THE BIZOP NEWS

Image via Wikipedia

From David Arnett, at Tulas Today, about the growing AdSurfDaily Ponzi,

"The U.S. Secret Service has identified and frozen additional funds from AdSurfDaily, Inc (ASD) raising the total from approximately $53 to $93.5 million, but the worldwide investigation first reported on Tulsa Today continues.

Other similar Internet frauds are being reported to law enforcement as the definition, constitution and value of Internet traffic within the world of advertising comes into question."

So what is happening Court, after the emergency motion filed by ASD to keep the Ponzi scheme running?

Well, ASD in opposition to the Government's memorandum states:

"ASD seeks a reasonable, court-approved, monitored compromise that would allow ASD to continue doing business while this litigation proceeds.

ASD is prepared to thoroughly explain its detailed proposals for oversight and monitoring, as well as its modified business plan, at an evidentiary hearing, if permitted by this Court.

In addition, ASD is prepared to propose an experienced, independent monitor, who would be available for appointment by the Court."

Hmm, I wonder who that would be?  Who qualifies as being an independent monitor of possible ponzi schemes?

ASD's lawyers do a make an interesting point about how the Government discerned the intention of the individuals involved in the ASD program.  They claim:

"ASD's Emergency Motion clearly expressed its objection to the Government's nebulous allegation that "most" ASD members are not interested in the advertising aspects of ASD's business, the Government's Response provides no detail - and certainly no explicit numbers - to give support to its prior vague statements.

The Government's silence on such critical issues is significant."

I am not sure who has the burden of proof here, or rebutal, but it would seem easy for ASD to demonstrate increased traffic to their client's websites and the corresponding CTR, and ROI.

Instead of doing that, the attorneys for ASD make an unhelpful point, complaining that the Government has ignored

"many emails, phone calls and letters in support of ASD's advertising business, the Government attempts to belittle those contacts by suggesting that ASD solicited those contacts from its members.

Even if it could be assumed that the Government had proof to support its criticism, and even if all of those comments were indeed sent at the behest of ASD, the Government cannot possibly suggest that the persons writing and calling were dishonest or disingenuous in expressing their support of ASD."

I am guessing that if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the enthusisatic support of Paul.

Any Pauls out there disagree?