New Management at Scam.com

[getupnow]

Getupnow,

No response from the owner of the forum who obviously gave Len plenty of time to convince him to become an Administrator.

I don't think Zac owns the site anymore. Len became a moderator by calling a guy named Greg (from what sojustask told me). LM wasn't told about Len becoming a mod at all, and from everything she has said to me she doesn't really support the decision but unfortunately there's not a whole lot she can do about it.

She also did some digging on the "court approved expert" thing, and found that when someone becomes a court approved expert like Len did, it's only for that specific case as well. So while technically he is a court approved expert, that status is ONLY applicable to the cases which he was appointed as one.

AKA "Zach" still owns the Scam.com forum and Len talked him into becoming Admin. Lady Mod can confirm these facts and the reason she is upset is because she has been with "Zach" since day one and gave the coveted Admin to Len without even telling her.

[Mike!]

Getupnow,

No response from the owner of the forum who obviously gave Len plenty of time to convince him to become an Administrator.

I don't think Zac owns the site anymore. Len became a moderator by calling a guy named Greg (from what sojustask told me). LM wasn't told about Len becoming a mod at all, and from everything she has said to me she doesn't really support the decision but unfortunately there's not a whole lot she can do about it.

She also did some digging on the "court approved expert" thing, and found that when someone becomes a court approved expert like Len did, it's only for that specific case as well. So while technically he is a court approved expert, that status is ONLY applicable to the cases which he was appointed as one.

So that would make it past tense then. The case is finished/closed, right? So it should read WAS a Court approved expert. Not is one. "Is" means now, "was" means then.

[Lisa]

Getupnow,

No response from the owner of the forum who obviously gave Len plenty of time to convince him to become an Administrator.

I don't think Zac owns the site anymore. Len became a moderator by calling a guy named Greg (from what sojustask told me). LM wasn't told about Len becoming a mod at all, and from everything she has said to me she doesn't really support the decision but unfortunately there's not a whole lot she can do about it.

She also did some digging on the "court approved expert" thing, and found that when someone becomes a court approved expert like Len did, it's only for that specific case as well. So while technically he is a court approved expert, that status is ONLY applicable to the cases which he was appointed as one.

AKA "Zach" still owns the Scam.com forum and Len talked him into becoming Admin. Lady Mod can confirm these facts and the reason she is upset is because she has been with "Zach" since day one and gave the coveted Admin to Len without even telling her.

I always thought Zac was from outside the US, this Greg guys is located here in the states. I don't think they're the same person.

Did you talk to Stephanie about this? I did. I just flat out asked her. I don't like to assume things about situations, it usually winds up making you look like an idiot. There is NO difference between an admin and a mod. They all have the same capabilities and functions. What frustrates her about the Len situation is that it's taking traffic away to the site and when that happens, Greg or Zac or whoever bugs her about it. She's the one who has to explain why the site is losing traffic and is kind of held accountable for it. Additionally, when there's a problem on the site EVERYONE PM's her. This stuff with Len has completely overloaded her inbox with PM's and she's had to spend more time than she actually desires having to deal with the fallout from it. So yes, she's pissed. But not because Len has admin status, but because of all of the crap that she's had to deal with because of it.

[Lisa]

Getupnow,

No response from the owner of the forum who obviously gave Len plenty of time to convince him to become an Administrator.

I don't think Zac owns the site anymore. Len became a moderator by calling a guy named Greg (from what sojustask told me). LM wasn't told about Len becoming a mod at all, and from everything she has said to me she doesn't really support the decision but unfortunately there's not a whole lot she can do about it.

She also did some digging on the "court approved expert" thing, and found that when someone becomes a court approved expert like Len did, it's only for that specific case as well. So while technically he is a court approved expert, that status is ONLY applicable to the cases which he was appointed as one.

So that would make it past tense then. The case is finished/closed, right? So it should read WAS a Court approved expert. Not is one. "Is" means now, "was" means then.

I have no idea if the cases he worked on (I believe he's worked on more than one) are closed... I didn't really care to be honest.

[Doc Bunkum]

I always thought Zac was from outside the US, this Greg guys is located here in the states. I don't think they're the same person.

It's not Greg, it's George.

And he lives in Toronto.

[MWave]

As I've posted before. Quotes from Clements' online C.V.

Previous Requests and Designations as Expert Witness:

People vs. Gold Unlimited (via third party representative).
Declined for ethical reasons.

Action by Fresno District Attorney against representative of Marathon
Declined for ethical reasons.

Action by Dr. Joel Wallach against ex-partner.
Declined to participate.

Heritage Health Products (defendant) in action by Distributor.
Declined to participate.

It is unclear to me how he was an "expert" in a case in which he declined to participate. It is equally unclear to me how being asked and declining is evidence of any expertise in anything.

None of these cases were those where I was deemed an expert in MLM, nor have I ever even remotely suggested they were. Because, well, I did not participate in them.

Did I really have to explain that to you? How could you not have figured that out on your own?

Various Distributors vs. Equinox International.
Illegal Pyramid.
Participated in three separate cases on behalf of the plaintiff.

The first of the cases in which he claims to have actually participated. However, in the absence of the names of all parties - and preferably the names of the courts and the docket/index numbers - verification is impossible. The CV of any true expert will not only have that information, but the date of testimony as well, because true experts want readers to be able to verify their expertise.

This case: insufficient information to verify.

As you stated above, this is my resumé I've posted online. If anyone wants more details about my previous case work I will gladly provide it.

Action by Longevity Network against ex-training director.
Wrongful Termination.
Participated on behalf of the plaintiff.

Insufficient information to verify. See above.

I only testified at deposition. The case was settled before trial, thus this was not a case in which I was "certified" as an expert.

Action by distributor against Cell Tech Damages.
Participated on behalf of defendant.

Insufficient information to verify. See above.

Same as above. I only testified during the deposition phase. As I'm sure wserra will confirm, it's much easier to testify as an expert when you give a deposition than it is when you testify on the stand during trial.

Action by Longevity Network against American Longevity
Trademark Infringement/Damages.
Participated on behalf of the plaintiff.

Well, whaddaya know - two parties! And the information that it was a trademark case means that it was federal court. Lets check PACER, the federal court database.

Got it. Docket 04-cv-2404, Central District of California. Clements did in fact testify - but the judge precluded him from testifying to 90% of what he did, including analyzing the likelihood of confusion (key in trademark cases), damages, and conducting market surveys. He was permitted to testify regarding the MLM industry. The order is here. It's not very complimentary.

Before anyone waxes rhapsodic over Clements having testified as an MLM expert, remember two things: (1) there are "experts" on everything imaginable, from current events to the use of guar in textile manufacture. (2) For every expert on one side, there is typically an expert saying the opposite on the other. People MLMers regularly disparage - like Jon Taylor and Robert Fitzpatrick - have also testified as experts on the MLM "industry". I guess what they say must be true.

How did you come up with that 90% figure, Wes? Most of what I was hired to testify to was related to my expertise of MLM and to what effect such confusion could have on a company. The other stuff were peripheral aspects that we knew I was unlikely to be allowed to testify to. So I actually testified to about 90% of what I was hired to testify to! You didn't just make up an arbitrary number out of thin air, did you Wes?

And yes, this was a jury trial where opposing council tried to convince the judge that I was not an expert and should not be allowed to testify. The judge overruled the objection and deemed me competent to testify as an expert on multilevel marketing! I'd provide the evidence, but you just did it for me.

Action by distributor against Starlight International.
Wrongful Termination/Damages.
Participated on behalf of the plaintiff.

Action by distributor against Tahitian Noni International.
Damages.
Participated on behalf of the plaintiff.

Insufficient information to verify. See above.

The TNI case settled before trial. But the Starlight case was, in fact, the first case where opposing council objected to my testifying as an expert, the judge considered my credentials, called me to the stand specifically to testify to my expertise, and ruled I was an expert in MLM immediately thereafter.

That was in the Superior Court of California, County of Monterey. Case no. M51539.

Also see above for an example of proof.

Also, see mine that I just provided.

If Clements (or anyone else) wants to give details as to any other testimony - date, court, docket - I'd be glad to take a look. Even better would be actual transcripts, something real experts gladly provide.

Isn't one of the first things they teach you in law school is to never ask a question you don't already know the answer to?

Now you have two trials where a judge considered an objection to my testifying as an expert and in both cases found me to, in fact, be an expert in MLM and allowed me to testify as such.

Are you going to keep defending this indefensible position - like Usana not being "legally vindicated" after an SEC investigation found nothing wrong, and a federal court judge dismissing a class action suit against Usana on summary?

You're 0-2 now, Wes.

Len

[MWave]

So the latest controversy at Scam.com seems to be the fact that Len removed the thread about Broker Jones and his obvious scam for the same reasons he removed the thread about himself.

I didn't remove the thread about me, and this is a well known fact now. No_Moron_Here admitted an Admin removed the thread (the owner was the only Admin at the time), then No_Moron_Here banned me for life because he "highly suspected" that I had "asked" for the thread to be removed. That's it. And now, that's why I'm back and No_Moron_Here is now banned for life (by the owner).

Yet the thread didn't violate any of even the newest rules posted. No full names, no addresses posted, etc. Then he threatens another long standing member for banishment for posting the hometown of one of the moderators, but obviously posting a town is not the same as posting an address.

The "long standing member" posted the home town of one of the moderators, and the rules clearly state that no personal information is to be posted. And I'm not the one who warned him. That moderator did. Can you get any of this right?

Interestingly enough I noticed that "Zachary" (owner/Admin of Scam.com) was reviewing the most recent Oceanside/Broker Jones thread this morning. I wouldn't be surprised if deleting the Broker Jones thread is Len's "waterloo" as an Admin for Scam.com because he obviously has cozied up with Broker Jones and has that scammer's back. And why shouldn't he? They have so much in common. Their posting style, their desperate need to be accepted, the fact that they are both completely delusional about how the real world perceives them and on and on and on...

I deleted the original thread because it was nothing but an attempt to smear Jones personally. Much like the Yoli thread (which was closed by sojustask, not me, because it turned entirely into a bash Len thread) this was an effort to reboot the discussion about the company itself, not to end any such discussion. All I'm asking over there is for people to focus on why Oceanside is a scam first. The owner or promoter can't be a "scammer" until it's first determined their operation is a scam. Everyone is completely free to present any and all such information that shows this company is a scam.

Len

[getupnow]

I deleted the original thread because it was nothing but an attempt to smear Jones personally. Much like the Yoli thread (which was closed by sojustask, not me, because it turned entirely into a bash Len thread) this was an effort to reboot the discussion about the company itself, not to end any such discussion. All I'm asking over there is for people to focus on why Oceanside is a scam first. The owner or promoter can't be a "scammer" until it's first determined their operation is a scam. Everyone is completely free to present any and all such information that shows this company is a scam.

Len

Broker Jones is not his name, it is a "brand" that is a moniker of some anonymous guy who has repeatedly been proven a scammer.

Your other reason for deleting the thread is because Broker Jones was simply a promoter and shouldn't be attacked personally, yet Broker Jones admitted in the Oceanside thread he is in fact the owner and President of Oceanside.

Len it is obvious you blew it by deleting that thread because it didn't violate the rules and all you accomplished is letting your empathy get in the way of your duties as an Admin. Scam.com will continue to go down the tubes with you steering the new direction as a safe harbor for fellow scammers instead of a site that used to inform and protect those innocent and trusting victims.

Anyone can see that Broker Jones was the worst of the worst yet you deleted the thread exposing the "Broker Jones" brand because you felt sorry for how he was being exposed.

[Doc Bunkum]

Yet the thread didn't violate any of even the newest rules posted. No full names, no addresses posted, etc. Then he threatens another long standing member for banishment for posting the hometown of one of the moderators, but obviously posting a town is not the same as posting an address.

The "long standing member" posted the home town of one of the moderators, and the rules clearly state that no personal information is to be posted. And I'm not the one who warned him. That moderator did. Can you get any of this right?

Len

Really, Lenny?

Let's just see how that one went down:

Originally Posted by Doc Bunkum:

Well, I doubt Lady Mod would ban me.

We're practically best buds.

We go out for wings and beer and sing karaoke every time I stop in Wake Village, TX.

First, there's a record of everyone who's ever been banned. You screen name is not on that list.

Then, in direct defiance of the new rule clarification clearly posted at the top of the forums list you post the hometown of not only another member, but a moderator.

You're trying to play the martyr, aren't you? You want to get banned as some kind of badge of honor to brag about over at your new mud puddle.

Your toes are right on the line.

Len

"And I'm not the one who warned him", you say?

Gee, Lenny, you want to give your head a shake and think about what you wrote?

Can you get anything right?

[Doc Bunkum]

Oh, and I see Lenny just showed up on JREF to set the record straight.

You've got to love this one...

The three main challenges here seem to be:

1) The legitimacy of my roll as an “MLM Watchdog” or Consumer Advocate;
2) The value of my Amega Wand study;
3) The sincerity of my posting here to seek assistance with it;
4) The legitimacy of Yoli;
5) The legitimacy of the MLM industry in general.

Len

Anybody else see the humor in that?

[MWave]

Broker Jones is not his name, it is a "brand" that is a moniker of some anonymous guy who has repeatedly been proven a scammer.

Your other reason for deleting the thread is because Broker Jones was simply a promoter and shouldn't be attacked personally, yet Broker Jones admitted in the Oceanside thread he is in fact the owner and President of Oceanside.

Len it is obvious you blew it by deleting that thread because it didn't violate the rules and all you accomplished is letting your empathy get in the way of your duties as an Admin. Scam.com will continue to go down the tubes with you steering the new direction as a safe harbor for fellow scammers instead of a site that used to inform and protect those innocent and trusting victims.

Anyone can see that Broker Jones was the worst of the worst yet you deleted the thread exposing the "Broker Jones" brand because you felt sorry for how he was being exposed.

I can always tell when someone in an argument is out of gas. That's when they just start repeating their original point over and over instead of responding to the other person's point.

I get everything you just said. You've stated your position more than once now. I then rebutted it by pointing out the fact that a new thread was created to expose Oceanside as a scam, which is now open. Once the company itself has been exposed, then you can go after the individual promoters.

I also rebutted several other points that you completely ignored. Either offer a counter argument, or admit you were in error.

Furthermore, I've been a Scam.com moderator or admin for over six weeks now, in total. During that time I've deleted one thread (totally unrelated to me), closed one thread, deleted several posts reported as spam, edited two for flaming, and I've banned NO ONE! I've also left countless anti-MLM threads completely intact. I've been extremely cautious and fair in performing my duties.

Now, instead of just repeating your original accusation once again, here is where you are suppose to offer a counter point to the specific points I just made, or concede that you have none.

Len

[MWave]

Your toes are right on the line.

"And I'm not the one who warned him", you say?

Gee, Lenny, you want to give your head a shake and think about what you wrote?

Can you get anything right?

As you surely saw, my warnings included the word "Warning" - every time!

If you want to call this a warning, fine. But why did you omit the fact that the post you are referring to has been deleted in its entirety - by the other moderator?! HER warning was clear and distinct!

Len

[MWave]

Oh, and I see Lenny just showed up on JREF to set the record straight.

You've got to love this one...

The three main challenges here seem to be:

1) The legitimacy of my roll as an “MLM Watchdog” or Consumer Advocate;
2) The value of my Amega Wand study;
3) The sincerity of my posting here to seek assistance with it;
4) The legitimacy of Yoli;
5) The legitimacy of the MLM industry in general.

Len

Anybody else see the humor in that?

I know my point has been made, and no one can refute any of it, when they resort to pointing out petty typos.

BTW, you never did respond to that post over on JREF about the photo of you on your old website with the gold and silver medals around your neck. Surely you weren't committing fraud there, so please tell us - what Olympics did you compete in?

Brian, you are horrible at this. Doesn't it bother you knowing that so many people know who you are now? That is, that you are now accountable for your pathetic, embarrassing conduct on these boards? Seriously, man. Do you have no shame? I know you have at least one child (because you put a photo of one of them on that website). Aren't you at all concerned that they're going to see all of this someday?

Actually, I'm starting to feel a little guilty about this myself. I'm the one making their dad look so bad. Ever since I found that old website and saw those pics, I've started to lose some enjoyment in sparring with you like this.

So here's your chance to end it. Come back after this post and say what ever you want about me. Just go nuts. I don't care. Make up more crap about me, call me anything you want to call me, and trash every company I've ever been associated with. Get it all out of your system. As long as that post is the last one you ever direct at me, personally, I will never post another comment about you. If you want to go after Yoli or some other MLM company I reserve the right to defend that company against your claims, but it will never get personal - until YOU make it so.

It's your call, Brian. I'm good either way.

Len

[wserra]

None of these cases were those where I was deemed an expert in MLM, nor have I ever even remotely suggested they were. Because, well, I did not participate in them.

Exactly so. Then what's the point in listing them?

Twice in my career, I was asked if I wanted to be a judge by two different people who had the power to make it happen. I politely declined both, for various reasons (they were different judgeships). I have never before posted that information anywhere, and it is surely not on my C.V. Why? Because it doesn't prove anything. Whatever my abilities as a lawyer may be, they are not enhanced at all by that fact. My abilities as a lawyer are proven by what I've accomplished as a lawyer, not by what I've declined to get involved in. Moreover, the discerning reader would see it for what it is - a meaningless attempt at self-promotion - and think less of me for it.

So why do you post those alleged offers under the heading "Previous Requests and Designations as Expert Witness"? Why not just leave it (as does every reputable expert) at the number of times a court has actually permitted you to give expert testimony? It seems likely that you do so because otherwise there would be only two entries in that category - not a very impressive listing.

Did I really have to explain that to you? How could you not have figured that out on your own?

Oh, I did.

I only testified at deposition. The case was settled before trial, thus this was not a case in which I was "certified" as an expert.

Correct, although "certified" is a misleading term. When a court permits someone to testify as an expert in a certain field, the judge just determines that the witness has sufficient education and/or other background to possess knowledge that the average layman would not, and that such knowledge would aid the trier of fact in that case in analyzing certain facts within the area of expertise. The next judge might disagree, although typically will not.

Moreover, testifying at a deposition is not proof of expertise. A party to a lawsuit can choose whomever it wishes to proffer as an expert. In those jurisdictions which permit expert depositions, the other side may then depose that person. Since the witness has not yet appeared before a court, there is no determination of expertise involved.

How did you put it? Oh, yeah: "Did I really have to explain that to you? How could you not have figured that out on your own?"

Referring to this order, in which Judge Otero (CACD) determined what Clements would be permitted to testify and what he would not:

How did you come up with that 90% figure, Wes? Most of what I was hired to testify to was related to my expertise of MLM and to what effect such confusion could have on a company.

Well, I admit that it was an impromptu characterization, rather than a statistical analysis of the sort to which you were not permitted to testify. Still, we can look.

Judge Otero wrote that the party that called you wished to elicit testimony on the "issues of consumer surveys, likelihood of confusion between trademarks, and damages recoverable for acts of trademark infringement" and an internet survey that you conducted, in addition to general matters about the MLM "industry". That's five things. As the reader can see from his opinion, he would not permit you to testify to four of them, or 80 percent.

Mea culpa. I was wrong. Judge Otero didn't find you unqualified to testify as to 90 percent of the issues about which the party calling you wished you to testify. It was only 80 percent.

The other stuff were peripheral aspects that we knew I was unlikely to be allowed to testify to.

So you claim now. Are you saying that you wasted Judge Otero's time by making him decide that you were unqualified to testify to matters about which you already knew you were unqualified to testify?

[Doc Bunkum]

BTW, you never did respond to that post over on JREF about the photo of you on your old website with the gold and silver medals around your neck. Surely you weren't committing fraud there, so please tell us - what Olympics did you compete in?

Len

I missed something?

Problem is, Lenny, when you go nuts and make a dozen posts in a row, and each of them is a 1200 word essay, a person tends to overlook a few points.

Sorry to disappoint you, Clements, but I never bothered to read in it's entirety that mess of words you posted over on JREF last night. I just got to that point where you started challenging anyone that would listen to a debate and I said to myself, "Oh crap, here we go again. Lenny's having another meltdown!" and logged off.

Anyways, I digress.

You asked what Olympics did I compete in?

Culinary.

Remember, I'm that "unemployed chef from Canada" that you keep referring to me as. I also have a username here as "chefbrian" I believe, if you want to look up some of my old posts.

That wasn't difficult, was it now, Lenny?

Sorry to disappoint you, but I wasn't and I don't commit fraud. Can you say the same thing with a straight face?

Brian, you are horrible at this. Doesn't it bother you knowing that so many people know who you are now? That is, that you are now accountable for your pathetic, embarrassing conduct on these boards? Seriously, man. Do you have no shame?

Len

Lenny, you would probably be shocked to know how many people actually know who I am and how many people on these boards I communicate with privately on a regular basis. I have nothing to hide.

Now, if you want to talk about shame, Lenny...

Doesn't it bother you knowing that so many people know the owner of the scam.com website is a porn king and that you have aligned yourself with him just to get back at your detractors?

Seriously, man. Do you have no shame or morals?

And what about the rules over there about having one username? "George" has dozens. But I suppose that's okay - he owns the place. Let the curious reader look at his latest incarnation - NNHeadlines. Go into his profile and see what the NN stands for.

I know you have at least one child (because you put a photo of one of them on that website). Aren't you at all concerned that they're going to see all of this someday?

Len

Two actually.

And as to your question, no. Why should I be concerned? How often have I used foul language? I think they would find, like the majority of people I talk to, that what I write is somewhat humorous and in a light tone. I don't go on tirades and start challenging people to debates in my living room or have meltdowns and say, "Okay, I'm pissed now!", like someone I know.

Actually, I'm starting to feel a little guilty about this myself. I'm the one making their dad look so bad. Ever since I found that old website and saw those pics, I've started to lose some enjoyment in sparring with you like this.

Len

Yeah, I suppose I should quit while I'm behind. Daddy is looking so bad. Not sure what some old pics of myself with a bunch of medals around my neck has to do with you losing your enjoyment in sparring with me, but whatever turns your crank.

So here's your chance to end it. Come back after this post and say what ever you want about me. Just go nuts. I don't care. Make up more crap about me, call me anything you want to call me, and trash every company I've ever been associated with. Get it all out of your system. As long as that post is the last one you ever direct at me, personally, I will never post another comment about you. If you want to go after Yoli or some other MLM company I reserve the right to defend that company against your claims, but it will never get personal - until YOU make it so.

It's your call, Brian. I'm good either way.

Len

Actually, I think everything that needed to be said about you or Yoli has long been said, Clements.

You just don't get it, do you?

It was never about you personally or Yoli. You're just the type of guy that responds when someone pushes your buttons and people keep pushing your buttons because they get a reaction. That Yoli thread would have died a natural death after two pages if you had let it go. But no, you kept feeding us information and the thread kept growing like Pinocchio's nose until it was up to damn near 5000 posts.

Remember Alien from mlm.com and his exchanges with RickyB? How Ricky would respond and Alien would keep needling him? Same thing with you. Your ego and desire to be right just doesn't allow you to let go and get out while the getting's good.

[getupnow]

Broker Jones is not his name, it is a "brand" that is a moniker of some anonymous guy who has repeatedly been proven a scammer.

Your other reason for deleting the thread is because Broker Jones was simply a promoter and shouldn't be attacked personally, yet Broker Jones admitted in the Oceanside thread he is in fact the owner and President of Oceanside.

Len it is obvious you blew it by deleting that thread because it didn't violate the rules and all you accomplished is letting your empathy get in the way of your duties as an Admin. Scam.com will continue to go down the tubes with you steering the new direction as a safe harbor for fellow scammers instead of a site that used to inform and protect those innocent and trusting victims.

Anyone can see that Broker Jones was the worst of the worst yet you deleted the thread exposing the "Broker Jones" brand because you felt sorry for how he was being exposed.

I can always tell when someone in an argument is out of gas. That's when they just start repeating their original point over and over instead of responding to the other person's point.

I get everything you just said. You've stated your position more than once now. I then rebutted it by pointing out the fact that a new thread was created to expose Oceanside as a scam, which is now open. Once the company itself has been exposed, then you can go after the individual promoters.

I also rebutted several other points that you completely ignored. Either offer a counter argument, or admit you were in error.

Furthermore, I've been a Scam.com moderator or admin for over six weeks now, in total. During that time I've deleted one thread (totally unrelated to me), closed one thread, deleted several posts reported as spam, edited two for flaming, and I've banned NO ONE! I've also left countless anti-MLM threads completely intact. I've been extremely cautious and fair in performing my duties.

Now, instead of just repeating your original accusation once again, here is where you are suppose to offer a counter point to the specific points I just made, or concede that you have none.

Len

The first point is that your first claim is that you deleted the Broker Jones thread because he was simply a promoter, not the company.

WRONG - Broker Jones is the company, not simply a promoter.

The second point is that you felt Broker Jones was being unfairly attacked personally.

WRONG - Broker Jones is the "Brand", not the "Person" and the "Broker Jones" brand has an illustrious history of scamming which has been well documented.

Now simply admit you were wrong for deleting the thread and put it back up or accept the fact that you are complicit for all of the damage he will continue to do.

Couple of questions for you that Fast Money asked you on the Oceanside thread. Do you believe Oceanside is a scam and do you believe Broker Jones is a scammer?

[Doc Bunkum]

Your toes are right on the line.

If you want to call this a warning, fine. But why did you omit the fact that the post you are referring to has been deleted in its entirety - by the other moderator?! HER warning was clear and distinct!

Len

Gee, Lenny, bet you weren't counting on me saving the original post, where you?

[Emet]

Doc: Congrats for your Culinary awards. But you really deserve an award for your intelligent posts when you go head to toe with Lennie, even if your toes are "right on the line".

Tracy Coenen, of the Fraud Blog Files, said this recently: "Poor Len. He lives in an alternate reality. What a shame he believes that not allowing him to dirty up my website is somehow a First Amendment issue. Someone ought to tell him that the First Amendment relates to the government allowing free speech."

http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2 ... /#comments

As to "court certified experts", wserra has a lot more credibility than LM, who seems to be a quack science groupie.

This blog, from the NYT, summarizes things nicely:
"But to become a certified expert, all you need to do is persuade a judge that you have some specialized knowledge relevant to the circumstances of a particular case."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ ... ks-expert/

[GlimDropper]

I deleted the original thread because it was nothing but an attempt to smear Jones personally. Much like the Yoli thread (which was closed by sojustask, not me, because it turned entirely into a bash Len thread) this was an effort to reboot the discussion about the company itself, not to end any such discussion. All I'm asking over there is for people to focus on why Oceanside is a scam first. The owner or promoter can't be a "scammer" until it's first determined their operation is a scam. Everyone is completely free to present any and all such information that shows this company is a scam.

Len

I have to wonder if the fact that Mr.Jones was one of your fellow posters over at MLM.com entered into your thinking? "Broker" Jones (BJ) continues to minimize his involvement in ponzi and HYIP games, he's deleted years of his blog posts and now claims a only small list of (admittedly criminal) programs that he was involved in, but a little searching on sites he can't delete as he chooses indicate not only was he more involved than he now claims but also in a greater number of programs than he now admits. He claims to have had a change of heart, deciding to use his networking skills for good instead of evil but he's still lying about his past. Is this not a valid topic of discussion on scam.com? You don't seem to believe it is.

Len is it possible, in your mind at least, to show something is a "scam" without a court conviction? I believe the MLM component of BJ's Oceanside company (Oceanside Network) was discontinued because it was a multi-level buisness plan who's only product was a money making opportunity with no retail sales of anything to anyone not involved in the comp plan. I believe they have a name for that sort of thing and I believe you know what it is. To what extent do we give BJ credit for discontinuing that aspect of his program versus what extent do we blame him, with his extensive background in both legal and illegal network marketing, for hatching the scheme in the first place?

BJ pretends that he and his program are slipping through some small loopholes in SEC regulations, even though he's been shown how he's violating the very statutes he claims for cover. And in the same breath he assures us that he's hiring more lawyers and taking other steps to assure greater legal compliance. Maybe your vaunted scam-busting experience doesn't extend to HYIP money games (an admitted area of expertise for BJ) but I can assure you, when someone says they're 100% legal and working on becoming even more legal than that, they are telling at least one lie. Can I "prove" that? Perhaps not without a court conviction but I can emphatically and with a clean conscience tell people that they are being lied to.

In this context, what would you accept as "proof" of being a scam?

[Cathulhu]

Doc Bunkum said--

"You asked what Olympics did I compete in?

Culinary.

Remember, I'm that "unemployed chef from Canada" that you keep referring to me as. I also have a username here as "chefbrian" I believe, if you want to look up some of my old posts."

Ooh, you're a chef? I've been developing a low-fat diabetic cheesecake, and the chocolate version (only sugar in it is that contained in 4 to 6 ounces of dark chocolate) is good enough that a pro chef who was hired to develop a dessert menu for a local bar asked me for it. Which is why you can find "Original Cyn's guilt free cheesecake" at a local gay bar. (Like I've said, my particular religion would be tolerance, but I really need to work on a lack of tolerance for stupid.) Would you like to try the recipe? I'll gladly post it if anyone's interested.

Okay, I digressed. Forgive me, it's cheesecake!