Verifying Scammers' Income

"Buy 1 for yourself and get the chance to sell your friends and family 5 and get your downline started!" We examine the multi-level marketing industry, where only the people who come up with the ideas make any money, and everybody else is left unhappy, broke, and tired of reading scripts and selling overpriced vitamins and similarly worthless products. Includes Global Prosperity, Pinnacle Quest International, IRS Codebusters, Stratia, and other new Global Prosperity scams.

Moderator: wserra

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:30 pm

Imalawman wrote:
GoldandSilverEagles wrote:You have a major element of misrepresentation whenever you are representing your "clients". You'd like your clients to believe that your first point of concern and obligation is to them, and that's pure BS! How upfront are you with your clients in disclosing to them that your FIRST obligation IS NOT to them, your first concern is how much $$$ you can extract/extort out of their pockets! Then your obligated to the courts, b4 you are obligated to your clients.

Talk about a legalized screw job!

Disclosing these to your clients, b4 they contract with you, would be consistent with maintaining full disclosure, and lawyers, as a predator, rarely offer this bit of info to their clients.

Talk about a lack of integrity. Lawyers and integrity, there's an oxymoron!

Lawyers also have a very high incident of alcohol and drug abuse. Do you disclose that to your clients b4 contracting with them? Hell no!

So b4 you start claiming misrepresentation, and lack of integrity, look in the mirror at your own industry first son.


Feel better now?

Yes, it does feel good calling an ego filled hypocrite on the carpet.

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Imalawman » Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:24 pm

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:
Imalawman wrote:
GoldandSilverEagles wrote:You have a major element of misrepresentation whenever you are representing your "clients". You'd like your clients to believe that your first point of concern and obligation is to them, and that's pure BS! How upfront are you with your clients in disclosing to them that your FIRST obligation IS NOT to them, your first concern is how much $$$ you can extract/extort out of their pockets! Then your obligated to the courts, b4 you are obligated to your clients.

Talk about a legalized screw job!

Disclosing these to your clients, b4 they contract with you, would be consistent with maintaining full disclosure, and lawyers, as a predator, rarely offer this bit of info to their clients.

Talk about a lack of integrity. Lawyers and integrity, there's an oxymoron!

Lawyers also have a very high incident of alcohol and drug abuse. Do you disclose that to your clients b4 contracting with them? Hell no!

So b4 you start claiming misrepresentation, and lack of integrity, look in the mirror at your own industry first son.


Feel better now?

Yes, it does feel good calling an ego filled hypocrite on the carpet.


Well, at least you have that going for you - which is nice.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Tue Jun 30, 2009 9:35 pm

Imalawman wrote:Feel better now?


Yes, it does feel good calling an ego filled hypocrite on the carpet.


Well, at least you have that going for you - which is nice.

Enough BS.

Allllllllllll of us are hypocritical in some degree or another. None of us is immune.
In my experiences with you in this forum, I feel you are similar to "Christians" I have encountered.

They frequently find fault with whatever it is they don't like or agree with, similar to yourself.

And in finding fault, I've discovered they are equally guilty, if not more so, of the offense, or the principle of offense, as I've discovered with you.

In terms of myself----If one were to examine my personal life, I'm just as guilty of being hypocritical on some things myself. I'm not above admitting that. I simply have a difficult time with people whom feel they are above admitting/owning their own hypocrisies, their own weaknesses.

The fact that your a lawyer doesnt impress me. Lawyer have a HUGE ego to protect, ESPECIALLY in this foum. BFD!!!

You put your pants on the same way every other man does, and you stink like hell when you leave the bathroom. That's reality.

You've displayed discipline, sacrifice, and hard work to get where you are. That deserves respect, but that doesnt make you immune from being hypocritical as allllll of us are in our lives.

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Imalawman » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:09 pm

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:
Imalawman wrote:Feel better now?


Yes, it does feel good calling an ego filled hypocrite on the carpet.


Well, at least you have that going for you - which is nice.

Enough BS.


Never seen Caddyshack?
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:23 pm

Imalawman wrote:
GoldandSilverEagles wrote:
Imalawman wrote:Feel better now?


Yes, it does feel good calling an ego filled hypocrite on the carpet.


Well, at least you have that going for you - which is nice.

Enough BS.


Never seen Caddyshack?

Boy you gotten awfully quiet in your allegations, condescending attitude after I pulled **your** cat out of the bag.

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Imalawman » Tue Jun 30, 2009 10:57 pm

You're a funny man, Gold Beagles, assume what you like. You're an idiot - I just gave you the opportunity to display it for all to see. You didn't disappoint. I love how at the end of the day it doesn't matter if they're TPs or MLMers or Sovruns - when they've been soundly whipped, they just declare victory. Must be a nice way to live. I should try that with my clients - "hey, the judge ruled against us, but that's really a victory!".
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Tue Jun 30, 2009 11:44 pm

Imalawman wrote:You're a funny man, Gold Beagles, assume what you like. You're an idiot - I just gave you the opportunity to display it for all to see. You didn't disappoint. I love how at the end of the day it doesn't matter if they're TPs or MLMers or Sovruns - when they've been soundly whipped, they just declare victory. Must be a nice way to live. I should try that with my clients - "hey, the judge ruled against us, but that's really a victory!".

Your still filled with so much ego. Tsk, Tsk, Tsk....more lawyer head games. Thank you for calling me an idiot. Any one of sense can see I called you a hypocrite and yet I gave you an out. Is that what idiots do? I think not.

I am quietly happy within my life. And this nonsense about the judge ruling against whatever...talk about mixing "apples" into our conversation, "apples' of a different breed.

I know of several IBO's that are making fortunes on efforts they planted years ago. Jim Dornan is one of them. He frequently shares with IBO's that efforts he did years ago, Amway still pay's him 2day.

Can you claim the same ongoing residual from your clients?

BTW...That's a direct question.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby wserra » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:00 am

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:I know of several IBO's that are making fortunes on efforts they planted years ago.


And we are back to the statement that you claimed you could verify. Verifying income in the real world is easy - it takes an authorization to obtain records from the payor or from the IRS. After being asked to so verify, you respond with the above string of posts ranting and raving, calling names, and evading - with no verification in sight.

A lot like Amway.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:20 am

Imalawman wrote:You're a funny man, Gold Beagles, assume what you like. You're an idiot - I just gave you the opportunity to display it for all to see. You didn't disappoint. I love how at the end of the day it doesn't matter if they're TPs or MLMers or Sovruns - when they've been soundly whipped, they just declare victory. Must be a nice way to live. I should try that with my clients - "hey, the judge ruled against us, but that's really a victory!".


Tell ya what, Pm me an evening phone number where I can reach you (within the continental US) and I will call you ****to**** (intent) settle our differences.

Do we have a deal?

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:44 am

wserra wrote:
GoldandSilverEagles wrote:I know of several IBO's that are making fortunes on efforts they planted years ago.


And we are back to the statement that you claimed you could verify. Verifying income in the real world is easy - it takes an authorization to obtain records from the payor or from the IRS. After being asked to so verify, you respond with the above string of posts ranting and raving, calling names, and evading - with no verification in sight.

A lot like Amway.


Remember now, your speaking from a 'legal POV'. What your claiming as "verification" is only "verification" in the 'legal' world of attorneys, which most of us are outside of.

A majority of the world doesnt adhere/insist upon your 'legal opinion' as stated , and a tort claim is not present upon these factors, thus your 'legal' POV does not apply for a judge to make a ruling upon.

Try harder next time son.

Nikki

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Nikki » Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:57 am

No, Emperor, the same level of verification is required in every academic discourse above high school.

Whenever someone makes extraordinary claims, or claims against reality, they are expected to provide irrefutable proof.

Absent doing so, their theories or claims are relegated to the trash can or to the Internet's world of conspiracy theories.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6315
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby wserra » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:38 am

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:Remember now, your speaking from a 'legal POV'. What your claiming as "verification" is only "verification" in the 'legal' world of attorneys, which most of us are outside of.


Hardly. It is actually rare that lawyers need to verify someone's income for their own purposes (as opposed to for a client). The usual need arises with those who lend money, and who need to assure themselves first that the prospective borrower has the means to repay. For example, the IRS has what it calls the "Income Verification Express Service", which accomplishes what I described above.

On the other hand, you have the "Income Verification for Morons Service", which consists of the following steps:

(1) Seek out people who brag about how much they make in order to induce others to sign up under them;
(2) Ask them how much they make;
(3) Take their word for it.

Which accomplishes what you described above.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:59 am

Nikki wrote:Whenever someone makes extraordinary claims, or claims against reality,



Edited for content.

Nikki

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Nikki » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:19 am

The Emperor (for a change) in lieu of facts, resorts to rhetoric -- very poorly at that, and not even spelled properly.

But then, what can you expect from someone in his ninth full-time year of his GED?

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:57 am

Nikki wrote:The Emperor (for a change) in lieu of facts, resorts to rhetoric -- very poorly at that, and not even spelled properly.

But then, what can you expect from someone in his ninth full-time year of his GED?

Now I call you a liar.

And how can the forum verify you words?

What is your verifiable proof of my educational background Fool? :roll:

You don't have any Mr. irs agent.

You are quite the buffoon.

Nikki

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Nikki » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:06 pm

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:
Nikki wrote:The Emperor (for a change) in lieu of facts, resorts to rhetoric -- very poorly at that, and not even spelled properly.

But then, what can you expect from someone in his ninth full-time year of his GED?

Now I call you a liar.

And how can the forum verify you words?

What is your verifiable proof of my educational background Fool? :roll:

You don't have any Mr. irs agent.

You are quite the buffoon.


grammar
punctuation and capitalization
capitalization

You really need to finish that ESL class.

And where did you get the idea that I'm an IRS Agent, since I'm not.

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4358
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Gregg » Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:13 pm

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:
Nikki wrote:The Emperor (for a change) in lieu of facts, resorts to rhetoric -- very poorly at that, and not even spelled properly.

But then, what can you expect from someone in his ninth full-time year of his GED?

Now I call you a liar.

And how can the forum verify you words?

What is your verifiable proof of my educational background Fool? :roll:

You don't have any Mr. irs agent.

You are quite the buffoon.


I don't know if you have a GED or a PhD, but I do know that your word on any subject needs to be verified before it can be accepted as true, you can call Nikki a Liar for taking literally a quote I read to be rhetorical, but we all know for a certain fact that you have lied on this forum before.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

GoldandSilverEagles

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby GoldandSilverEagles » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:20 am

Gregg wrote:
GoldandSilverEagles wrote:
Nikki wrote:The Emperor (for a change) in lieu of facts, resorts to rhetoric -- very poorly at that, and not even spelled properly.

But then, what can you expect from someone in his ninth full-time year of his GED?

Now I call you a liar.

And how can the forum verify you words?

What is your verifiable proof of my educational background Fool? :roll:

You don't have any Mr. irs agent.

You are quite the buffoon.


I don't know if you have a GED or a PhD, but I do know that your word on any subject needs to be verified before it can be accepted as true, you can call Nikki a Liar for taking literally a quote I read to be rhetorical, but we all know for a certain fact that you have lied on this forum before.

Ditto George McFly.


Since this is July 2nd, 2009, listen to the following as you read this message:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znhLogzeERM

You claim I'm this "liar"... that everything I say needs to be verified. Ok. ...

What if i told you I was an undercover agent for an agency within the (blank) government, and I've been sent here to observe a few select members as they interact here on Quatloos, individuals that will remain nameless as well as their usernames......Would you believe me?

But of course I'm lying... ~ Right?

Gregg, Have a wonderful weekend and remember to be grateful that you live in a free country as you enjoy the 4th of July weekend!

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Imalawman » Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:52 pm

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:You claim I'm this "liar"... that everything I say needs to be verified. Ok. ...

What if i told you I was an undercover agent for an agency within the (blank) government, and I've been sent here to observe a few select members as they interact here on Quatloos, individuals that will remain nameless as well as their usernames......Would you believe me?

But of course I'm lying... ~ Right?

Gregg, Have a wonderful weekend and remember to be grateful that you live in a free country as you enjoy the 4th of July weekend!


It would need to be verified even still. But even then, when you're wrong, you're wrong - no matter who are you or who you claim to be. And up to this point, you've been wrong. So, if you are investigating people on this site...which is quite odd in and of itself, it wouldn't change the fact that you're wrong.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

User avatar
Demosthenes
Grand Exalted Keeper of Esoterica
Posts: 5773
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:11 pm

Re: Quixtar v. Monavie

Postby Demosthenes » Mon Jul 06, 2009 9:19 pm

GoldandSilverEagles wrote:What if i told you I was an undercover agent for an agency within the (blank) government, and I've been sent here to observe a few select members as they interact here on Quatloos, individuals that will remain nameless as well as their usernames......Would you believe me?


You impersonating a government regulator now, GaSE?
Demo.


Return to “MLM Scams Forum (as if any of them aren't)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest