Scam baiting, also known as counterscamming, is the practice of feigning interest in a fraudulent scheme in order to manipulate a scammer. The purpose of scam baiting might be to waste the scammer’s time, cause them embarrassment, cause them to reveal incriminating information which can be passed on to legal authorities, waste the scammer’s money, or simply for the baiter’s amusement.

The primary goal of the majority of scam baiting is stopping “419″ advance-fee fraud, which bilks hundreds of millions of dollars from victims, and can lead to victims committing crimes to raise enough money to feed the fraudulent schemes.

Scam baiters often simply attempt to waste the scammer’s time by pretending to be a victim; they often believe if a scammer is busy communicating with a baiter, then less time is spent finding and exploiting potential victims. In “Conversations with a Nigerian Bank Scammer,” writer Karl Mamer documents verbose “conversations” over email with several Nigerian 419 scammers. After statements like “Marco, my good and soon to be prosperous friend, you have correctly intimated from my writings on religion and Elvis that indeed, like you, I whole heartily [sic] agree that the separation of church and state is both unnatural and ungodly,” “Marco” finally says “I am so scared to meet you with this amount of talking.” Baiters often refer to scammers as “lads.”

Another common practice among scambaiters is to ask the scammer to do something in order to prove their identity or their intentions, such as sending a photograph of himself or herself in a compromising position. Baiting forums relish in a special bait they term “safari” in which they attempt to persuade scammers into traveling long distances to meet phantom victims or to pick up bogus wire transfers.

A small number of scam baiters claim to have convinced their scammers to send money to them, although the actual occurrence of this is disputed. Tom Craig, a former Scotland Yard officer, says that it would be unprecedented for 419 con artists to part with money and suggests that scam baiters could easily forge the scanty “evidence” of such successes. Other baiters have succeeded in getting their scammers to send them art or other “trophies” as evidence of completed work for the baiter, which is, of course, never paid.

The programme’s makers revealed the plan at the end of Monday’s ITV1 documentary about the furore, which drew more than 15 million viewers, according to unofficial estimates.

Major Charles Ingram, who was convicted of cheating his way to the jackpot with the help of coded coughs, accused the documentary of being “an incredibly one-sided affair”.

Programme makers Granada rejected Mr Ingram’s suggestion, with the Tonight show’s editor James Goldston saying it was “not unfairly or selectively edited in any way”.

He said the documentary had been based on footage from the original recording of the show played to the jury in court.

Major Ingram told BBC One’s Breakfast programme that the quiz show’s makers were “greedy” and were making millions of pounds out of the scandal.

The ITV1 documentary was seen by an estimated 15.1 million people – one million more than watched the controversial exposé of Michael Jackson in February.

At the end of Monday’s programme, it was revealed that the head of Millionaire’s production company Celador, Paul Smith, hoped to turn the story into a blockbuster film.
Catherine Zeta Jones and Hugh Grant have already been mentioned by the press as possible stars.

Along with former college lecturer Tecwen Whittock, the Ingrams were convicted of conspiracy to cheat the programme out of £1m at the start of April.

Major Ingram revealed the couple are now £460,000 in debt after their legal battle.

They protested their innocence and said the verdict had ruined their lives in a series of BBC interviews.

“What the viewers saw last night was one of the greatest TV editing con tricks,” Major Ingram told Breakfast.

He said the guilty verdict was “extremely humiliating” and had been “cataclysmic” for his family.

“The clips that were played last night were wholly unrepresentative of the environment that I was sitting within,” he said.

“It is very, very unfair and it is worse, in fact, than what I had to sit through during the trial.”

Programme editor James Goldston said the documentary had not been unfairly edited.

“We are sure viewers will have made up their own minds,” he said.

Major Ingram said the couple had asked to be interviewed for the documentary to make it “more even-handed” – but their request was refused.

“Celador will make millions and millions of pounds out of this,” he added.

He also hit back at presenter Chris Tarrant’s comments that the major was “nice but dim”.

“I am not thick. I am a member of Mensa, for goodness sake,” he said.

“That was a very, very unfair comment and it is representative of what Celador has done. These people are the greedy people, not us.”

Major Ingram was shown in the documentary answering questions to win the jackpot while Whittock was in the audience, indicating the correct answers with coughs.

Diana Ingram, seen looking anxiously in Whittock’s direction, was found guilty of helping “set up” the scam.

The couple said lawyers were looking into whether they could appeal against the verdicts.

The Ingrams were sentenced to 18 months in jail suspended for two years.

Whittock received a 12-month sentence, also suspended for two years.

The couple were also fined £15,000 each and ordered to pay £10,000 costs.

Whittock was fined £10,000 with £7,500 costs.

The defence counsel argued Whittock had been suffering from hay fever and asthma.

Whittock has said he is also planning an appeal against the verdict.

ITV1’s Millionaire: A Major Fraud, an edition of Tonight with Trevor McDonald, featured interviews with presenter Chris Tarrant, the show’s producers and other contestants who suspected foul play.

On the documentary, Whittock’s series of coughs could be heard, including one followed by the word “no” as Ingram was about to give the wrong answer.

On a number of occasions, Ingram changed his answers after coughs from Whittock persuaded him he was wrong.

Mrs Ingram could also be heard coughing on one question when her husband was asked who had a hit UK album called Born To Do It.

Check out this video. It shows how on paintballbidwars.com is scaming its users. They says you win stuff but yet they fail to deliever the goods even after you pay.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.

[...]

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.

Let’s hope so, John; let’s hope so.

Anita Laureen Clark today pleaded “no contest” to ten criminal charges, including six counts of grand theft, in a settlement reached with prosecutors in Santa Monica Superior Court. The Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office had filed a total of 46 counts against Clark involving 35 different victims. Two of the victims had paid Clark more than $7,000 each.

The city charged that Clark posed as an attorney and bilked dozens of “clients” out of money. In other cases, Clark had said that she was a paralegal but then illegally performed attorney services – incompetently, resulting in disastrous consequences for the victims in their divorce, immigration, bankruptcy, and other cases.

Clark is scheduled to be released from jail later today after paying an initial $5,000 to the City Attorney’s Office to go towards the victims’ restitution. She has served 33 days in Los Angeles County Jail for violating the terms of her bail.

Clark’s sentence included the following:

*Three years in county jail, which will be stayed as long as she complies with all the terms of probation.

*She must pay back a total of $49,716.00 to the victims.

*She is placed on five years’ formal probation.

*She is forbidden from engaging in any law-related employment.

*She must cancel all advertisements and telephone numbers from her business

*She must get and keep a full-time job and provide proof of daily good faith attempts to get a job if she is unemployed.

*She must periodically submit to questioning by prosecutors under oath regarding her assets, employment, and ability to pay restitution.

If additional past victims surface, they may also be included in the order for restitution.

The City Attorney’s Consumer Protection Unit began investigating Clark last year after receiving complaints from several consumers who had hired her to perform legal work. On August 7, 2003, Santa Monica police executed a search warrant and seized files from Clark’s Santa Monica office. After a nearly four-month investigation, the Consumer Protection Unit filed the first criminal charges against Clark on December 1.

While Clark was free on bail, the City Attorney’s Office learned that she was continuing to conduct her illicit business in violation of the Court’s order. She has been held in jail on $200,000 bail for the past month.

Clark had operated under various business names and used offices throughout the Westside and the San Fernando Valley. The business names she used included: Clark and Clark Paralegal; A. Clark and Associates; and A.C. and Associates.

Under state law, it is a crime for a person to practice law without being a licensed attorney. “Practicing law” includes giving legal advice, making legal decisions in a case, claiming to be an expert in an area of law, contacting the opposing party, writing legal documents – almost any task that a lawyer typically does. Non-attorneys are limited to two roles: providing purely clerical assistance; or doing paralegal work directly under a supervising attorney.

“This case sends a clear message to consumers with legal problems,” said Deputy City Attorney Adam Radinsky. “If you try to save money by hiring a non-attorney, beware. They are breaking the law if they perform lawyer-like services without a supervising attorney.”

11 June 2009 the World Health Organization (WHO) had announced a move to pandemic phase 6 of its pandemic alert system , which means that swine flu is supposedly spreading in communities in several countries. This decision reflects the geographic spread of the virus and not its severity. However as the news stations reported the public became increasingly more concerned.

The World Health Organization declared that the move to Phase 6 does not trigger any material change to our response in the UK. Actions taken in the UK are based on the situation here and our preparations are well advanced. this is the part of the story that many media outlets did not report on.

The localized cases of swine flu found in the UK had experienced mild symptoms and make a rapid and full recovery, and the spread was limited. However, a small minority have been more severe.The UK strategy of providing anti-virals for those who have developed the disease and their close contacts, and using school closures where appropriate was effective in stopping the spread of the disease.

They were preparing for the possibility of a pandemic for a number of years and are among the most prepared countries in the world. But the threat was only one that seamed to be made up by the media that bestowed fear in the eyes of the citizens.

The companies that were involved in the mass supply of medical masks and other equipment that were almost impossible to buy were selling stock three times above there regular cost. A total scam says Sandy Hutchens how asked that people remain calm through out the ordeal.

Now that the dust has settled the officials are seeing this hole over hype of a global pandemic as nothing but a scam to create interesting news.

For an elderly person with few assets, a reverse mortgage can be a lifesaver: It enables cash-poor retirees to tap equity in their house for living expenses, home repairs or health care needs. If you’re 62 or older, reverse mortgages allow you to borrow against the value of your home and not repay the loan until you sell the house, move out or die. If the amount owed is more than the value of the house, the lender eats the difference. If it’s less, you (or your heirs) keep what’s left over after paying off the loan. In the meantime, the loan provides income, which you can take as a lump sum, monthly payout or line of credit drawn on as needed.

But make no mistake: Reverse mortgages, which come with high fees and hefty interest charges, are a costly option and often sold by aggressive salespeople who push inappropriate financial products on vulnerable seniors. That’s why Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) held hearings Monday in St. Louis on reverse mortgages. A year and a half ago, Sen. McCaskill began investigating problems associated with reverse mortgages, including predatory lending, aggressive marketing and the potential risks to the federal government — which insures 90% of reverse mortgage loans. Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan earlier this month said reverse mortgages bear a striking similarity to the risky sub-prime mortgages that got so many Americans in financial hot water. The Federal Housing Administration estimates it may lose $800 million from insuring these loans in the next fiscal year.

Yet the number of people getting reverse mortgages keeps rising. Even as home values are falling (leaving seniors with less equity to tap), more than 112,000 reverse mortgage loans were made in 2008, up from about 22,000 in 2003, according to the National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association. Monthly reverse mortgage loan volume is setting records too, with nearly 9,000 reverse mortgages made in May.

My colleague Walter Updegrave wrote about the problems with reverse mortgages last year, spelling out how greedy salespeople not only persuade seniors to take out high-commission reverse mortgages, but also convince them to spend the proceeds on high-priced financial products such annuities, boosting their commissions even more.

Retiree advocates at AARP say that predatory lenders are also attempting to get seniors to use proceeds of their reverse mortgage to buy expensive long-term-care insurance. But in most cases, it makes more sense for seniors to use the payout for actual long-term care, not a hard-to-use insurance policy.

If you are considering taking out a reverse mortgage or have a parent or family member who is, don’t fall for a pitch from a salesman who cares more about a lucrative commission than determining whether a reverse mortgage makes sense for you. To learn more about reverse mortgages, check out resources at AARP and HUD.

Do you know anyone who is considering a reverse mortgage or has had a negative experience taking out a reverse mortgage? Tell us about that experience.

Looking for a loan or credit card but don’t think you’ll qualify? Turned down by a bank because of your poor credit history?

You may be tempted by ads and websites that guarantee loans or credit cards, regardless of your credit history. The catch comes when you apply for the loan or credit card and find out you have to pay a fee in advance. According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency, that could be a tip-off to a rip-off. If you’re asked to pay a fee for the promise of a loan or credit card, you can count on the fact that you’re dealing with a scam artist. More than likely, you’ll get an application, or a stored value or debit card, instead of the loan or credit card.

The Signs of an Advance-Fee Loan Scam

The FTC says some red flags can tip you off to scam artists’ tricks. For example:

• A lender who isn’t interested in your credit history. A lender may offer loans or credit cards for many purposes — for example, so a borrower can start a business or consolidate bill payments. But one who doesn’t care about your credit record should give you cause for concern. Ads that say “Bad credit? No problem” or “We don’t care about your past. You deserve a loan” or “Get money fast” or even “No hassle — guaranteed” often indicate a scam.
• Banks and other legitimate lenders generally evaluate creditworthiness and confirm the information in an application before they guarantee firm offers of credit — even to creditworthy consumers.
• Fees that are not disclosed clearly or prominently. Scam lenders may say you’ve been approved for a loan, then call or email demanding a fee before you can get the money. Any up-front fee that the lender wants to collect before granting the loan is a cue to walk away, especially if you’re told it’s for “insurance,” “processing,” or just “paperwork.”Legitimate lenders often charge application, appraisal, or credit report fees. The differences? They disclose their fees clearly and prominently; they take their fees from the amount you borrow; and the fees usually are paid to the lender or broker after the loan is approved.It’s also a warning sign if a lender says they won’t check your credit history, yet asks for your personal information, such as your Social Security number or bank account number. They may use your information to debit your bank account to pay a fee they’re hiding.
• A loan that is offered by phone. It is illegal for companies doing business in the U.S. by phone to promise you a loan and ask you to pay for it before they deliver.
• A lender who uses a copy-cat or wanna-be name. Crooks give their companies names that sound like well-known or respected organizations and create websites that look slick. Some scam artists have pretended to be the Better Business Bureau or another reputable organization, and some even produce forged paperwork or pay people to pretend to be references. Always get a company’s phone number from the phone book or directory assistance, and call to check they are who they say they are. Get a physical address, too: a company that advertises a PO Box as its address is one to check out with the appropriate authorities.
• A lender who is not registered in your state. Lenders and loan brokers are required to register in the states where they do business. To check registration, call your state Attorney General’s office or your state’s Department of Banking or Financial Regulation. Checking registration does not guarantee that you will be happy with a lender, but it helps weed out the crooks.
  A lender who asks you to wire money or pay an individual. Don’t make a payment for a loan or credit card directly to an individual; legitimate lenders don’t ask anyone to do that. In addition, don’t use a wire transfer service or send money orders for a loan. You have little recourse if there’s a problem with a wire transaction, and legitimate lenders don’t pressure their customers to wire funds.

  Finally, just because you’ve received a slick promotion, seen an ad for a loan in a prominent place in your neighborhood or in your newspaper, on television or on the Internet, or heard one on the radio, don’t assume it’s a good deal — or even legitimate. Scam artists like to operate on the premise of legitimacy by association, so it’s really important to do your homework.

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians defied a ban by the Interior Ministry and marched through the capital on Monday in support of opposition presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, posing a rising challenge to the country’s ruling clergy over the disputed election.

Though the afternoon march was peaceful and proceeded without police interference, at least one man was killed and several were wounded at nightfall, when members of the Basij, a volunteer militia allied with the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, fired from a rooftop into a crowd outside its local headquarters in downtown Tehran.

There were conflicting reports on whether the crowd had threatened to storm the building before the shooting, but the incident ended with angry protesters setting part of the structure and several motorcycles ablaze. Young Basij members on motorcycles have harassed and beaten protesters since Friday’s election, in which the government says Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi by 2 to 1.

The unrest, including scattered reports of violence elsewhere in the country, appears to have unsettled the country’s unelected leadership of Islamic clergy. Hours before the march — the largest unofficial demonstration in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution — the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, abruptly reversed course and promised an investigation into allegations of election fraud. Khamenei previously had blessed Ahmadinejad’s victory.

“Offenses in elections are not out of the ordinary. We do not want to exaggerate and say that no violation has taken place,” a spokesman for the investigating body, the Guardian Council, said on television. “No, humans are involved in this affair, and human beings are not free of faults.”

“Bear with us,” pleaded the spokesman, Abbas Ali Kadkhodai. “We will investigate and announce the result.”

Mousavi, in his first public appearance since the election, told the cheering marchers that he did not put much faith in the independence of the council, a panel of 12 Islamic clerics and jurists selected by Khamenei, the head of the judiciary and Iran’s parliament.

“I have appealed to the Guardian Council, but I’m not very optimistic about their judgment,” he said. “Many of its members during the election were not impartial and supported the government candidate.”

Mousavi added that he was “ready to pay any price” in his fight for an honest election. “I came here to invite everyone to defend their rights calmly,” he said as thousands of supporters — most of them wearing green, the signature color of his campaign — chanted “Mousavi, we will help you!”

In Washington, President Obama said he was “deeply troubled by the violence” in Iran.

Because no international observers were allowed to monitor the fairness of the election, “I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election,” Obama said. “But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.”

The march through Tehran began in late afternoon, following hours of tension exacerbated by the government’s continued blocking of text-messaging services and Web sites that protesters have used to organize street rallies. On Sunday night, authorities shut off Tehran’s cellphone system, and Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard, told a gathering of university students that the march had been canceled because organizers expected Basij and riot police to use extreme force against the demonstrators.

Nevertheless, ardent Mousavi supporters continued Monday with plans to usurp the symbols of the 1979 Islamic revolution by parading from Revolution Square to Freedom Square, two focal points of the uprising that toppled the shah. In the early afternoon, Mousavi issued a statement saying he personally would take part to “calm the situation down.”

Around 4 p.m., as the march got underway, dark clouds, highly unusual in this season, blocked the summer sun.

“Let’s go, move!” organizers shouted as the first few rows of young men wearing green headbands and young women holding hands stepped forward, shouting in Farsi that “by the end of the week, Ahmadinejad will be gone.”

When riot police did not materialize, the broad avenue between the two central squares quickly filled with people, including some families with children. “I’ll fight, I’ll die, but I’ll get my vote back,” a group of young men shouted, flashing the V-for-victory sign. Many wore green ribbons or wristbands.

“We are not weeds!” they chanted, a caustic reference to Ahmadinejad’s statement over the weekend that the protesters were just “a few weeds that are making problems.”

Climbing over fences, surging down Azadi (“Freedom”) Street, the march became a sea of people eight across and three to five miles long, surely numbering in the hundreds of thousands and, by some unofficial estimates, over 1 million. The crowds grew ecstatic when news spread from row to row that Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, another opposition presidential candidate, had arrived.

“Tomorrow we will strike!” the marchers called as they walked through an underpass, their voices and clapping echoing against the ceiling.

Protests also were reported in other cities. Police clashed with pro-Mousavi demonstrators in Isfahan and Mashad, and authorities fired in the air to disperse protesters in Shiraz, the Associated Press reported.

Besides ordering the investigation into allegations of election fraud, Khamenei also sought to calm the opposition by meeting with Mousavi before the march. The supreme leader told Mousavi that “enemies of the Islamic revolution” were behind the two nights of rioting and chaos on the streets of Tehran that followed the election. But “you are of a different kind from these people, and it is necessary to follow up things with composure and calm,” Khamenei said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, kept a low profile but stayed in Tehran, postponing a scheduled trip to Moscow.

It was unclear how easily Iran’s leaders could alter the election result. Khamenei and some other leading clergy have already congratulated Ahmadinejad on his victory, and overturning the official results would not only embarrass the government but also might diminish the authority of a wide number of influential clerics, political leaders and military officers who have supported Ahmadinejad since he won a surprise election victory in 2005.

Yet if Ahmadinejad stays on, his legitimacy may continue to be questioned. The head of Iran’s parliament, Ali Larijani, also announced the formation on Monday of a committee to look into the election results. He complained of “reports received by the parliament on attacks against the people,” an apparent reference to the activities of the Basij and others over the weekend, when vigilantes attacked the dormitories of Tehran University, ransacking rooms and beating students. Farhad Rahbar, the head of the university, vowed Monday to punish the perpetrators.

“That’s what NBC 4 found last May, when an undercover producer, took test cars to nine LA area Jiffy Lubes. One location charged the NBC4 undercover producer for a new fuel filter, but after the visit NBC4 found the old filter was still in the car.”

“Four more Jiffy Lubes charged NBC4 for transmission flushes, supposedly using a high tech machine. But the machines just sat there, and the flushes were never done.”

NBC4 also got this quote from a Jiffy Lube Manager:

“This stuff happens all over,” a current Jiffy Lube manager in the Chicago area tells NBC4. He asked NBC4 to protect his identity. He says some Jiffy Lubes in Chicago routinely charge for work that’s not done. “The customer is never going to know,” he tells NBC4, He also claims employees sometimes even damage customers cars “Blowing up engines, transmissions, stripping bolts.”