Elite Activity Resurrected (Connecting Us All)!

[notorial dissent]

And basically she's toast, and if she keeps at it after she has been warned they can add aggravated circumstances to the charges as well and double her sentence. Sounds good to me.

[wserra]

Valerie, I have only one thing to add other than to second what notorial dissent wrote three posts above. That one thing: the only question is whether you go out with a bang (indictments, injunction) or a whimper (no more money, dry up and blow away). You will go out. Once you are no longer getting new money from new recruits - meaning that you have nothing to pay out - it will end. Just this fact makes Connecting Us All a pyramid scheme.

You hear, you don't hear, it's up to you.

Mods, please leave this thread open. It's stayed completely on topic, and is one of the top results for a google of "Connecting Us All" other than their own sites. For those who didn't see it, we have already discussed how threads significantly larger than 100 posts pose no threat to the board's stability.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Misprision - thanks for correcting my spelling, wserra - misprision of felony in the United States is, as I understand it, the act of intentionally trying to hide or cover up a felony. To try to convince people that no crime is occurring. And judging by court rulings, those convicted of this offence often were personally benefiting from the crime.

Here are articles about two recent cases involving misprision of felony.
http://www.patrickpretty.com/2009/11/12 ... jail-time/
http://www.patrickpretty.com/2010/10/22 ... fraud-pro/

[wserra]

Misprision - thanks for correcting my spelling, wserra - misprision of felony in the United States is, as I understand it, the act of intentionally trying to hide or cover up a felony.

True. However, misprision is a lesser crime than the substantive offense the misprisioner attempts to conceal. See, for example, the federal misprision statute, 18 USC 4. My point was that, in the case of someone who promotes an unlawful scheme, one never needs to resort to misprision. The promoter is a principal, not an accessory.

[wserra]

Just ran across something that really pisses me off, from your team leader, Belinda Grandberry:

We are Connecting Us All, The Worldwide Giving Network formally organized under a Non-Profit 501(c)(3)

You're what? A 501(c)(3)? Money people give to you is tax-deductible? Here is the online Publication 78, the list of real 501(c)(3)s. Please locate Connecting Us All.

As long as we're discussing lies and the lying liars who tell them, please revisit this claim Ulrich made over a year ago:

we have started the process of a declaratory judgment so we can get the legal opinion we all seek

Now, if that wasn't a goddam lie, please provide the court and docket number of the action.

I won't hold my breath.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

I've been warning them and warning them about Grandberry and that 501(c)(3) claim for months, Wes. Look at the older posts in this thread.

I had a spat via email with Grandberry and O'Neal around 2007 (maybe 2006) on the matter too, regarding Elite's lack of the claimed status, after I gave O'Neal Hell for his spamming of Craigslist with ads for Elite Activity. Maybe I should dig that up for you?

[notorial dissent]

Would not claiming to be a 501(c)(3), when you are not and clearly cannot be considered an additional and aggravating fraud?

Not that this whole thing isn't from beginning to end.

[wserra]

I've been warning them and warning them about Grandberry and that 501(c)(3) claim for months, Wes. Look at the older posts in this thread.

Sorry. I had a vague recollection of that, so I searched the forum for "501" before posting, with no results. Since I still get no results, I guess the search function doesn't do so well with numbers.

Would not claiming to be a 501(c)(3), when you are not and clearly cannot be considered an additional and aggravating fraud?

I would certainly say so. You are telling people (falsely, of course) that they can deduct their "contributions". In fact, even were the program itself not a fraud, this would be all by itself.

Not that this whole thing isn't from beginning to end.

Exactly. Did Willie Sutton worry about jaywalking?

[wserra]

Update on Dockstader: the prosecution for promoting a pyramid scheme is still active. It is now scheduled for retrial on March 28, 2011. Jardine is, in fact, his lawyer.

HH, can you provide any proof that Jardine is a participant in Connecting Us All? Given what happened to Henry Curtis - disbarred - that's a little hard to believe. I would actually notify the Harris County DA because, if that's true, it raises exactly the same conflict of interest that Curtis had (and which caused the court to toss Dockstader's previous conviction).

[ProfHenryHiggins]

In 2009, "givers" were offered the option of sending their gifts to Jardine, if the normal recipient's account wasn't paid up, or handing it over to CUA for random distribution to a lucky winner.

Not sure if I have any hardcopies of that early webpage, but I may. I'll have to look through my files.


Edit:
Hmm... I definitely have evidence of Maureen Dockstader's continued activity in Elite while her husband was in prison, receiving "gifts" in his name, with some banking details. Kylee Kirkpatrick first appeared in my records in that portion of the investigation.

Hmm. Found a "gifting cycle" in Elite, date 7/25/2009, that has Harvey Dockstader's account as the receiver. Joe Read and Belinda Grandberry were also in that same cycle, with Joe next in line after Harvey to get "paid" (Inviting 1 position, Grandberry was in the Giving 3 position). In fact, that day's investigative work popped up three (3) cycles with Harvey in the middle/receiving position, all assigned to the same "giver" on the same day. One each of the $100, $250, and $500 types. Still looking for Jardine.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

And we have another nitwit claiming that CUA is a 501(c)(3), this time listing it on Ebay in a fashion that violates a number of Ebay's rules, plus the violations for being a site of a kind they prohibit.

The title was "Tax free business opportunity gifting 501c3" and it was listed by http://myworld.ebay.com/513971buyy/ who appears to be "patriot" Roland Trey Nieman of guaranteedcreditrepair.org and campaignforliberty.com. He pushes MPB Today, too.

Visit http://www.taxfree.connectingusall.org/

for all the details!

E-bay posted purchase price is for me to e-mail you the business opportunity information only. There is no need to buy this e-bay listing unless you are looking to boost your feedback! Please also feel free to call me if you have any questions or anything at 513-678-5252

[webhick]

Not sure if I have any hardcopies of that early webpage, but I may. I'll have to look through my files.

Try running it through the The Wayback Machine.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Not sure if I have any hardcopies of that early webpage, but I may. I'll have to look through my files.

Try running it through the The Wayback Machine.

Tried it. They have NOTHING from Connecting Us All's main website, as far as I can tell. Not a single page.

[Valerie Lambert]

Alright everyone! Not sure who you are notorial dissent or whatever your name is...but welcome to our friendly chat! Consideration is when you HAVE to give money. In our system you don't HAVE to give any. As far as our 501(c)3 status....We have that significance in Mexico which gives us an equivalent. Article 97 in the U.S. is what I was told. Call the IRS and ask them. No Mr Jardine is not in the system as a member because he is not one. Let's see what else I can answer for ya'll...Yes, Kylee Kirkpatrick was a member of Elite...not Connecting Us All. Yes, Maureen Dockstader was a member of Elite and yes she is a member of Connecting Us All. Staff does not participate in the giving system. If there is an injunction for Maureen to NOT be in the giving system, then she has chosen to break that at her request not ours. Check the dates you wrote...2006, 2007? Really? Connecting Us All started in 2009. And to whoever Cathulhu is...you don't know me to say anything about what I am thinking. The Professor, wserra and I have had conversations without accusing or being nasty. You seem to be a nasty person and I just don't have time for you. Thank you. Prof and wserra, I will study more on this Article 97 thing because I need to know exactly what it is saying before I go spouting off about it. I hope the 2 of you have a wonderful Thanksgiving and God bless

[notorial dissent]

Valerie, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Consideration is the passing over of money, period, “whether you have to or not” is irrelevant, it is still consideration, nice attempt at deflection-epic FAIL. You are still committing fraud, you are still participating in a ponzi scheme, and you are still being disingenuous.

Your group does not have, never had, never will have 501(c)3 status, you do not qualify in any way shape or form and never will, and claiming you are is also fraud, so another fail.

Whether or not you have an Article 97 is totally irrelevant, since even if it existed it would not apply to anything happening within the US. So again, nothing of value here.

So basically we have a lot of deflection, no actual facts, and a lot I’ll have to get back to you on that. In other words, you got nothing and are floundering trying to put a happy face on a pile of garbage, and it isn’t working. Have a nice Thanksgiving.

[JamesVincent]

I found this other forum talking about it while looking around

http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2713.0

I also noticed http://www.mlmwatchdog.com/archives_index.html lists Elite Activity among their archives, not sure if they have what you need.

[wserra]

Consideration is when you HAVE to give money. In our system you don't HAVE to give any.

That is the sort of statement which, in the midst of a conversation about law, requires a citation.

Especially since it's wrong. Consideration is something of value which one party gives in exchange for something of value from another party. Period. One of the oldest and best-known common law axioms is that a contract requires consideration in order to be enforceable. Are you saying that it's not consideration unless one has to enter into the contract? That makes no sense.

I direct your attention to something I quoted from the FTC page on gifting scams, above:

Avoid being misled into thinking a gifting club is legitimate because the ads say that members consider their payments a gift and expect nothing in return. This is an attempt to make an illegal transaction look legal.

Voluntariness is irrelevant. Of course, the contributions are voluntary. No one is accusing you of holding a gun to people's heads. Just running an unlawful gifting scheme.

Article 97 in the U.S. is what I was told.

Sorry, Val, but that's something I'd expect from Hitchhiker's Guide or the Marx Brothers. "The party of the first part shall henceforth be known as the party of the first part. Article 97." There is no such thing as "Article 97". The Internal Revenue Code is 26 USC §§1-9834. That's exactly the way a citation to it looks: "26 USC §1".

Call the IRS and ask them.

Were someone to do that, if s/he reached a knowledgeable person, s/he would be told that "Article 97" is gibberish, for the reason above. And I have no need to do that. I have 24-7 access to WestLaw. All I need is a citation. A real citation.

Let's see what else I can answer for ya'll

How about something I've been asking for a long time now? Ulrich says he brought a declaratory judgment action. If he did, it would answer a lot of questions. What is the court and docket number?

I'll answer my own question: there isn't one. It's a goddam lie. And not the only one.

[Cathulhu]

Unlike you, liar, I can stand by my answer. Wasn't a particularly cruel analysis, just painfully accurate. Truth hurts, especially when you're on your way to jail for abusing it.

501(c)(3) my pink Injun ass!

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Val... I want an explanation for THIS, As. Soon. As. Possible.

Connecting Us All The Worldwide Giving Network

Wednesday Nov. 24, 2010

Reminder: Conference Call Tonight

David and I will be hosting the call tonight, I apologize for sending this out at the last minute. If you have any questions about the Flip'n system have them ready. As Always try to bring someone new to the call.

Call No: 1-661-673-8600 PIN No. 188344#

Recorded Playback: 1-661-673-8609 PIN No. 188344#

You are receiving this email as a member of Connecting Us All. If you did not sign-up at the Connecting website, please write info@connectingusall and ask to be removed from their database.

If you are receiving duplicate emails let me know.

Belinda Grandberry
2262 Hollybush Dr.
Dallas, Texas 75228

If you no longer wish to receive emails from me click here

Copyright (C) 2010 Belinda Grandberry All rights reserved.
Email Marketing Powered by GroupzMail 5

What in blue blazes are you doing allowing Belinda Grandberry and David O'Neal to "host" a conference call representing your company?

That was one of four CUA tidbits that landed in my email boxes on Wednesday the 24th. It came from Belinda herself. With a banner at the top proclaiming "For it is in giving that we receive."

[Valerie Lambert]

Ok professor and wserra...I will look further into that Article 97 thing. Mr/Miss Dissent, who are you and why are you being so vicious? And Mr/Miss Calahulu or whatever....we have not stooped to calling names. I am not a liar...I am telling all what I have been told by my superiors, so please if you have to resort to name calling to get your point across you are in need of manner lessons. The Professor and wserra actually talk to me and try to help me understand things. They may get frustrated with me but they never resort to name calling. Professor: Belinda and Dave are 2 of our Leaders. I still have no proof of Belinda doing anything wrong other than the 501 c 3 thing which I am trying to get answers to. Also, I have no proof of Dave doing anything illegal either. They have both been following all of CUA rules and terms. All accept the 501c3 thing hasn't she always always complied to what I have asked her to do? wserra In IRS Information Letter 2003–0158, March 17, 2003, the IRS stated that “f the Mexican authorities have granted special authorization to a Mexican charity as an organization described in Article 70–B, a U.S. private foundation or other grant-maker may treat the Mexican charity as equivalent to a section 501(c)(3) organization classified as a public charity described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).” Prior to the issuance of Information Letter 2003–0158, however, Mexico amended its Income Tax Law. Among other revisions, provisions that had appeared in Article 70-B were moved to Article 97. Efforts are underway to confirm that a U.S. private foundation, public charity or other grantmaker may treat a Mexican charity, determined by the government of Mexico to be an Article 97 charity as equivalent to a section 501(C)(3) organization, as well as determine what information is necessary to evidence this determination.[4:11:03 PM] J.J. Ulrich: Double Taxation Treaty

Mexico is a party to a Double Taxation Treaty with the United States. Article 22 of the Treaty deals with exempt organizations. It provides:

"2. If the Contracting States agree that a provision of Mexican law provides standards for organizations authorized to receive deductible contributions that are essentially equivalent to the standards of United States law for public charities:

(a) an organization determined by Mexican authorities to meet such standards shall be treated, for purposes of grants by United States private foundations and public charities, as a public charity under United States law; and

(b) contributions by a citizen or resident of the United States to such an organization shall be treated as charitable contributions to a public charity under United States law."

Such contributions are deductible only for U.S. taxpayers with income from Mexican sources, and the extent of the deduction depends on the magnitude of the Mexican source income.

In IRS Information Letter 2003–0158, March 17, 2003, the IRS stated that “f the Mexican authorities have granted special authorization to a Mexican charity as an organization described in Article 70–B, a U.S. private foundation or other grant-maker may treat the Mexican charity as equivalent to a section 501(c)(3) organization classified as a public charity described in section 509(a)(1) or (2).” Prior to the issuance of Information Letter 2003–0158, however, Mexico amended its Income Tax Law. Among other revisions, provisions that had appeared in Article 70-B were moved to Article 97. Efforts are underway to confirm that a U.S. private foundation, public charity or other grantmaker may treat a Mexican charity, determined by the government of Mexico to be an Article 97 charity as equivalent to a section 501(C)(3) organization, as well as determine what information is necessary to evidence this determination.

I hope this answers any questions you had on that. Guys, thanks for being so patient with me I do appreciate you