PostAlmostAnything.com RSS Feed

SEC Files Fraud Charges Against Safeguard Metal LLC

techslo — Wed, 01 Mar 2023 03:54:53 -08:00

The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against Safeguard Metals LLC, and its owner, Jeffrey Santulan, for engaging in a multi-million dollar fraudulent scheme involving hundreds of investors who were at or near retirement age. According to the SEC's complaint, from December 2017 through at least July 2021, Safeguard and Santulan acted as investment advisers and persuaded investors to sell their existing securities, transfer the proceeds into self-directed Individual Retirement Accounts, and invest the proceeds into gold and silver coins by making false and misleading statements about the safety and liquidity of the investors' securities investments, Safeguard's business, and its compensation. As alleged, Safeguard Metal fraudulently marketed itself as a full-service investment firm with offices in London, New York City, and Beverly Hills that employed prominent individuals in the securities industry and had $11 billion in assets under management. In reality, Santulan allegedly operated the company from a small leased space in a Woodland Hills, Calif. office building using sales agents. The complaint further alleges that Safeguard's sales agents used prepared scripts, some written by Santulan, that were filled with false and misleading statements about how the market was going to crash and how their retirement accounts would be frozen under a new 'unpublicized' law. Safeguard and Santulan also allegedly misled investors about Safeguard's commissions and markups on the coins, charging average markups of approximately 64% on its sales of silver coins, instead of the 4% to 33% markups that they disclosed to investors. According to the complaint, Safeguard obtained approximately $67 million from the sale of coins to more than 450 mostly elderly, retail investors, and kept approximately $25.5 million in mark ups. The SEC's complaint, which was filed in federal district court in the Central District of California, charges Safeguard and Santulan with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and also charges Santulan with aiding and abetting Safeguard's violations and as a control person within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions, disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains, plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. The SEC's investigation was conducted by Jedediah B. Forkner and Jean M. Javorski of the SEC's Chicago Regional Office, and was supervised by Anne C. McKinley. The litigation will be led by Jonathan S. Polish. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and state regulators that are members of the North American Securities Administrators Association. Jeffrey Santulan launched new firm under Alliance Shield LLC name to scam the innocent. Changing name won't change scammer charactre and nature to defraud.
Learn more: SEC Files Fraud Charges Against Safeguard Metal LLC

The Young Turks Attack Gripe Sites While Supporting Section 230

PostAlmostAnything.com — Sun, 16 Jan 2022 21:06:13 -08:00

We recently found out that The Young Turks mentioned us in a video last year. We probably would have noticed it sooner, but the mention was entirely oral in the video with no mention of us or our founder in text form. At the time The New York Times had just published an article featuring two of our sites and we were monitoring mentions of it, but our monitoring technique focused on domains of ours mentioned in the body of the article to avoid getting a Google Alert for every link to the article containing the fictitious term "slander industry." The Young Turks released the video on their YouTube channel on May 8, 2021 titled "Slander Industry Is Booming Online" starring Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian. The video is embedded below the body of this article. The video includes several personal attacks against our founder as well as an admission that a key piece of legislation which protects online service providers such as ourselves should not be changed. "Slander Industry" is Fake News It is not possible for any industry which traffics entirely in written statements to be accurately labeled a "slander" industry because the word "slander" by definition refers solely to spoken words (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander). Even when a written statement is false it cannot be accurately called "slander." A false written statement is by definition "libel" not "slander" (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel). Any media outlet that wishes to be taken seriously should not put out stories with such obviously inaccurate titles. We were surprised that the story was so prolifically circulated by people taking it seriously despite the title. One would think that any average reader or viewer with so much as a high school education would realize that the title couldn't possibly be true, so the story itself should not be taken seriously. Professional journalists should know better than to use such inaccurate labels. Stories with grammatically incorrect titles such as these are at best fake news. Cenk Uygur Acknowledges Need to Protect Section 230 Despite the story being something not to be taken seriously as a whole, Cenk Uygur did speak one obvious and important truth. He said that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs to be left alone. That is an impressive admission for someone in the middle of an emotional tirade. Uygur's exact words beginning at about 8:35 were as follows: "Section 230 is critical. You almost can't have any websites without 230's protection. So, I wouldn't want to get rid of that at all... Then you know the thing with politicians. They'll just use it for their own, "now you're not allowed to criticize me online, all the independent things should be shut down." We know how that goes." - Cenk Uyguy We too know how that goes. It would kill most independent media in the United States if Section 230 were changed in a manner capable of rendering anyone liable for someone else's words just because they happen to own the platform used by that other person. We think the problem needs to be fixed at the other end of connection. That other end being that of the reader. People need to learn not to use unverified information as the basis for important decisions. In some cases, such as employment screening, we think people need to be banned from using internet searches if not entirely than at least until they determine a candidate is otherwise qualified from the job. That could be accomplished with legislation similar to Ban the Box. Ban the Box Ban the Box legislation restricts the use of criminal background checks in the hiring process. Typically hiring managers are banned from conducting a criminal background check until they have determined that an applicant is otherwise qualified. At that point they still need to get written permission from the applicant and must give the applicant an opportunity to explain what is found. We think the same thing needs to be done with search engine boxes. Learn more at https://postalmostanything.com/5065/new-employment-discrimination-laws-would-nullify-online-defamation Response to Character Attacks Cenk Uygur mentioned the website STDCarriers.com and its founder by name before attacking his character. The founder of STD Carriers is also the founder of Post Almost Anything. Uygur said: "They pick you one by one and say the worst things about you and now its on your Google results and god help you if you don't have money. How are you, how are you going to get it out of there? You can't and then everybody sees that this is a result on you. Its just the worst thing you've ever seen." - Cenk Uygur Nothing could be further from the truth. A computer that accepts inputs from users doesn't pick anybody. People pick it by signing up for a membership and submitting data via a form. We find it hard to believe that any website could be "the worst thing you've ever seen." Uygur often covers far worse things including terrorists (https://tyt.com/watch/2e3H6nfrtnrzK0N4G4EC0n/clips/7JnMMxG0F0W5Hb2nXy6KhC), shooting protesters (https://tyt.com/watch/4VwNLvsEH8CWRXXS1aeCPB/clips/3UuptLjD0529JMeiDx4ynv), and Donald Trump (https://tyt.com/watch/2e3H6nfrtnrzK0N4G4EC0n/clips/3Q8HsqA30XNVMJrqRDf3Gs). Could Uygur really keep a straight face and say that a first page Google result from STD Carriers is worse than Donald Trump? Of course he couldn't because the suggestion alone is ridiculous. Also ridiculous is his claim that gripe sites are "slandering people for profit." That statement ignores the simple facts that the sites did not create the content and written statements are never "slander." Uygur went on to attack the owner of STD Carriers personally in response to him telling the New York Times, "teach children not to talk to strangers, then teach them not to believe what they read on the internet." Rather than acknowledge the fact that none of the alleged harms allegedly caused by the website would be possible if people didn't believe what they read online, he mocks him by saying, "ok, so this guy is just saying I'm helping people lie and ruing other people's lives. Ha ha teach your kids that there are horribly evil people like me online... These guys are the most vicious liars and least moral people on the planet." Uygur then went on a rant before calling the STD Carriers owner, "a terrible person." He then labels reputation management fees "ransom" as if some crime had been committed. The word "ransom" means "a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ransom). We do not hold anything or anyone captive. Any suggestion that we demand a ransom for anything is not accurate. This type of talk is typical of people trying to criminalize something. They start referring to people, things, and activities using words typically associated with crime because they hope if they get enough people thinking about it in that way eventually it will lead to criminalization. They start calling people "victims" when no law has been broken because if it were up to them a crime would have been committed. We saw this behavior in Oregon recently when doxxing was made a tortious offense by leftists that got together after protesters were getting doxxed by Andy Ngo. Local media outlets started doing stories portraying the subjects of doxxing as victims even though no law had been broken. Eventually the legislature passed an unconstitutional bill which will never survive a competent challenge in court. Uygur made an appeal to the government to do something, but seems unaware that the government did try to do something and it did not work. In 2012 the feds charged the founder of STD Carriers with making threatening communications after a deranged stalker had harassed and swatted his family. The court ruled that because the stalker was motivated by a desire to get her name removed from the site that the business was reasonably related to the offense. Due to the "reasonably direct relationship" which the 9th Circuit upheld, he was effectively banned from running any websites for three years after serving two years for the threat. While serving his time, he picked up additional charges for assaulting a federal employee and impeding a federal officer. As a result of these actions STDCarriers.com was offline from July of 2012 until September of 2019. The owner of STD Carriers figured somebody might try to set him up someday, so he didn't keep backups of his sites in his home. His defense team was also able to recover all the contents of his offshore server. As a result the sites never fell into government hands and he was able to run them again once he was no longer on supervised released for the threat. The government made it clear that they would prosecute him for any violation of federal law they could find to get around the fact that the business itself is not illegal. Back then he wasn't the only one targeted by law enforcement. Other owners of gripe sites ended up in prison for unrelated legal troubles that would not have been exploited by the government had they not been looking for excuses to lock them up. The case should have been challenged on the grounds of selective prosecution, but his lawyer was incompetent. The founder of STD Carriers learned his lesson and has not sent any threatening emails to anyone for nearly 10 years. What Should Be Done Ana Kasparian painted an accurate picture of Congress when it comes to legislation involving technology, "Congress is full of a bunch of, honestly people who can't even legislate on things they understand much less things they don't understand like the internet." Then they discuss their desire for new laws without touching Section 230. Uygur then expressed his desire for someone to bury us with frivolous lawsuits as if they could overwhelm us by forcing us to file so many motions to dismiss that we don't have time for anything else. Some people would lose money on legal fees due to such things, but the owner of STD Carriers is a prolific pro se litigant perfectly capable of getting lawsuits dismissed at the summary judgment phase all by himself. We have already discussed one thing that should be done. Banning employers from doing internet searches of applicants until they determine they are otherwise qualified for the job and are given a chance to explain themselves. Employers should not be able to legally screen applicants by just Googling names and eliminating those with negative information in the search results without further inquiry. They can't do it with criminal records which are more accurate, so why should they be allowed to do it with the internet which is far less reliable? Google took the approach of demoting our sites in search results for personal identifiers. As a result you rarely see direct links to STD Carriers in Google results for names of people. However, because this penalty seems to be a manual one imposed on a per domain basis it is quite easy to circumvent simply by hosting the content in more than one place. Other webmasters have figured this out as well. In some cases it seems they re-brand their sites using new domain names every couple of months. When that happens it can take a few months for the penalty to be applied to the new domain. When the penalty is applied the process repeats. We've also considered moving the main STD Carriers site from its .com TLD to a different one like .net or .org, but we have a little brand recognition so we don't want to take STDCarriers.com down. Normally people redirect visitors from the old one, but that would cause the penalty to follow automatically, so the best we could do would be to leave up a page saying we've moved with a link. We might start using a mirror or two instead of moving the site. We already have a site that syndicates our content which does not appear to be subjected to the penalty at this time despite being a copy of a site that had been penalized. The content and theme were the same with the only difference being the domain name. Domain names cost just under $10 a year and new sites can be added to most hosting packages without incurring additional expenses. In monetary terms it costs basically nothing to syndicate content onto new un-penalized domains on a regular basis. Some have alleged that this practice makes sites "information content providers" under section 230 and therefore liable for statements contained within user generated content (UGC). They argue that syndication amounts to content "development" under Section 230. That simply is not true. Users grant us "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, fully paid, worldwide license to use, copy, perform, display, and distribute said Content" and agree that they alone are responsible for the content (https://postalmostanything.com/legal/tou). When we exercise our right to distribute content we do not create or develop it. Under this agreement the author is responsible for the content and we are granted distribution rights of content they alone remain responsible for. The words "create" of "develop" as used in section 230 does not cover copying, displaying, or distributing content. When a newspaper prints copies it is not creating or developing content because the content has already been created and developed. Most of the content is created and developed by the newspaper itself, so they are liable for that content. Other content is created and developed elsewhere before being copied, displayed, and distributed by the newspaper. That is the case when they syndicate content from affiliates. An article created and developed elsewhere before being copied, displayed, and distributed with proper source attribution effectively passes liability for the statements content within to the original author that created the content and those that helped develop it. If we were to sue The New York Times for libel on the grounds that they falsely accused us of slander, we would not be able to successfully add outlets that copied the article as defendants just because they syndicated the content. Syndication is usually a fully automated task that involves copying content from RSS feeds or APIs. When a machine does something automatically there is usually no person to blame. This can become confusing for users that think a person must have posted something. "CDA 230 also offers its legal shield to bloggers who act as intermediaries by hosting comments on their blogs. Under the law, bloggers are not liable for comments left by readers, the work of guest bloggers, tips sent via email, or information received through RSS feeds. This legal protection can still hold even if a blogger is aware of the objectionable content or makes editorial judgments." - Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230) Unless the EFF is wrong we have the right to distribute content received through RSS feeds which is the case with our syndication site. The syndication site also monitors social media for people using phrases indicating that they are accusing someone of having a STD or admitting to having one themselves. We are not liable for that either because the content is created and developed elsewhere. Our site simply copies, displays, and distributes. Conclusion There is no such things as a "slander" industry. Cenk Uygur grossly exaggerated his objections with defamatory characterizations of the STDCarriers.com owner. Uygur went beyond simply quoting The New York Times to knowingly crafting lies of his own.
Learn more: The Young Turks Attack Gripe Sites While Supporting Section 230

Joyce Szudzik is a predidtor

Szudzik — Sun, 31 Oct 2021 16:26:29 -07:00

Joyce Szudzik was finally terminated from AEG after years and years of serial abuse. At first I let Joyce do what she had please because of a need for a promotion. Later to find out I was not the only one. We complained to HR many times but HR would not believe us at first. I'm no longer ashamed of being a victim of Joyce Szudzik. Joyce had sexually abused me for years and played mental games with my mind. Don't let her do this to you. https://hotb.org/team/joyce-szudzik/
Learn more: Joyce Szudzik is a predidtor

Christina Aguilera: Early 2000s See Through T-Shirt Nipple Ring Pic Ad

PostAlmostAnything.com — Sat, 16 Jan 2021 01:48:33 -08:00

Noticed some company using this early 2000s picture of Christina Aguilera wearing a see through white t-shirt revealing that her nipples are pierced as an advertisement on Twitter. It really got me rethinking my upcoming social media strategies. Like maybe I've tried too hard in the past to write quality articles about important issues on my older websites when really I just need to grab people's attention with stuff that looks good. I bet if I tweeted something like this every day I would have tens of thousands of followers real quick. I will stay on the lookout for pics like this one that leave little to the imagination without crossing the line into adult content. Then I can keep the site safe for work while still catering to peoples animal urges.
Learn more: Christina Aguilera: Early 2000s See Through T-Shirt Nipple Ring Pic Ad

Nip/Tuck - Kimber Rejects Christian

WhoreAwareness — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:01:41 -08:00

In this funny moment Christian Troy (Julian McMahon) is rejected by Kimber Henry (Kelly Carlson) because she is disgusted by his cancer scar before calling it Karma that Christian is now so unattractive that he is being rejected for his looks after years of being shallow.
Learn more: Nip/Tuck - Kimber Rejects Christian

Anti-Porn Propaganda

CensorshipNazi — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 05:27:03 -08:00

Criminals and religious zealots try to blame pictures and videos for the behavior of sex offenders. These people need to stop worrying about porn and focus more on the offenders themselves. Think about it, if porn created sex offenders then every man with a computer would have to register as one.
Learn more: Anti-Porn Propaganda

Whitney Houston is Dead, Did Bobby Brown Kill Her?

TrainWreckWatch — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:52:05 -08:00

Whitney Houston was found dead today at the age of 48 and although the exact cause of death is unknown one can't help wonder if Bobby Brown killed her. For those of you who don't know who Bobby Brown is he was Whitney Houston's husband and the man who introduced her to cocaine. Although Bobby Brown is not suspected of personally killing her at the Beverly Hilton where her body was found it would not be surprising given her youth that she died of drug overdose. If she died of a drug overdose it probably was not crack since she always said that crack was whack and people like with money like her can get good cocaine, but she would not have started saying stuff like that had Bobby Brown not introduced her to cocaine in the first place back in the 80s. If the autopsy does in fact show that Whitney Houston died of a drug overdose then it is most likely Bobby Brown's fault because he got her hooked in the first place. Good job Bobby Brown, you sure know how to treat a lady.
Learn more: Whitney Houston is Dead, Did Bobby Brown Kill Her?

New WebWatcher Affiliate Program Denies Old Members

ComputerGeek — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:23:20 -08:00

When the WebWatcher Affiliate Program moved from Commission Junction to LinkShare I didn't think much of it since I already had a LinkShare account, but when I applied for the WebWatcher Affiliate Program my application was rejected. Normally I don't mind getting rejected from an affiliate program, but since I did take the time to write an original description of their product I am not happy with this. WHAT WAS ONCE AN AFFILIATE AD PROMOTING WEBWATCHER: WebWatcher Computer Monitoring Software with Video Review Invade privacy on your network like never before with WebWatcher computer monitoring software solutions for employers, parents, and curious others. WebWatcher works by taking control of desktops, laptops, and mobile phones before spying on all connected devices to keep you up to date on the latest illegal downloading, porn viewing, emailing, texting, and all other undesirable activities that your kids, employees, friends, and spouse are up to. WebWatcher has two main families of products targeting businesses and consumers. The business family of products include employee monitoring, web filtering, laptop recovery, and data loss prevention software. These programs are designed primarily for managers who want to make sure that their employees stay on task and use the internet efficiently. The consumer family of products include the original WebWatcher pc monitoring software, Laptop Cop, and WebWatcher mobile. These products are designed primarily for parents who want to monitor their kids every move online and block access to dangerous site, but is also marketed as a cyberbullying prevention software suite capable of helping parents catch bullies in the act.
Learn more: New WebWatcher Affiliate Program Denies Old Members

Oregon Wins the Rose Bowl After Wisconsin Brain Farts

GreatSportsVideos — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:49:24 -08:00

The Oregon Ducks finally won a Rose Bowl thanks in part to some brain farts by the Wisconsin Badgers whose coach Bret Bielema recklessly used up two timeouts in the third quarter only to find his team down by 7 in the closing seconds with one timeout left that was quickly reduced to zero. Quarterback Russell Wilson followed in Bielema's wake with a brain fart of his own when he snapped the ball with 2 seconds left, held onto it for a second, and threw it at the grass directly in front of him as fast as he could when he should have been throwing it down field as close to the end zone as he could. That duel of dunces added great elements of surprise to what was one of the most exciting football games of all time. I hate to think of what could have been if those two had kept their thinking caps on. Now that the better team has won Badger fans will have to rely solely on the Green Bay Packers to fulfill their sports dreams for the rest of the season, but at least the Packers have much better team colors.
Learn more: Oregon Wins the Rose Bowl After Wisconsin Brain Farts

Gregory Evans Sifting Through Trash for Personal Data

AntiCrimeDog — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 08:48:25 -08:00

Gregory Evans went around a neighborhood sifting through trash cans in search of peoples personal data and hit the jackpot with credit card numbers, insurance information, and other identity theft goodies. Then he told the owners of the trash cans what he found, what he could do with it if he were still a thief, and telling them how they could avoid nightmares waiting to happen by shredding sensitive documents with a confetti shredder before throwing them away for tweakers to find. This guy Gregory Evans cracks me up because he seems like an expert in how to get free publicity with common sense advise sure to make stupid people think twice before acting stupidly. A few months ago I started getting all kinds of responses after writing a scathing review of an auto-blog site he owns from people that hate him and call him a charlatan. I don't know about that, but when I Googled him I found tons of stories about him in the media focusing on horrible things that could happen to people on the internet with advice about how to avoid them. All the advice of his I've seen so far sounds like common sense most of which involves problems easily avoided or fixed with security software coincidentally similar to what his company LIGATT Security International sells. In this video specifically he reminds me of when I met my lawyer. It was years ago when I walked into an office, shook the hand of a well dressed smooth talking black dude with a shaved head, listened as he pointed out the maximum sentences for all the bullshit I was charged with, and left a poorer man, but at least my lawyer kept me a free man.
Learn more: Gregory Evans Sifting Through Trash for Personal Data

Dr. Conrad Murray's Sentence is Well Deserved

AntiCrimeDog — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:42:32 -08:00

Dr. Conrad Murray got sentenced to the maximum of four years in prison today for killing Michael Jackson back in 2009. His lawyers tried to get him probation, but the judge said no because of how reckless he was with Michael Jackson by giving him Propofol and leaving him to die. He also had no sympathy for Murray because he should have walked away the second Jackson offered him $150,000 per month just to be his personal drug dealer doctor. The news said that Murray will probably only serve less than half of his sentence. Hopefully that will teach him not to practice medicine ever again.
Learn more: Dr. Conrad Murray's Sentence is Well Deserved

Stupid 30 Second Smile Auto Toothbrush for Dummies

StupidProductWatch — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 03:42:09 -08:00

Last night I got home late and noticed a commercial for this 30 Second Smile automatic toothbrush built for dummies that are so stupid they don't know how to brush their own teeth, are cripples, or too lazy to move a toothbrush back and forth. Check out the 30 Second Smile commercial embedded on this page to see what I'm talking about. It is just two toothbrushes with their backs facing one another attached to a motor that moves them back and forth kind of like a real human hand does when brushing teeth properly. Now this could be useful if you are crippled and cannot move a regular toothbrush back and forth or are too lazy to move a toothbrush in your mouth, but odds are you can clean your teeth just as well with a normal manual toothbrush and don't need this thing.
Learn more: Stupid 30 Second Smile Auto Toothbrush for Dummies