So far we've seen the executive count drop from 3 to 2 with the departure of Robert Brett Bell. See http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks…

We've also seen their former accountants "Chisholm, Bierwolf, Nilson & Morrill, LLC" booted off the shop floor and then barred by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") on April 8, 2011 . See http://biz.yahoo.com/e/110427/pwebe.ob8-k_a.html

We've also seen the familially named Michael J. Larsen last 4 days as their new accountant, see http://xml.10kwizard.com/filing_raw.php?repo=tenk…

The best of all is the last bit from the current two directors' CVs, which is identical! See http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOffi…

It states:

"He has not been involved in any legal proceedings during the past ten years that are material to an evaluation of his ability or integrity." – for both Ken Bell & Christian Larsen.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the director's responsibility to hire accountants and weren't these accountants sacked and then booted off the accountancy register?

Also, let's not forget the "Google Slap" against all the directors and many members of their immediate families who were all involved in the "scheme to deceive" as the court was told…!! This is what was reported here: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-l…

Pacific WebWorks also entered into a permanent injunction in which it agreed it would not misuse Google's name in the future. Besides the company, the injunction also includes officers Kenneth W. Bell, Robert Brett Bell, William Marc Bell and Christian R. Larsen and their spouses, Roberta L Bell, Jillian Bell, Ashley A. Bell and Jennifer Larsen. Companies set up by the wives apparently were used as part of the scheme.

So could someone please explain how Larsen & Bell can coolly say that they have:

"not been involved in any legal proceedings during the past ten years that are material to an evaluation of his ability or integrity."

…when plainly, they have?

illegally acquired funds from consumers by making unauthorized charges and debits to their bank accounts

http://www.internetretailer.com/2011/01/17/ftc-im…

This was the case for Daniel Greenberg, the former CEO of ClassicCloseouts.com, yesterday.

http://www.ripoffreport.com/misc-health-specialis…

Here we have a nice list from a Just Think Media employee apparently, of several former businesses of the dark lord. Plus the complaint mentions the Cyprus address specifically.

And who is the current registrant of the Wu-Yi Tea domain?

A. Kristen Orsen

http://www.ip-adress.com/whois/wu-yisource.com

Of course, Just Think is now hidden;
http://whois.domaintools.com/justthinkmedia.com

But the history is there for all to see should they care to look.

I wonder what the duck that is the FTC is doing right now? Just Think!

The lures, the common addresses, the linked business relationships. 249 East Tabernacle Street, must be choca-bloc with creeps.

A key bit of the FTC case is that the defendants were all engaged in a

COMMON ENTERPRISE

This is something we've been banging on about for years now!

Several of the names and businesses have crossed our radar over the past two years, and for once, I'm all for the FTC on this one, who now seem to bely their appearances and now appear like a duck (all activity below the surface!) They seem to have been acting under the mantra of "give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves".

They are also using the deluge of spam as evidence and forcing the defendants to have responsibility for the content of their advertisers. This can only be a good thing, because I'm fed up of the shite.

As you pointed out, their activities have much in common with the dark lord.

Speaking of whom, the caring head has now outgrown terramarketing.com which is up for sale. It's now terramarketinggroup! (WHOIS N/A natch!)

In the quest to change search results and eliminate the web history, the WHOIS ownership of Voldemort's websites have hopped about a lot recently. The weirdly named (and email addressed) Kristen Orsen is a case in point. (see this comment on scamraiders here) There's not much on the person online, but if you happen to make a few typo errors lots of folk with similar names appear in Utah, Nevada and California, many of whom are engaged in the internet/marketing/media type of thing.

Such as the one on 'swipeauctions.com currently which although it's not trading and just trying to get all the refunds out, still manages to claim so many thousand wins each day etc! That must be a typo, surely?

(and don't call me Shirley)

A little extract from the charges:

"For instance, in 2009 Defendants incorporated more than 50 Shell Companies using maildrop addresses and straw-figures as owners and officers because they

knew that it was unlikely they could obtain additional merchant accounts using existing companies, due to these companies’ negative chargeback histories" "Defendants then applied

through intermediaries called Payment Processors for new merchant accounts in the names of these “front” companies in order to continue processing the credit and debit card charges for the online memberships Defendants sell. They have also attempted to drive down their chargeback

rates by threatening to report consumers who seek chargebacks to an Internet consumer blacklist they operate called “BadCustomer.com” that will “result in member merchants blocking [the consumer] from making future purchases online!” And they have attempted to counter the large number of complaints about their conduct by flooding the Internet with supposedly independent positive articles and other web pages."

Hmmm. Sounds familiar. I can think of a certain individual in Canada who uses a rather similar modus operandi… ;)

Anyway, good to see the FTC finally do something after the Utah Attorney General failed to do anything. I wonder why?
http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-6061-news-…

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-7772-calle…

@2:00 we hear them talking about "Refund Rates"…

Essentially, the gist is that the more is charged for an "offer" for a "coaching" program, then the lower the refund rate.

He's taking about $500-$5000 which is considerably more than the PWW systems, but it actually proves that these people talk about refunds as a standard business cost…!!!

In fact, refunds seems to be their biggest business cost!!!

Which is a very strange way to run a business, eh?

"Oh, the frivilosity of it all!"