University of Alberta!? WTF? Although the domain was registered (on 9th Nov 2009) to an address in Texas: 3634 Long Prairie Rd. Suite 108-113 Flower Mound, TX 75022 US However if you click on their ‘affiliates’ link you get this company: CPA Park 1042 N. El Camino Real Suite B-226 Encinitas, CA 92024 (800) 787-9035 The “leader in performanced based marketing” apparently. Deceptive and misleading marketing might be more accurate! Reply

    • Strangely on November 12th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

      @Not Kevin That twitter thing is really putting on some weight now. I got my first spam along these lines a few days ago: http://strangelyperfect.tv/6818/my-first-british-google-business-kit/#comment-1988 ..and it appears to be ballooning. I’m sure I’ve come across CPA Park and CFN Media before. Maybe I didn’t write up any info on them.. That classactionconnect.com seems to be the inevitable consequence of the huge volume of scamsters out there and the even bigger volume of people stung by their scheming. I predict that within a short time we’ll have a lot more law companies jumping on THIS bandwagon, followed by a number of scams set up by the scammers pretending to be good white knights! I’ve already seen one like that in Utah! Of course, the true way do it in a world governed by laws and international conventions, as well as the high tech internet world that allows spam to flow with impunity, is NOT to hire in fight-back merchants or self-help forums and websites. No. This is bolting the stable door after the horse has gone. The only way is to use laws and technology to catch the horse! More importantly, it should be made physically and financially impossible for these merchants of theft to operate. There’ve been a host of initiatives, especially on micropaymenting spam for instance, that only need concerted international government action that agrees a set of standards and behaviour. People think that the internet is the Wild West where anything goes and you can disappear. But it isn’t! Every IP address and every single packet of data that flows is tracked – by definition, that’s how TCP-IP works! Otherwise the packets would never mate up into a message! In that phrase lies the scammer’s downfall. It just needs international action, similar to IEEE standards or the recent trillion dollar agreements around the credit crunch. The key bit, I think, is to make the scammers get a financial hit just by doing their stuff. Spam would be easy – the system is already in place but not implemented. I wouldn’t mind paying 0.01pence for every email I send! Ads on webpages is a different thing though, and for this, Google holds all the cards and all the resources. I’ll be watching Rupert Murdoch’s little game with Google closely in future as he intends to test them in the courts. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8351331.stm for Murdoch’s tale. Related, in a techy way, is the recent, and permanent X-Box block that Microsoft has placed on 600,000 live games users. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8356621.stm It just shows the kind of things that are possible, and that all the while, people are coming up with new angles on the internet. One constant angle though, is that the scammers have a very simple business model indeed. This simplicity has to be the way in to block and stop them. Reply

17. Not Kevin on November 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    Good comment – that could be a blog post on it’s own! :) This Pacific Webworks ‘earnings statement’ released yesterday makes interesting reading – well actually it’s as dull as dishwater: all corporate speak bollochio – but one or two sentences are of interest: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/091112/pweb.ob10-q.html Specifically: “Our primary challenge continues to be in the area of managing our credit card processing demands with the unreasonable requirements of the credit card associations (i.e., Visa, Mastercard, etc.). Our continued success will be dependent upon our ability to constantly maintain sufficient processing capabilities to collect our multi-million dollar hosting portfolio.” Do you think they might be referring to all the chargebacks they have been getting? :) So ‘unreasonable’ of Visa and Mastercard to try and crack down on unathorised transactions – how dare they! And: “In June and July of 2009 we experienced limited merchant account processing capabilities which created a situation where we could not satisfy payables to marketing partners. ” ‘limited merchant account processing capabilities’? Another reference to chargebacks perhaps? And wasn’t June/July around the time the FTC launched their big crackdown on Google Treasure Chest and other Utah scams? And: “We expect to see continued growth through 2009 and beyond. We have established excellent relationships with online media firms throughout the United States and anticipate working closely with them to expand our business.” “Online media firms?” Could that be a reference to the cpa (cost per action) affiliate networks who are the ‘middlemen’ between Pacific webworks and the affiliates with the fake blogs and fake news sites? The companies /networks which are listed on the left hand side when you search this site for ‘Google’ offers or ‘Twitter’ offers: http://www.findaffiliateoffers.com/index.php?function=search&search=google&= [Names like Neverblue, Blue Phoenix Network, MediaTrust, Market Leverage, Global Ad Revolution, CPA Bullet, Clickbooth, MaxBounty, convert2media etc etc which show up on that site whatever scam related keyword you put in, be it the ‘Google’ and ‘Twitter’ stuff or teeth whitening (dazzle, premium white etc), acai, colon, crappy spyware/adware toolbars (zwinky anyone? etc etc……) Clearly Pacific Webworks Inc is still raking in the cash though: “For the first nine months of the year revenues totaled $21,624,424 compared to $7,351,878 for the first nine months of 2008, an increase of 194%.” http://www.your-story.org/pacific-webworks-reports-record-results-for-3rd-quarter-2009-51313/ $21 million! With that amount of cash floating around they may yet attract the attention of some more class action lawyers or even the FTC? Especially as there are some new FTC regulations coming into effect from 01 December: http://www.walletblog.com/2009/10/deceptive-bloggers-watch-out/ http://www.clickz.com/3635437 Reply

18. Strangely on November 13th, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    @Not Kevin Yes. yes. yes. yes and Yes to everything you’ve said!! I like the way you’ve kept my Bollochio reference going – neat! One thing about the PWW profits. That’s all bluster. Somewhere else on my website here, someone referred to their actual profits, month-on-month. NEARLY ALL the wodge of cash this year came in BEFORE the GTC/Eborn and the OPRAH court summons’. The graphs are actually flat now accordingly to that true business report which I can’t currently find (not the Yorkshire based Utah puff which has some doubtful tales in it’s pages because all it’s stories are sourced from the people doing the plug!)… So in true corporate stats massaging style, it IS better than last year, but as they’ve intimated in the bits you pulled out above, they’ve actually had a hell of a hit since the summer. Their employee count has actually dropped from 35 to 21 as well, which all ties in neatly, doesn’t it!! About the new rules you mentioned from December. In a related ferago of scammy scamsters, Monavie, on LazyMan’s website, they’re pointing out how Monavie distributors are doing the blog’s round with exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims of Monavie’s effectiveness. This is wholly against Monavie’s (new) conditions (since they are one of the defendants in the Oprah case). These include the need to go on a ‘training course’ before they can post, and also that they must provide their distributor ID. What this all means, is that the people’s fight back is being successful all round, and that new laws CAN be draughted and implemented following people power and that even the companies (like Monavie) are taking action to save themselves… See http://www.lazymanandmoney.com/monavie-scam-was-my-wife-recruited-sell-snake-oil/#comments There are over 3,500 comments in this tread!!! Some of it is highly amusing. Reply

19. John on November 14th, 2009 at 12:59 am

    Wow – that Monavie page is a long read – some good comments though! :) Speaking of comments – interesting comment on a stocks message board re Pacific Webworks Inc (PWEB): “Anyone remember Commerce Planet ? Their stock soared on increasing earnings, but they had a platform similar to PWEB and eventually the complaints, suits and FTC investigations did them in. Their stock went from $3.50 down to .01 and then they were gone. These types of companies are quick-hit wonders and then they disappear. PWEB will be no different.” http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43538394 Well at least one of their potential investors/ former investors has a grip on reality! Unlike some of the current stockholders! http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=43526180 Interesting change in their share price today too: (-28.57%) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=5121 And that on the same day that they “reported record results”. As you said above – bluster! Reply

20. Strangely on November 14th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    @John I like the “Smells like we’re going to pop tomorrow” comment from one contributor in your InVestorsHub link. That was on Thursday. As for Monavie, there are some pretty clued-up folks there knocking back the Monavie clones at every step. They’re brilliant at countering here-say with properly researched and presented fact. In a court of law, that’s what you have to do. And Oprah has got Monavie AND PWW right in her sights. Now, are the BBC, CNN, ABC etc going to do the same thing and bring these scum down? I hope so. The evidence is as clear as day. Myself and a host of others have bucket loads of real incriminating screen-dumps for anyone to use! Reply

21. Strangely on November 15th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    @John You’ll be aware that Pacific WebWorks (PWW) were formerly called Asphalt Associates, Inc until the last nineties, and that they bought Intellipay a bit after that? Now, try these two for size in the U.K., the other day. see:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8359260.stm” rel=”nofollow”>Conmen jailed over tarmac scams Now note that there is NO connection between these million pound asphalters and the former asphalters in Utah. What I AM saying, is to check out what UK Trading Standards said about the gurning two below; “This highly organised criminal group operated across the whole of central and southern England.” “They changed their trading name several times and used a number of accommodation addresses to try and avoid detection.” “They operated by giving their victims low initial verbal quotes that were then grossly inflated after they had completed work that, in most cases, was carried out to appalling standards.” “Many victims were intimidated and paid up and those who challenged their illegal activities were sometimes threatened.” “Cold calling and similar misleading and fraudulent activities are widespread and are often targeted at the most vulnerable in society, the housebound and older residents.” And now consider the similarities in the two operations, especially when referring to the Google Money Bollox of a few months back. e.g. Name Changes Legal threats Intimidation Concentration on the weakest, poorest members of society You see, it’s the same old game but…. Different country, different method, same targets, same results. Reply

22. Strangely on November 15th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    These are some business info links on PWW (Pacific WebWorks). One contains a neat graph showing their meteoric rise in profits this year. However, always remember that even though you can buy shares in PWW, THEY DON’T PAY DIVIDENDS!!! All the money goes to the directors!: http://www.goldmood.com/cosmos/h/PWEB.OB.html http://markets.on.nytimes.com/research/stocks/fundamentals/drawFiling.asp?docKey=136-000102317509000202-73S578U3O8IH5LNHBBHB9E7U1H&docFormat=HTM&formType=10-K/A http://www.naymz.com/pacific_webworks_2177179 http://www.rfpconnect.com/organization/pacific-webworks-inc http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ric=PWEB.OB (neat graphs) http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdSense/thread?tid=38f89dca575decda&hl=en Reply

23. Not Kevin on November 16th, 2009 at 1:02 am

    [Yes @John = Not Kevin] – lastpass filled in the name and email sections automatically without me noticing. :) Some of the investors in Pacific Webworks just don’t get it, do they – check this out: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_P/threadview?m=te&bn=32497&tid=470&mid=470&tof=4&frt=2#470 http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_P/threadview?m=te&bn=32497&tid=416&mid=416&tof=30&frt=2#416 Interesting how the share price went from 2c in early May 09 to 39c in late July – a twentyfold increase in 3 months before a 50% drop back down to 20p in early August: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/PWEB (1 year chart) Reply

    • Strangely on November 16th, 2009 at 11:41 am

      Ha Ha. I prefer John – not so many letters! As for your phrase “Investors in Pacific WebWorks”…? There are two things you can do on the stock market: 1. Invest, and take long-term dividends from the company in return for you investing money as part of the working capital for the business. 2. Gamble. Here you take a short to medium term risk that the share price is going to move favourably to your gamble (especially if you’re using options). Now because PWW pay no dividends, it’s obvious that it’s only the second ‘gamble’ option that’s available to you. Mysteriously, (for a long-term company as one of those folks in your links pointed out), PWW doesn’t pay dividends, even though they’re claiming tens of millions of dollar’s profit! A real company would have enough self-confidence to offer dividends and broaden it’s share uptake to increase it’s working capital (If you check on one of the finance sites, you’ll see that only 10-15% of it’s 50 million odd shares are actually taken up!) So they’re not bothered. Period, as the Yanks say. And if they’re not bothered, what’s their game? Simple. Get rich quick. Suck in as many people as possible. Get all the money offshore before the balloon goes up. Then pay the $1m fine, secure in the knowledge that you’ve made $30m – and start again!! My share recommendation? Sell now, and quick! Reply

24. Sadly Duped on December 1st, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    Sad to say…..but I’m one of the ignorant victims of Pacific WebWorks. It started innocently as a trial offer of Google Profits for $1.97. After scrolling down and reading the fine print, I IMMEDIATELY called eBay Resources and Google Profits to cancel. (Side Note: I had been subscribed to eBay Resources unknowingly through the same application). Cancelled eBay fine, but surprisingly the Google Profits cancellation number was for a voicemail box…..which was FULL and could not receive messages! Stayed that way for every time I tried to call. Finally got a valid number from my bank statement, but took three calls to finally get someone on the line. Cancelled and got a confirmation number. My $47.50 was refunded…..until some other company I never heard of charged my account $99 a couple weeks later!! Guess who TQGonlinebizkit.com is associated with? Yup, Google Profits and Pacific WebWorks! I have fought tooth and nail with them, but they won’t refund the money because they already sent me a CD, which is somehow worth $99! Honestly, I don’t remember ever getting a CD from them, but continue to search. In the mean time, I have filed complaints with the BBB, FTC, and FBI’s online fraud division (IC3). Who knows, maybe I’ll get lucky and one of them will do something…..doubtful though. Reply

    • Strangely on December 1st, 2009 at 7:15 pm

      @Sadly Duped Instigate a chargeback against the company! This person had similar only last Sunday: http://www.ripoffreport.com/bait-and-switch/tqg-online-biz-kit/tqg-online-biz-kit-pacific-web-dc542.htm …and this person yesterday: http://emie-myrecollection.blogspot.com/2009/11/tqg-bizniz-kitfraud.html There are quite a few similar ones, mostly in the last few days. Filing complaints is okay, but not so good for getting YOUR MONEY back. So just ask for a chargeback to your card company from these rogues. Trust me, they won’t query it, and you still have plenty of time to get this done. When you’ve done it, it’s up to the ’scam company’ to prove that they have a rightful charge against you for a lawful ’service’. They always fold. You’ll probably have to cancel your card and get a new one. That voicemail box being FULL as a valid ‘customer service’ contact point is a new one on me. What a bunch of crooks. Good luck. Reply

25. Not Kevin on December 8th, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    At last! Google is finally taking legal action against these scams to protect it’s brand name: Google is asking a federal court to shut down sites that allegedly use the search company’s name and logo to trick consumers into purchasing “work-at-home” kits. In a lawsuit filed Monday in district court in Utah, Google alleges that Pacific WebWorks and other companies infringe Google’s trademark by incorporating it in ads for phony products. “Defendants deceive the public by misusing the famous Google brand and Google marks to sell to consumers work-at-home kits purporting to train and enable consumers to earn money using Google services,” the lawsuit alleges. http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=118667 Google Sues “Google Money” Scam Artists: Fresh from the official Google blog, we have news that Google is taking a group of online scammers to court……….. Google is suing Pacific WebWorks and a rash of unnamed defendants. Google wants the company to stop using its trademarks in any promotional materials. It is asking for a jury trial, and wants Pacific WebWorks to pay damages and reveal a full accounting of its profits. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_sues_google_money_scam_artists.php Also named in the suit are 50 “John Does” that Google alleges are complicit in the schemes. Those individuals will be named later in the suit as their identities are discovered. http://www.pcworld.com/article/183979/google_sues_over_workathome_schemes.html The official Google blog: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/fighting-fraud-online-taking-google.html The lawsuit: http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/pwwcomplaint_120809_ogb.pdf Good to finally see the big legal guns move into position and take aim against these scams – better late than never! Reply

    • Strangely on December 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

      Ye-hargh! “At last” is the phrase. I wonder what took them so long, @Not Kevin? The actual Google court brief is a killer. Google say that two court cases & injunctions have reduced some websites and changed some things, but that THOUSANDS MORE REMAIN – which is what we’ve been saying for half a year, and other websites for much longer. (In point 35 they say that they’ve collared >1000 websites using the WHOIS service – you know, the hidden ones!!!) The bit about the John Does is good. They are saying that as the folk are using fictitious names, they’ll sue them as fictional and plug them in when they find them. Crucially, they say that the operations of these people is key the the continuing expansion of the scam…… This is ALSO exactly what we’ve been saying. These are the people who are part of the get-rich-quick mentality and who think that the web is a vast cavern where you can rob and steal anonymously. Now Google, with the biggest weblogs in the world, just need to do a bit more in depth analysis to see where the roaches are hiding….. Nevis, anyone? Google say in their charge, “Because they have operated as a common enterprise, each Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the unlawful and infringing acts alleged below…” This what we’ve been hammering on about. The templates and methods like fake blogs, testimonials etc are just passed around like a hash joint, appearing that no-one has any real control over it. But of course, that’s not the case. The templates are changed and tinkered with. Which proves that there is a broad central control. All we need now is for the lily-livered lawyers at ABC, MSN, CNN, BBC, Guardian etc to join suit and flush this whole snake-oil morass into the open. We can then get back to using the web for it’s original purpose – information exchange and discourse, as Tim Berners-Lee intended. Not theft. By the way. Any idea on Pacific Webworks stock price? I’d call it a ‘firm sell’, wouldn’t you? Reply

26. Paul Schlegel on December 8th, 2009 at 10:16 pm

    Ha. Was just coming over here to make sure you’ve seen this. Damn, I wish I had shorted PW. LOL. Reply

    • Strangely on December 8th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

      Ha ha, @Paul. @Not Kevin beat us all to it! You know, just once, it’s nice to gloat, don’t you think? Me? I’m like a tail-ender on the coat-tails of a long-running saga. You, Paul, have been at these monsters a lot longer than I, and deserve a huge great pat on the back for plugging away against all the snide ‘comments’ and threats from the creeps, plus, all the heaps and heaps of people that you’ve personally helped. Now, what we need is a secure victory, and some sort of regulation for commercial activity like this…. Because now that IPv6 and the whole web domain thing is going open with the full languages’ character set, this sort of activity will just roll and roll without some brakes. It’s relatively easy for us English speakers to spot obvious no-no’s on English websites… What sort of multi-lingual police could ever hope to police such a thing as the new open internet? Not me by a long chalk. We are fortunate that this PWW thing is basically US-based and that they’ve been sued by big operations with real financial clout. Have you any ideas on that? Reply

      • Paul Schlegel on December 9th, 2009 at 3:48 am

        I wish I were wrong, but I don’t think any of this is going to do much to stop the worst criminals – they’re just too smart. I think Pacific WebWorks was a whole different game than the smarter scam operations being run out of eastern Russia, using anonymous corps and bank accounts. They even have their affiliate base covered because they are now setting up private affiliate networks. The U.S. SafeWeb Act was designed to facilitate crackdown on cross-border crime and it’s starting be used on cases, but as you’ve pointed out it’s gonna be really, really hard for law enforcement to keep up with crime rings operating out of so many different countries who can so easily remain anonymous (as the Jason Sharman study proved). On a lighter note…looks like Google forgot to disable Pacific WebWorks Adwords account: http://www.workathometruth.com/blog/2009/12/09/google-forgets-to-disable-pacific-webworks-adwords-account/ LOL! Reply

        • Strangely on December 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am

          @Paul It looks like Google is so big that it’s left hand and right hand don’t meet much… This guy, Gauder, a source of much merry spam to myself, is having a bit of a whinge about Adword account closures today. http://www.gauherchaudhry.com/google-adwords-drops-the-axe-again/ A whole heap of folks join in on the anti-google banter. Bothered? Me, no. It’s a free market. Let them start their own search engine in a garage…. The point is that Google’s timing is a bit awry. They issue summons but don’t cancel the defendant’s account and keep taking money from him. And to compound it, in a probably related action, they sweep through loads of advertisers, many of whom supply the spam for the PWW heart, and close THEIR accounts! This is probably the right action, but you’d think that they’d be able to join up the dots properly, wouldn’t you? Reply

27. Not Kevin on December 8th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    I was amused by some of the comments from the locals following the publication of the Google sues Pacific Webworks story in the Salt Lake Tribune: http://www.tribtowns.com/comments/read_comments.asp?ref=13951100&sec=Business And speaking of Utah scams – looks like our old friend Google Money Tree has not even paid their tiny little slap on the wrist fines from the Utah Division of Consumer Protection: “A Sandy-based company claiming to allow people to make tens of thousands of dollars performing Web searches owes more than $40,000 in fines for scamming customers. The Utah Division of Consumer Protection originally fined Infusion Media in April, but has yet to see any fines repaid. While the company has not paid any of its fines, it did come up with $25,000 for Attorney General Mark Shurtleff’s political action committee and another $5,000 for his re-election campaign. Though Shurtleff’s office is involved in the filing against the company, he has not returned the political donations. “It shows campaign contributions buy you nothing,” Shurtleff said. http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13946476 Er…..or perhaps campaign contributions buy you avoidance of some hefty Utah Attorney General action but you will get a little slap on the wrist instead just so we can tell people we are ‘doing something’? Allegedly. After all what’s 40k compared to the millions Google Treasure Chest / Money Tree were probably raking in? Not saying he should give it back to the crooks but a charity donation or something related to helping the victims of these scams perhaps? Seems some of the locals agree anyways: http://www.tribtowns.com/comments/read_comments.asp?ref=13946476&PageIndex=2 P.S. PWEB stock price down 53% today (ouch!) and it was already more than 50% off the recent high before this weeks events. http://uk.reuters.com/business/quotes/chart?symbol=PWEB.OB Reply

    • Strangely on December 8th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

      @Not Kevin Interesting local comment there! A user called Laytonian pulled out Eborn stuff that we already mostly had here: http://strangelyperfect.tv/4308/google-revolution-different-name-same-scam/#comment-1678 However, they also provided a URL, http://watchdog.net/ein/870675411/moms-club, which shows that Burnside, Eborn’s partner, is in it up to her neck, and also, a possible source for the sickenly frequent usage of the term “stay at home mom” across all the scam sites. Reply

    • Strangely on December 8th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

      @Not Kevin Thoughts on the plummeting share price… (~6 cents when I looked c.f. ~30 cents a month ago) Since…. we know that this is a private company, and has no dividend issued to date, and that CEO Bell et al own all the shares, and that they’ve probably got all their cash stashed away in Nevis, Switzerland, London or somewhere anyway, and that they always probably expected to get caught at some point and thus planned for it, I hope US Border controls are awake tonight! Reply

    • Paul Schlegel on December 13th, 2009 at 6:35 pm

      Those comments are great. I epsecially liked this one: “Just what does our Utah Attorney General do for a living. He must think we hired him to hide his records and those of his friends.” Reply

28. Not Kevin on December 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am

    Moms Club, wonder what that’s all about? From that url about Moms Club: Activity: Day care center Activity: Supplying money, goods or services to the poor How ironic! Given that her and her partner Eborn were allegedly stealing money from the poor (in effect given that all their Google work at home malarkey was aimed at the unemployed and others on low incomes) I wonder if that earlier Texas Attorney General action has been through the courts yet? I guess the FTC case (from June) will be a while yet given the size of it. No idea of the timescale of these things… @Paul, perhaps you know?? And I echo the comments about deserving a pat on the back for all your hard work, digging and info. Reply

    • Strangely on December 9th, 2009 at 12:19 am

      He was just a robbin’ hood. Reply

      • Paul Schlegel on December 9th, 2009 at 3:50 am

        Thanks Not Kevin and Strangely – it’s really about all of us working together, isn’t it? Not sure about time-frames. I’ll ask my friend Lynndell at Eagle Research Associates as he seems to have a better handle on those kinds of things. Reply

29. Strangely on December 10th, 2009 at 11:30 am

    I think the left hand/right hand dichotomy of Google is closely top-down driven. The very top. While Google’s information reservoir can be used for many purposes, not least defeating thieves and frauds, their lack of thought to the draconian uses to which data can be put and many past brushing asides of their “Do no Harm” mantra, all cascade from the hypocritically self-serving mouth of their CEO Schmidt… See: httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew Reply

30. Strangely on December 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

    Interesting job adverts info on Jesse Willms and Just Think Media… Full story here: http://strangelyperfect.tv/7108/jobs-at-just-think-media/ Reply

31. Paul Schlegel on December 11th, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Pacific Webworks CEO expresses surprise over Google lawsuit: http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_13962967 Other things that may have possibly also surprised him: 1) There has already been a manned flight to the moon. 2) The invention of television 3) No Santa Clause (sorry everyone) 4) That whole Oprah Money Making chain letter deal was a hoax 5) Google has a lot more money than Pacific WebWorks – uh oh! Reply

    • Strangely on December 12th, 2009 at 10:49 am

      Ha Ha, I spotted that as well, Paul. Initially, for a couple of days, there was a blanket news firewall round the place, and then a local station got a news release from them about him being surprised by the whole thing. Still. You have to admire the ingenuity and his creative incredulousness. He’s come a long way for a former tarmac bloke. From ashphalt to collar felt! Reply

32. Not Kevin on December 13th, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    LOL @Paul :) You have to laugh at the posters on the Yahoo PWEB stock message board too: “PWEB had an agreement with Google and PWEB does not offer Google kits. Google lawyers got their info mixed up.” http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_(A_to_Z)/Stocks_P/threadview?m=te&bn=32497&tid=714&mid=714&tof=1&frt=1#714 Yes it was all just a little mix-up :) (Not!) This cnet news article shows a particularly bad example of a fake news site – not only did they ‘report’ a non existent news conference “that drew over 10 million viewers” about a non-existent work at home program called “Google Adwork” – but they even made up some fake quotes from Google’s CEO Larry page! http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10410831-245.html?tag=mncol Let’s hope the 50 ‘John Does’ in the Google lawsuit include idiots like the creator of losangeles-tribunes.com (who will be an affiliate of one of the cpa affiliate networks) and those cpa affiliate networks too. Without the cpa ad networks and their affiliates these scams would never have reached the scale and spread they have – and even Pacific Webworks did not go as far as creating fake news conferences and fake quotes from the Google CEO! Reply

33. Strangely on December 13th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    @Not Kevin Even more strange and laughable…. http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/pacific-webworks-discusses-infrastructure-improvements,1072978.shtml On the 3rd of December, this little plug emerged for PWW about infrastructure improvements for their burgeoning business… Now remembering that this is before Google waded in, CEO Bell’s words are pretty neat: The company has received notice of two civil actions related to sales in the ordinary course of business, and the company intends to vigorously defend itself against these questionable claims. We are also aware of the negative commentary about the company in the marketplace in spite of the companyâ��s continued success. Negative Commentary!!! Now, cast your eyes to the right of CEO Bell’s words and you’ll see…. an advert for tooth whitener! These are a set of rotating images and links, so are not consistent. However, the now usual steps of Fake Blog -> two links to tooth whiteners are followed. Accompanied by the sentiment, “two are better than one” These links, at least one, anyway, are very interesting as it shows how PWW’s main selling point in their company profile – their software suite – is becoming overcome with the too many rapid changes needed to get past the “Negative Commentary” CEO Bell mentions. Try: http://www.ivorywhite.com/CheckoutOrderZipCaptureForm.do;jsessionid=DEC6B28A165A2C3A4CDC7CB2A99F83CC Now no where on this website do they make any mention of the usual claims of “as seen on ABC” etc, nor are there any logos. And yet, in the footer, there is an itemised list of URLs from where these non-existent claims are supposed to be derived!!! † Ivorywhite is not associated with nor endorsed by Cosmopolitan, WebMD, US News or CNN. Logos are trademarks of the respective publications. 1 http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/02/06/tooth-whitening-leads-in-cosmetic-dentistry.html 2 http://www-cgi.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0207/15/ltm.12.html 3 http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/guide/teeth-whitening 4 http://www.cosmopolitan.com/hairstyles-beauty/how-to/glam-up-your-grin I haven’t checked these links yet, but I may make a full post on this just to ensure I trap some decent screendump proof. It looks like I’ve trapped a template in mid-change! Whether it’s PWW related or Jesse Willms, is irrelevant, because the same methods are used and that’s what’s important. These are the posts described above, as they look going from one to the next. Reply

34. From PWW to White Teeth | Strangely Perfect on December 13th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    [...] exclusion notes in the webpage footer, but no links that the exclusions are derived from!!!  (See this comment for further info on these scammers.  I originally came across them in an investigation into Google [...] Reply

35. Not Kevin on December 17th, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    Pacific Webworks lawsuit settled already??? ” Utah-based Pacific WebWorks has agreed to provide information in what Google Inc. says is “the tip of the iceberg” of a nationwide fraud that has scammed thousands of people out of millions of dollars. Google attorney George Haley told U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins at a Wednesday hearing in Salt Lake City that Pacific WebWorks had consented to Google’s demand that it provide possible evidence as part of a lawsuit filed last week against the Utah company and unnamed other defendants. “There’s a major national scam that’s going on across the country,” said Haley, adding that the alleged fraud involves roping in people by using pitches about making money with Google while working at home. Google is being blamed for the massive fraud by some consumers and state attorneys general, and the Internet search giant wants to discover who besides Pacific WebWorks might be behind the efforts that involve at least 2,650 Web sites, Haley said. Web sites linked to the Utah company “are the tip of the iceberg, and discovery [of evidence] is required to determine whether PWW or others are the masterminds behind the scam,” Google said in a memo to the court before the Wednesday hearing. Haley also told Jenkins that Google and Pacific WebWorks had reached an “agreement in principle” to settle the lawsuit, but he declined after the hearing to elaborate. Haley said others will be named in the lawsuit as their identities are discovered. ” http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_14012306 Well if attorney George Haley wants to know who else is behind the scam he should be taking a look at all the CPA affilate networks that ran Google offers and at their affliates who created all the fake blogs and fake news sites… I fact despite the lawsuit, plenty of the CPA affilate networks still are running Google work at home scam offers: Global Ad Revolution motive interactive CPA Bullet MaxBounty Convert2Media EWA Network Copeac Clickbooth etc etc: http://www.findaffiliateoffers.com/index.php?function=search&search=google&=# Reply

36. Strangely on December 22nd, 2009 at 5:57 pm

    @Not Kevin As always, the best news about Utah scams seems to come from the Salt Lake Tribune, as demonstrated by your link… http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_14012306 Have a little read of the few choice comments at the bottom of the article by Utahn locals. Nice. Since the article, much of what it’s said has come out via AP across all news outlets – this yahoo News article is typical. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091221/ap_on_hi_te/us_pacific_webworks_google_suit However, it seems from the AP news article that something extra has happened yesterday – or else they are just interpreting the news from the 16th differently when PWW decided to roll over for Google…. Because as well as the original “agreement in principle” statement, a new one has emerged with the key phrase that PWW will “cooperate with Google’s request for expedited discovery.” To me, this suggests that they are handing over ALL their customer logs and database, certainly in enough detail to satisfy the words “expedited discovery”. Presumably this means ALL their links to other affiliate companies, as you pointed out, and probably all the thousands of “like minded entrepreneurs” (a.k.a. suckers) who’ve bought into the scam. Because; how else could they give Google enough information without burying themselves in shit right up to the nostrils? I think this is the guts of the “agreement in principle” and it’s my guess that in return for this wodge of information in a “Queens Evidence” kind of thing from PWW, Google will leave PWW with enough cash to remain viable as a business and the Bells and Larsens will stay out of the clink….? What says you? Reply

37. Not Kevin on December 22nd, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    Yes, I think you are right there – I would guess that they will try to blame the affiliate networks and the affiliates (as it’s true that the fake blogs/news sites claiming ‘Google is hiring’ were created by affiiates). A bit like the original dazzlesmile in their lawsuit vs Jesse Willms/Just Think Media also blamed the affiliate network (azoogle/epic) for creating the misleading landing pages and terms etc. Of course Pacific Webworks must have known exactly where all this traffic was coming from (but did nothing to stop it – too profitable!) and also must have approved the landing pages and terms created by the affiliate network. So maybe by shifting the focus and helping to reveal clues to the identities of some of the 50 ‘John Does’ in the Google lawsuit. PWEB hope to take some of the heat off themselves? Co-operation in exchange for some ‘leniency’/lighter penalty? Reply

38. Not Kevin on December 23rd, 2009 at 1:34 am

    Just came across this post too which says: “So, if they’re agreed and moving toward a settlement, why do we need discovery? Discovery is the phase of the trial where each of the parties share pertinent documents—so perhaps Google is demanding this to find the other companies it believes are running the scams. Google said earlier this month that, “upon information and belief,” the other scammers were materially connected with Pacific WebWorks.” http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2009/12/google-work-at-home-scammer-settling-suit.html Reply

39. Strangely on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Ha Ha. There’s deep and warranted cynicism about all this from many quarters, not least because of Google’s tardiness in starting a court case as they continued to rake in adwords’ cash. It seemed to me that it was Oprah’s stand that was the turning point… There verywell may be ~50 John Does but don’t forget the 2,650 websites…. This number goes up with each Google statement. If you recall, it was ~1000 in the original court document. I suspect that it’ll be >10k websites when some sort of closure is drawn over this. And if, as everyone suspects, that PWW, Bell & Larsen remain intact, just what DOES this say about investigative justice for the consumer? My opinion is that Google is engaged in dirty tricks on this, probably to protect their bottom line or public image which has maybe reached a tipping point in their own eyes. Because there is no way that PWW are some innocent bystander in all of this. After all, they are the PAYMASTER! As it says on ALL their company-speak literature, say on this business item on the case, http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091221005805&newsLang=en About Pacific WebWorks, Intellipay and TradeWorks Marketing Pacific WebWorks provides a comprehensive suite of affordable, easy-to-use software programs for small businesses that want to create, manage, and maintain an effective Web strategy including full e-commerce capabilities. Pacific WebWorks operates a number of wholly owned subsidiaries including IntelliPay, TradeWorks Marketing and others. What this doesn’t say is that they run the call-centres which have been the butt of many ripped-off people’s ire. They processed the money. They refunded money (occasionally!!!) They made and sold the software – on commission!! They provided all these services – on commission!! Mailing lists – on commission! etc,etc,etc Now in English Law, you are just as much guilty for HANDLING STOLEN GOODS as the thief that takes the goods in the first place!!! You are just as guilty for planning a heist as doing the heist…. US Law is very similar to English Law in this regard. So if we replace the word “Goods” or “heist” with services, then it’s very clear to me exactly what PWW have been up to. They are not some entrepreneurial innocent. They are the core and key to the whole operation. Doubtless, other operations exist that can do PWW’s ’services’, and undoubtedly many will spring up to fill the void. But for a long time, PWW have been at the very centre of this scam, and if it now appears that by a simple “agreement” with Google they’ll still be in business with no apparent public chastisement, or redress for the thousands of people ripped off by their actions, it just proves to me how far removed, Google as a business, now is from it’s initial lofty ideals. Strangely´s last blog ..Crawling Chaos Dishwasher Reply

40. Paul Schlegel on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Just getting caught up on all this here. Definitely a lot of strange things going on. “We’re settling…let the discovery continue?” I have a couple people I’ll try to ask if there is possibly any sense to that who might actually have some idea of what might be going on. Personally right now it’s just making my brain hurt to live in that paradox. Reply

41. Not Kevin on December 23rd, 2009 at 11:42 am

    Oh yes I agree absolutely – they do seem (to a greater or lesser degree) to be ‘getting away with it’. Pacific Webworks should be shut down (with the company assets used to refund victims) and the Directors sent to jail. They are indeed the core and key to the whole operation. Pacific Webworks made millions from this as did Google (via adwords ads for the scam) so as you say where is the justice for the consumer!? The affiliates and the cpa networks also seem to get away with it – they also both made millions from this scam and if you read certain forums and blogs they are literally laughing all the way to the bank. Perhaps the (Ford, Chicago) class action suit will address the issue of consumer compensation? Today you can get up to 14 years in prison for selling a drug which was legal yesterday – but it seems you can effectively steal millions from people without any penalty – crazy! Strange days indeed. Reply

42. Strangely on December 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    @Not Kevin Spot on with the last paragraph and the comparative whims that our laws seem to take and operate upon. Reply

    • Paul Schlegel on December 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm

      This isn’t directly about Pacific Webworks – but more about the “getting away with it” aspect…did either of you read through the Oversight and Investigations report listed in this TechCrunch post? I just finished the first 30 pages – the same guys have companies going all the way back to 1973 engaging in the same practices. Probably even more stunning than the PWW scenario because of all the mainstream retailers co-operating in the deceptive practices. Reply

43. Paul Schlegel on December 24th, 2009 at 1:03 am

    Wait, I just reread the complaint – it’s against Pacific WebWorks AND Does 1-50 so the discovery process would continue against Does 1-50. I would guess that’s all there is to it. Probably just that Pacific Webworks will co-operate in trying to uncover the Does 1-50. Reply

44. Paul Schlegel on December 24th, 2009 at 3:44 am

    LOL. I must be losing my mind with the kids home for the holidays. The Does 1-50 has already been covered. Reply

    • Strangely on December 24th, 2009 at 10:54 am

      @Paul I’m not sure what’s been covered actually. The statements that have emerged so far are pretty thin, and all the more remarkable because of it given the length of the original court summons. All we can actually say is that PWW and Google have come to “some sort” of arrangement. It only “appears” that PWW will be helping to uncover the missing John Does and it’s not specifically mentioned that that’s the area of “discovery” in which the work will be done. All I see is ~50 John Does and a rising number of websites with each press release. It could be that more John Does will appear, which’ll be good. But as you’ve said about the Official Report in the TechCrunch post (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/17/ptm-scams-scamville-rockefeller-senatehearing-wallofshame/), this sort of activity has a long, long history. Which means the roots are very deep. For now, I’m going to wait and see and stop second-guessing. It’s Christmas. After that, I’ll try and work my way through that report in the Tech Crunch article. Thanks for pointing it out. Reply

45. Paul Schlegel on December 25th, 2009 at 4:08 am

    Kids are finally asleep! Our boy insists we grab a pic of Santa. LOL. Just to be clear I wasn’t saying the info in TechCrunch is related to Pacific Webworks – merely that there is a long tradition (at least in the U.S.) of stuff like this going on and on and on…and on… Reply

    • Strangely on December 26th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

      on and on… You’re right with that one Paul. Deception, theft and cons are nothing new. The bible, Roman and Ancient Egyptian history are full of similar tales. The point about the PWW affair is that it’s been operating for some time now, and is a beacon and template for anyone else planning to start in this line of ‘business’. The web just makes it soooo easy to do. As a plan, it’s almost foolproof as long as they get out and move on before someone latches on and stops them. Also, we now have the proliferating remnants of owners and websites that PWW kicked off. They all have to be chased down and I can’t believe that PWW manage the money collection for all of them. There must be tons of similar processing houses. This means that the ’scheme’ will still run and run…; on and on….; just how I started… Reply

46. Strangely on December 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am

    PWW (Pacific WebWorks): NOT GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!! Nice news on my birthday yesterday from the folks at The Salt Lake Tribune… New lawsuits filed against Pacific WebWorks http://www.sltrib.com/technology/ci_14096722 While Google and PWW may be all nice and cosy and have arranged things to their mutual advantage, THREE EXTRA class action lawsuits have apparently been filed against the ‘company’, named individuals and various John Does. The news article lists a new suit in Utah, plus others in Washington, California and Illinois! The good thing about all this is that ANYONE hit by the various scams (that myself and the hosts of much superior investigators than me have documented for the last few years), well, they can ALL be compensated by the attorneys in the class action suits. So contact them now, folks! The names are in the SLT link above, and I’ll give better contact details when I can. The Google/PWW arrangement obviously had some hidden meanings because the PWW website is now down and “under construction”. Presumably, their ’software suite’ for website creation has ‘certain limitations’ to satisfy Google’s “quality guidelines”! ;-) This action, according to the SLT article, is costing PWW $1.4million a month. Woo-Hoo! Strangely´s last blog ..Some Words are Just ‘Right’! Reply

    • Strangely on January 6th, 2010 at 12:07 pm

      PWW (Pacific WebWorks) CEO Bell made this release on 30 December also. In it we find that PWW has bought it’s building, with expansion room, outright. He also says that he’ll vigorously defend the court charges against him, except for the previously ‘arranged’ case from Google. http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/091231/PACIFIC-WEBWORKS-INC_8-K/ Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name:	(required)
Email:	(required) (will not be published)
Website:
Comment:

Notify me of follow up comments via e-mail