Michael's post, called What Is the Con Here, brings up a lot of interesting points that I missed that suggests the possibility of misdirection (my interpretation of Michael's post) going on in order to take focus off of the message and onto the messenger.

Perhaps I'm guilty of doing the same as well, but it's hard to not get upset when confronted with someone who has victimized the very type of people I try to help everyday – and who has profited handsomely from it.

But again – perhaps as Michael and Dennis Yu have suggested this only serves to take the focus off of the message. Yes, certainly the messenger needs to be penalized, make amends, etc., but for the sake of this post that's not the point.

Dennis Yu's follow up to all of this called "This is why you don't gossip on the internet" is also interesting and worth a read and I agree that when you come across attacks on a messenger that you need to "examine their motives and then check the facts to see if things add up".

I certainly don't feel like I have all the facts in this situation and I don't think it will be an easy matter to get them either.

Some might consider the rest of this post a distraction from the message and back onto the messenger. However, I think it's important as in this case as it may help people see the message as more pertinent and NOT allow it to get shoved under the table.

However, Dennis Yu does potentially clarify a couple things that I wondered about. I say "potentially" because at this point there's no way to check the facts.

1. Dennis Yu states, "We did some consulting for the FTC– a nice surprise, as they promised not to sue."

I had wondered why he was so willing to basically post a "signed confession to prove the prosecutor's case" as Lynndel Edginton observed in the original post called BlitzLocal CEO explains how to trick people.

Of course the dilemna for Dennis is if he testified or consulted for the FTC in a specific ongoing investigation then he can't say what the case was until charges have been filed.  Once he can talk about those cases, things could get very interesting again.

2. He also states, "I’m owing up to all the spam (or call it by whatever name you want) that I’ve done in the past.  The TechCrunch article was part of that– and there are more articles coming."

Why is this interesting? Because if it's true that there are more articles coming and they get published in major outlets with the same sort of prominence as TechCrunch then it puts Shoemaker's claim that "the jig is up" for Dennis Yu in serious doubt.

The bottom line is:

1. We don't have all the facts and there will be serious facts that we possibly can't have for legitimate reasons for a while.
2. We need to be on our guard for potential misdirection whether it comes from a hidden negative option offer or an attack on a messenger who is easy to hate.

Note: PLEASE keep in mind that I am only saying those two "bottom line" items are possible. I am NOT saying they are true. There simply isn't enough evidence to know one  way or another.

Dennis Yu of BlitzLocal states, "I finally came to this realization: People on Facebook won’t pay for anything. They don’t have credit cards, they don’t want credit cards, and they are not interested in shopping. But you can trick them into doing one of three things:

• Download a toolbar: It could be spyware (such as Zango) or something more legitimate, such as Webfetti or Zwinkys.
• Give up their email address: You’ve won a “free” camera or perhaps you’ve been selected as a tester for a new Macbook Pro (which you get to keep at the end of the test). Just tell us where you want us to ship it.
• Give up their phone number: You took the IQ Quiz, so give us your phone number and we’ll tell you your score. Never mind that you’ll get billed $20 a month or perhaps be tricked into inviting 10 other friends to beat your score."

Note: According to the TechCrunchies the FaceBook income distribution as of December 3, 2008 was:

Facebook:
Income>$60K : 65%
Income>$75K : 51%
Income>$100K : 33%

Source: Income Levels at MySpace and FaceBook users at TechCrunchies.com

Of course, demographics on FaceBook have been changing over the years, so that data may or may not be relevant although it would seem to cover a time period close to the time period that BlitzLocal CEO Dennis Yu discusses in his article.

Dennis Yu of BlitzLocal later goes on to make this statement:

"Here’s what ad networks struggle  with—to either run what ads make the most money or else be forced out by other ad networks willing to be shadier than them."

REALLY? There's no "third alternative"? I mean, don't MANY companies in MANY fields (that don't ultimately resort to incredibly shady tactics) have to deal with this issue EVERY SINGLE DAY?

And what exactly are the ad networks being "forced out of"? I'd love to hear EXACTLY what he meant by that.

Maybe what's more confusing is whether or not Dennis Yu even believes all of that or not, because later in the comments section he says to Jeremy Palmer of QuitYourDayJob.com the following:

"Jeremy,

Thanks for the kind words. See you at ASW in Vegas?

And it’s not to say all ad networks are scammers– there are good and bad ones, just like in any industry. You just have to watch out for certain types of offers and business practices."

Wait, didn't Dennis make this statement in the article:  "Here’s what ad networks struggle  with—to either run what ads make the most money or else be forced out by other ad networks willing to be shadier than them."

What's most telling in the TechCrunch article, though are these comments by BlitzLocal CEO Dennis Yu:

• "If you want to provide the pristine user experience, you’re taking a massive hit to your earnings, maybe can’t pay your mortgage, or whatever. How do you feel about that?"
• "You hit the nail on the head. We’re going the “straight-laced” route because it actually will make more money in the long run."

Read that LAST statement carefully. Doesn't it seem like Dennis Yu of BlitzLocal is implying that if it were more profitable to continue to run a shady business that's what he would do?

Also enjoyable was what appears to be BlitzLocals' Dennis Yu's attempt at a pre-emptive strike at his critics by saying, "The nature of your reaction probably says something about what you do"…and of course the usual attack on critics as “bogus moral posturing”.

In the article, I didn't see any evidence of Dennis claiming to change his ways because it was the right thing to do. Instead he pointed out that it was more profitable to go straight, and also suggested people take a look at his list of clients, which I thought was a good idea, so here they are:

• Boulder Massage Therapy and Stress Management Services
• Quiznos
• Midwest Landscape Engineering (testimonial from Jason Cade)
• Doletry Law Partners
• Eric Reeder – Animal Products Plus

Yep, certainly a pretty impressive list of clients, so it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Read the original TechCrunch article here, (which strangely is extremely mundane and obvious considering the amount of of accolades posted in the comments section).

I'm in the process of getting a F.A.Q. section installed at WorkAtHomeTruth which will also allow you to submit your questions.

I've decided to do this in place of the forum for now as it seemed like the forum was mostly being used for that purpose and I'm MUCH more likely to answer on the blog than in the forum.

You can post your questions here for now until I get the F.A.Q. section set up.

Thanks.

Note: This is page 3 of questions submitted. You can see previous questions and answers here:

•  previous questions and answers - page 1 here.
• previous questions and answers – page 2 here

What's the story behind the story of the subject of this blog post? The real story is that all news sources should be "under scrutiny" which is why a newer service called Newsy.com apparently wants people to make the scary leap of actually analyzing multiple sources and thinking for themselves.

For example, here's a recent story they did called "White House Stimulus Numbers Under Scrutiny":

Click here to visit Newsy.com

I'm in the process of getting a F.A.Q. section installed at WorkAtHomeTruth which will also allow you to submit your questions.

I've decided to do this in place of the forum for now as it seemed like the forum was mostly being used for that purpose and I'm MUCH more likely to answer on the blog than in the forum.

You can post your questions here for now until I get the F.A.Q. section set up.

Thanks.

This page is too full now, so I have set up a new page for posting questions.

Ask your questions here:

Click here to go to the right page to ask new questions.

Note: This is page 2 of questions submitted. You can see other quesiton and answer pages here:

• Questions and answers on page 1
• Questions and answers on page 3

Read more at Digital Media Law here along with analysis of the case.

Cases like these make it clear that it's important to keep in mind that sites like the Electronic Frontier Foundation merely provide overviews of legal principles and that there can be important exceptions. The EFF guide to Online Defamation Law is a good example of that in light of some of the principles covered in the state-specific Noonan vs. Staples case.

""Here is a try. Looks good from my end. . . . Compare it to an original if you have it."

9/25/2009 FBI Press Release:

United States Attorney's Office
Southern District of New York
Contact: (212) 637-2600

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Charges Colorado Man as Accomplice of Hassan Nemazee in Bank Fraud Ponzi Scheme

PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and JOSEPH M. DEMAREST, JR., the Assistant Director-in-Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), announced the arrest today of SHAHIN KASHANCHI in connection with a scheme to defraud Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank") and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. ("HSBC"). According to the Complaint filed in Manhattan federal court and other documents:

KASHANCHI is the brother-in-law of HASSAN NEMAZEE, who was arrested on August 25, 2009, and subsequently indicted for defrauding Citibank, HSBC, and Bank of America, N.A., of more than $290 million in loan proceeds. NEMAZEE's scheme depended on his use of fraudulent documents, including phony account statements and phony correspondence bearing forged signatures. These fraudulent documents were designed, in substance and in part, to convince the various banks to whom he submitted the documents that NEMAZEE had assets totaling hundreds of millions of dollars and that he had placed many millions of dollars of United States Treasury securities in certain specified accounts as collateral for the loans from the various banks.

In fact, neither those collateral accounts nor the hundreds of millions of dollars in claimed assets existed. As alleged in the Nemazee Indictment, NEMAZEE made partial repayments on his borrowings from Bank of America with proceeds of his fraud on Citibank, made partial repayment on his borrowing from Citibank with proceeds of his fraud on Bank of America, and repaid Citibank $74.9 million with proceeds of his fraud on HSBC.

Many of the fraudulent documents submitted by NEMAZEE to Citibank and HSBC were created by SHAHIN KASHANCHI, in consultation with NEMAZEE. Indeed, based on e-mail traffic between KASHANCHI and NEMAZEE summarized in the Complaint, KASHANCHI was regularly producing what KASHANCHI referred to as the "normal quarterly statements" for one of the non-existent collateral accounts, among other things. KASHANCHI would simply create phony account statements designed to look like real account statements, but bearing account numbers for accounts that did not exist and reflecting balances that purported to establish NEMAZEE's great wealth.

For example, on April 15, 2009, KASHANCHI sent by email to NEMAZEE a fake account statement for a non-existent account, reflecting that the account held $621,914,043 worth of United States Treasury securities and cash in the amount of $3,976,543. NEMAZEE in turn submitted this account statement to Citibank.

Similarly, in connection with NEMAZEE's efforts to obtain money from HSBC, on July 21, 2009, KASHANCHI sent NEMAZEE an e-mail in which KASHANCHI stated that he was sending "the new HN [Hassan Nemazee] Collateral + HSBC account." Attached to that e-mail was a fake account statement for an account which NEMAZEE had represented to HSBC held over $125 million in United States Treasury securities that had been pledged as collateral for the line of credit from HSBC. The phony account statement bore the indication "Hassan Nemazee Collateral + HSBC," and KASHANCHI's file-name for the phony account statement was "Hassan's Statement Collateral + HSBC 200908."

KASCHANCHI also assisted NEMAZEE in NEMAZEE's submission of fraudulent correspondence to banks. For example, on August 11, 2009, representatives of Citibank told NEMAZEE that he needed to produce written verification of his collateral for the Citibank loans, which collateral was purportedly being held in an account at Pershing LLC. The Citibank represntatives specified that the verification would have to be "an original letter on Pershing stationary [sic] signed by an authorized representative of Pershing." On August 13, NEMAZEE and KASCHANCHI exchanged e-mails arranging to talk the next day. On August 14, KASCHANCHI sent NEMAZEE an e-mail in which KASHANCHI stated in part: "Here is a try. Looks good from my end. . . . Compare it to an original if you have it." Attached to that email was a piece of fake Pershing letterhead stationery, listing as Pershing's address and telephone number an address and telephone number associated with a Manhattan-based "virtual office" that NEMAZEE himself had established and bearing the name of an actual Pershing LLC employee. As a result, in the event anyone made an effort to contact that Pershing representative, they would in fact be contacting a telephone number assigned to NEMAZEE himself, and not any financial institution. Later that same day, KASCHANCHI sent NEMAZEE two different versions of the same phony stationery.

On August 19, 2009, a representative of Citibank received a letter, on the phony letterhead stationery, purportedly signed by the Pershing LLC employee and verifying that NEMAZEE's collateral account had "U.S. Treasury Securities totaling $85,853,751.00 as of 8/17/09 that are held in custody by Pershing LLC as collateral for the benefit of Citibank." In reality, there was no such account, there was no such collateral, and the signature was a forgery.

KASAHANCHI, 46, currently resides in Telluride, Colorado. He is charged with two counts of bank fraud, each of which carries a maximum prison term of 30 years and a maximum fine of $1,000,000 or twice the gain or loss resulting from the crime.

KASHANCHI is expected to be presented later today in federal court in Grand Junction, Colorado, before United States Magistrate Judge GUDRUN RICE.

Mr. BHARARA praised the investigative work of the FBI. Mr. BHARARA said that the investigation is continuing.

Assistant United States Attorneys JOHN M. HILLEBRECHT and DANIEL W. LEVY are in charge of the prosecution.

The charge and allegations contained in the Complaint are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

I'm in the process of getting a F.A.Q. section installed at WorkAtHomeTruth which will also allow you to submit your questions.

I've decided to do this in place of the forum for now as it seemed like the forum was mostly being used for that purpose and I'm MUCH more likely to answer on the blog than in the forum.

You can post your questions here for now until I get the F.A.Q. section set up.

Thanks.

This page is too full now, so I have set up a new page for posting questions.

Ask your questions here:

Click here to go to the right page to ask new questions.

Othe Q & A pages:

• Page 2 of Questions and Answers
• Page 3 of Questions and Answers

CAVEAT about the following information: TheDailyTribuneOnline.com domain is NEW (created on 6/19/2009) the following traffic statistics COULD be very innacurrate:

As of today Compete.com shows the traffic for TheDaily TribuneOnline.com at just over 150,000 unique visitors per month:

Traffic for TheDailyTribuneOnline.com according to Compete.com

 QuantCast shows the traffic for TheDailyTribuneOnline.com trending towards 60,000 unique visitors per month.

Quantcast Traffic estimate for TheDailyTribuneOnline

Alexa Rank for TheDailyTribuneOnline.com as of 9/6/2009

So basically I'll need to watch the TheDailyTribuneOnline.com site to see how it trends.

Of possible interest is the Site Referral Analytics from Compete for TheDailyTribuneOnline.com:

TheDailyTribuneOnline.com

Of particular interest is the site ProfitsAtHomeNow.com which lists a 7.70% referral share.

ProfitsAtHomeNow.com was registered on 06/19/2008 and started a fast trend upward in May of 2009 and as of today has a Quantcast Rank of  2,977,  a Compete Ranking of 2,300 and a 3 month Alexa ranking of 37,131 which just hit a high of 26,834 on 9/5/2009.

Clearly, something is "going on" with ProfitsAtHomeNow.com to trend that quickly and suggests that the rise in TheDailyTribuneOnline.com's traffic that the analytics programs show could be reasonable.

Since the ProfitsAtHomeNow.com site was originally registered by a company called Digital Paper Products, Inc. and now resides on the same IP as the Digital Paper Products, Inc. site DigitalPaperProducts.com (see list of sites hosted on IP 74.63.78.45 below) it seems likely that the ProfitsAtHomeNow.com site is still owned by Digital Paper Products, Inc.:

• 20lbsfast.com
• 30minutewealth.com
• Auctioncashsystem.com
• Automaticforexprofits.com
• Diettruth.info
• Digitalpaperproducts.com
• Dppcustomers.com
• Freecolondetoxv.info
• Freegovernmentgrantscd.com
• Freewholesalesources.info
• Homefreelancewriters.info
• Insiderstocksystem.com
• Iwantyoutoberichtoday.info
• Lazyguidetowealth.com
• Martyfiegl.com
• Myhomeinternetbiz.com
• Mywealthjournal.info
• Offertracks.info
• Profitsathomenow.com
• Quickprofitstrategies.com
• Secretcashloophole.com
• Thankyouprofitsv.com
• Whitenteethwhitening.com
• Wowleveling123.com
• Wowsecretguide.com

9/4/2009: Joseph Stein and I have chatted over at his blog and come to better terms. I think the MAIN thing that was freaking me out was that IF the White-Knight SEO-ers push down the scam listings WITHOUT also posting which law enforcement agencies with which to file complaints it could actually make things WORSE as they will bury sites like Scam.com, WorldLawDirect, FraudWatchers and others like them that DO help people file complaints with proper authorities.

I'll admit that I forget to that sometimes myself and plan to make it an ongoing practice from now on to provide that information along with other consumer education resources where appropriate.

The original post about the White Knight SEO crusade continues below:

Umm…where were the SEO white knights TEN MONTHS ago when little sites like WorkAtHomeTruth.com, StrangelyPerfect.TV,, WorkAtHomeNoScams.com, IveTriedThat.com and others sent out the original warnings and helped people file complaints and spent hundreds of hours helping people recover their money? And when people came together to help each OTHER out of the ridiculous Google kit scams?

Was something wrong with your horses?

The scams were and are terrible, but it's been wonderful to see so many people helping each other in their times of need. In my opinion, those people are the REAL white knights of the past ten months (I've posted links later in this blog post to many of the discussions on various sites where people were going out of their way to help one another?

So NOW the White Knight SEO-ers are going to come to "the rescue" AFTER Google has already been banning advertisers for over TWO MONTHS?

Gee, thanks guys. I'm sure the consumers that really needed you TEN MONTHS ago will be thrilled to hear of your little publicity stunt.  Are you going to help them file complaints, answer their emails, help them by phone (you are going to post your phone number aren't you), and continuously research questions that come up for them to help them out?

You ARE going to do that aren't you?

I mean you are "White Knights" after all. Where's your sense of chivalry?

Hey, I have an idea, why don't you go post about your wonderful White Knight SEO plans in the following discussions. Go ahead and post your phone numbers there, too, so people can get ahold of you for your "White Knight" help:

• 07/23/2008 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Cash Key – Not Recommended
• 11/13/2008 (WorkAtHomeTruth):
  Google Money Tree complaints
• 11/18/2008 (Scam.com): BEWARE of Google Money Tree
• 12/04/2008 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Cash Scam
• 12/11/2008 (IveTriedThat) Beware of Google Money Tree
• 12/13/2008 (WorkAtHomeTruth): BradsMoney – Where's that government check?
• 12/28/2008 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Internet Income Initiative – Google Pro Kit complaints
• 01/01/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): EarnCashFastWithGoogle complaints
• 01/03/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Success Kit complaints
• 01/04/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Profits Complaints (note, this is NOT Wade Winger's Google Profits)
• 01/04/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google-Work-Home? No Thanks!
• 01/04/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Internet Money Tree Complaints
• 01/05/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): GoogleTree complaints
• 01/05/2009 (ElectronPlumber): Google Money Tree, Earn Google Cash and Google Kits – FaceBook Part Time Jobs Scams
• 01/08/2009 (WafflesAtNoon): Spotting Scam Websites
• 01/10/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Is EarnGoogleCash.com the same as GoogleCash.com?
• 01/10/2009 (WafflesAtNoon): Scam Alert Website Lists
• 01/14/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Pro Kit Complaints
• 01/14/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Search Success Center $59.90 Monthly Fee
• 01/23/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Money ToolKit Charges
• o1/23/2009 NCL warning: Google Money Tree – Bitter Fruit for Consumers
• 01/30/2009 (IveTriedThat): Beware of Google Treasure Chest
• 02/04/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Make Google Cash is NOT Google Cash
• 02/05/2009 (WafflesAtNoon): Government Grants Scams Revisited
• 02/17/2009 (WafflesAtNoon): Connecting The Dots – Google/Grant Scams
• 02/17/2009 (IveTriedThat): Don't Listen to Jeff Donahue and JeffsGrantBlog.com
• 02/20/2009 (IveTriedThat): Google Profit System Has Spammed me for the Last Time
• 02/23/2009 (WafflesAtNoon): The Fake Google-Grant Guys
• 02/26/2009 (IveTriedThat): Don't trust Andrew Lowell at AndrewLowell.com
• 03/02/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): WealthInfoGuy Charges and Feedback
• 03/05/2009 (WolfTrust): Google Cash Kit Scam? Find Out!
• 03/06/2009 (WorkAthomeTruth): BethsMoney discussed
• 03/10/2009 (IveTriedThat): Coreyhasmoney.com vs Jordangetsgreen.com
• 03/16/2009 (SERoundTable): Scam: Google Money System or Google Kit
• 04/04/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Where the hell is Google Cash Kit?
• 04/06/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): RobertsCashBlog Travels the World!
• 04/06/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Google Treasure Chest – it's a scam and a half!
• 04/07/2009 (WorkAtHomeNoScams): Is Google Money Tree a Scam?
• 04/07/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Make Money Posting Links on Google Scam
• 04/11/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Google Kit, or Treasure Chest – The Plot Thickens
• 04/17/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Google Treasure Chest – Update
• 04/17/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Google Treasure Chest or Kit and Mysterious "Help" From a Stranger
• 04/20/2009 (IveTriedThat.com): I’ve Tried That Investigates: Neil Anderson, NeilsMoneyBlog.com and Google Cash Kit
• 04/24/2009 (Texas Attorney General): Attorney General Abbott Charges Web Site Operator with Orchestrating Fraudulent Work-at-Home Scheme
• 04/26/2009 (ElectronPlumber): Google Cash Kit Scam – ScottsMoneyBlog.com – Scott Hunter Tricks You
• 04/27/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): MaryLifeblog joins the ranks!
• 05/01/2009 (IveTriedThat.com): JoshMadeCash.com? Stay Away!
• 05/02/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Google Treasure Chest – Phone and Address List
• 05/04/2009 (IveTriedThat.com): Be Wary of Fake Blogs
• 05/05/2009 (IveTriedThat.com): Google Treasure Chest + Google Money Tree = JAIL
• 05/09/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): SusansWorkReview deBunked
• 05/13/2009 (IveTriedThat.com): Sales Pages, Fake Blogs, and Now: Fake News
• 05/23/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): (Drum Roll) Pipe Manufacturers May See New Demand for Account Managers
• 05/23/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Google Treasure Chest and the BBB (Better Business Bureau)
• 05/26/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Is Google Cash a scam?
• 06/01/2009 (ElectronPlumber): The Easy Google Profit Scam
• 06/05/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Are Fake News Sites the New Gold Rush?
• 06/07/2009 (WorkAtHomeNoScams: Fake News Site Work At Home Scam
• 06/08/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): CoreyGetsCash.com – or Curren$y
• 06/11/2009 (IveTriedthat.com): Beware of Scott Hunter, ScottsMoneyBlog.com and Google Fast Cash
• 06/15/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): More on Google Profits and Pacific WebWorks
• 06/16/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Google Revolution, Different Name
• 06/22/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Solved! The mystery of "Andrew C."
• 07/02/2009 (BizOp.ca): Easy Google Profit Scam
• 07/03/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Hey Google Treasure – The Jig is Up!
• 07/06/2009 (WorkAtHomeNoScams.com): Google Shuts Down Google Money Scams
• 07/08/2009 (IveTriedThat): Google Finally Steps UP (The Good News Just Keeps Coming)
• 07/09/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Adwords advertiser says "I forgot scamming people was illegal"
• 07/09/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): Is This the New Google Treasure Chest?
• 07/19/2009 (StrangelyPerfect.TV): ProfitCenterLearning.com Ups the Ante!
• 07/23/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Cash Key – Not Recommended
• 08/01/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): GoogleDollars? No Thanks!
• 08/08/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Cash Kit on Larry King? LOL!
• 08/09/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): GoogleWorksToday QuickShot review
• 08/12/2009 (BizOp.ca) Google Profit Kit – Not
• 08/14/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): NewYorkMinuteNews.com has a strange take on disclaimers
• 08/20/2009 (ElectronPlumber): Is Google AdWork For Real?
• 08/21/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Make Money Whitening Your Teeth!
• 08/30/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Get fake answers at AnswerVaultPro.com
• 09/03/2009 (WorkAtHomeTruth): Google Cash Machine quickshot review

Sorry, White Knight SEO-ers. Looks like chivalry is dead.

If you ran a story exposing one of the Google Kit scams, feel free to comment about it below along with a link to your post in the comments section (please put the date you published your story in FRONT of the link along with the name of your site):

mm/dd/yyyy (mysite.com): Link to Story

It's about time YOU be knighted, isnt it?

UPDATE: Here's a bizarre statement that White-Knight SEOer Jonah Stein just posted to me in his "using white-hat SEO for Good" blog entry:

"Paul