My Advertising Pays threaten to sue Tara Talks blog
My Advertising Pays is in trouble.
The scheme just ticked over the average two-year collapse mark, and recruitment of new investors has all but bottomed out:
For a Ponzi scheme that requires a constant stream of new investment to pay existing investors out with, this is a disaster.
In an attempt to distract their investors from the obvious, My Advertising Pays started crapping on about “My Advertising Pays v2.0” back in October last year.
That’s gone nowhere and so Deese and the gang need something new to distract their investors with. Cue threats of a lawsuit against Tara Talks.
For those unfamiliar with the blog, Tara Talks loosely follows the MLM underbelly.
They’ve been highly critical of My Advertising Pays, which the scheme is now evidently looking to blame for the decline in new investors.
Erroneously titled “My Advertising Pays sues Tara Talks”, a post on the My Advertising Pays corporate blog exhibits more sabre-rattling than substance.
For months TaraTalks has been on a campaign to destroy MAP’s reputation, undermine its integrity, and tarnish MAP founder, Michael Deese’s, standing as a business owner and veteran of the United States Air Force.
Despite numerous pleas by MAP, TaraTalks has failed to retract her false statements and has continued to defame MAP and Deese through her online blog.
MAP has decided that now is the time to fight back.
Citing unnamed “corporate counsel”, My Advertising Pays claim to be ‘in the process of initiating a federal law suit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging libel, interference with business relationship, and false light claims‘.
Filing a lawsuit is pretty straight forward though, there’s no real “process” about it. Either you’ve filed it or you haven’t.
My Advertising Pays continue on to present “the law” and “defamation”.
Due to the fact that TaraTalks is an online blog, the residency of the individual hiding behind the computer screen is unknown.
Therefore, MAP is bringing a federal law suit founded upon diversity jurisdiction.
Unless I’m missing something, My Advertising Pays citing diversity jurisdiction, when they acknowledge they don’t know where the author of Tara Talks resides, makes little sense.
In order for diversity jurisdiction to apply, complete diversity is required, where none of the plaintiffs can be from the same state as any of the defendants.
A corporation is treated as a citizen of the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which its principal place of business is located. (Wikipedia)
though an alien (foreign national) who has been granted the status of permanent resident status used to be treated as a citizen of the state where the alien is domiciled, recent law has eliminated this language from the code and added language specifically denying diversity jurisdiction in a claim between a citizen of a state and an alien permanent resident.
Diversity is determined at the time that the action is filed, and on the basis of the residency of the parties at that time.
Put simply and from what I understand, My Advertising Pays can’t file a diversity claim and at the same time acknowledge they have no idea who or where the author of Tara Talks is domiciled.
As a general legal principal, defamation is the publication of false claims about another.
Under Illinois law, in order for a party to successfully bring a defamation claim they must prove the following:
a.) that the Defendant made a false statement about the Plaintiff;
b.) that the false statements were published (spoken or written) to a third party;
c.) when making the statements, the Defendant either knew the statements were false or had reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements;
d.) and the publication damaged the plaintiff’s reputation.
Because TaraTalks has attacked MAP’s business and has spread false statements covering a wide array of topics from business to personal, MAP and Deese will bring both libel per se and libel per quod claims against the Defendant.
Again, note the use of future tense. This is sabre-rattling at its best.
With regards to defamation, My Advertising Pays is a Ponzi scheme.
This is easily proven by analysis of the source of funds My Advertising Pays use to pay off existing investors.
I know, you know and My Advertising Pays know it sourced from new investment.
This is key to identifying My Advertising Pays as a Ponzi scheme.
With that established, is calling My Advertising Pays out for being a Ponzi scheme defamation?
Ignoring diversity jurisdiction issues, discovery would force My Advertising Pays to provide accounting. Such to the effect that it would be easy to demonstrate the flow of money within the scheme.
Discovery would also reveal how much has been invested globally, how much has been paid out to Simon Stepsys and friends, and more importantly: The total Ponzi liability My Advertising Pays has racked up versus what’s actually in their bank accounts.
Proving securities fraud is relatively straight forward with ad-credit Ponzi schemes such as My Advertising Pays. There’s no retail, an advertised ROI is readily provable and all funds used to pay out are sourced from new and existing investors.
In addition to the two (2) libel claims, MAP and Deese will also bring a claim against TaraTalks for tortious interference with business relationships.
In essence, this claim will allege that TaraTalk’s false comments caused MAP affiliates to terminate their relationship with MAP or prevented potential MAP affiliates from becoming members.
To successfully plead tortious interference, a Plaintiff must prove: the existence of a valid business relationship or expectancy; knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer; an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted.
This one’s pretty straight-forward. A “valid business relationship” in a Ponzi scheme?
Lastly, because TaraTalks has spread vicious lies about founder and CEO, Michael Deese, he, in his personal capacity, will be brining a false light claim against TaraTalks.
TaraTalks has made numerous attacks at Michael Deese’s character and integrity alleging that he has corrupt morals and has defrauded MAP affiliates.
Anything else pertaining to Mike Deese and Advertising Pays is irrelevant, as confirmation in a US court that My Advertising Pays is a Ponzi scheme leaves him with far bigger problems than hurt feelings.
In an effort to proceed with honesty and transparency in mind, MAP is endeavoring to create a forum in which MAP affiliates can submit questions or express their concerns regarding the ongoing lawsuit.
MAP’s corporate attorneys will be responding to questions posted on the forum, as well as, providing brief updates of the proceedings as litigation progresses.
It is of the utmost importance for MAP affiliates to feel as if they have a voice in this matter and know that the attorneys handling this matter are working diligently to advocate on their behalf.
And as for My Advertising Pays’ unnamed corporate lawyer? Previous My Advertising Pays sabre-rattling has seen them engage the Illinois lawfirm Hart & David LLP.
Whether or not Hart & David LLP are still representing My Advertising Pays is unclear.
In any event, if this isn’t all just fictitious baloney, which I strongly suspect it is, do we really need a refresher course on what happens to attorneys who go into bat for Ponzi schemes?
Underscoring My Advertising Pays’ sabre-rattling is of course the fact that they fled the US late last year.
Amid concerns regulators would shut them down for what is obviously an unregistered securities offering, My Advertising Pays abruptly cancelled their US business operations in October. The scheme subsequently went on to shaft their US investors with slashed ROI payouts.
So, is a global Ponzi scheme really going to sue a blogger using US litigation that makes little sense given the circumstances?
My money’s on “no”. Still, this is the MLM underbelly and stranger things have happened.