Social Tool Kit Scammed Me!

Not really sure what to make of this. after conversing with Blair yesterday about this. Hhe has stated that he is no longer representing Bloosky, but as of 6/11/2010 he filed this on behalf of them...

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2009cv01068/73157/52/

Sent him another email... so it continues.

OK, I received a response from Blair Jackson concerning the allegations that he is Bloosky's attorney. Read the email trail below:

I acted as their registered agent.   I was never a managing member or listed as one.  I don’t know where that came from.  This reporter called my phone around 4 pm one day, and left a message.  By the time I called him back the next day the story had already ran.  I did not have a chance to correct his mistake.  We also operate a Nevada office, I was listed on the Nevada site as the registered agent.

Christiansen & Jackson, P.C.
Attorneys at Law

From: Vernon S. Howard
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:51 PM
To: 'Blair Jackson'
Subject: RE: Please explain...

OK, what about this excerpt from the Salt lake City Tribune…

Taken from the Salt Lake City Tribune…

According to the Google lawsuit, Bloosky promised “$200-$907 per day to anyone with a computer and basic typing skills” and used the Google name and logo to help persuade people to give up their credit card numbers.

Bloosky’s company registration in Nevada lists Blair Jackson of South Jordan as its managing member. He also is listed as the manager on the company’s Utah registration.

Jackson, an attorney, did not return a voice mail left on his office answering machine. Numbers listed for Bloosky in Provo were answered by a recording saying they were temporarily unavailable.

According to allegations made in a lawsuit filed in Illinois, Pacific WebWorks, Bloosky Interactive and Intermark Communications of New York worked together with marketing campaigns that included fake news articles and blogs to drive customers to websites that took their credit card numbers. Revenues were shared by the companies, according to the lawsuit.

Intermark and Pacific WebWorks have denied the allegations in the Illinois lawsuit. Bloosky has yet to respond. At least three other proposed class action lawsuits are pending against Pacific WebWorks.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/49686325-79/google-pacific-webworks-bell.html.csp

Best regards,

Vernon S. Howard

From: Blair Jackson
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:31 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Please explain...

Vernon

This is an easy explanation.  I provided legal services to Bloosky about a year ago.  Bloosky is a network provider. This is where I learned about what was going on.

I did not misrepresent anything to you.  I told you I had experience in the industry.  the experience came from the representation …. And seeing first hand what the advertisers were doing.

I am not an owner nor was I ever an owner of bloosky.

I never worked for them as an employee.

I was their attorney.

Pacweb’s choice to throw bloosky  under the bus is a really interesting one, but it will not stand.  Watch how it plays out.  You will see where it comes down.

But that does not compromise me on anything.  Instead, it gave me the inside scoop.

Christiansen & Jackson, P.C.
Attorneys at Law

From: Vernon S. Howard
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:42 PM
To: 'Blair Jackson'
Subject: Please explain...
Importance: High

http://www.socialtoolkitscammed.me/tag/christiansen-jackson/

I hope you have a good reason for misrepresenting yourself to me.

Best regards,

Vernon S. Howard

Thanks to the Strangely Perfect blog.

Click to enlarge

What pisses me off is that he lied to me... when I questioned him on his part of forming these companies (see image to right) he said that as a attorney he did do business filings for corporations and they now know that those corporations were doing some shady stuff and that they were going after them.

I contacted Mr. Jackson, we'll see what he has to say about this.

Update: Read my email exchange with Mr. Jackson.

Bloosky.com and The lawyer

PWW and Bloosky, were both named by Google, and Bloosky were (and still are) represented by Blair Jackson, who is a lawyer and on the company payroll of Bloosky in various positions.  (See at the bottom of here).

On checking out Mr Jackson, he’s part of:

CHRISTIANSEN & JACKSON, P.C.
10421 S. Jordan Gateway, Suite 600
South Jordan, Utah 84095
Telephone 801.576.2662
Facsimile 801.415.9340
Attorneys for Defendant Bloosky Interactive, LLC

You can see this on some delaying action in the Google case by Jackson for Bloosky, documents here and here.  But it gets better…   In this document, you’ll see that Bloosky are suing someone called Daniel L. Balsam for not adhering to an earlier agreement not to disclose what was said… or something. (I’ve yet to check this through!  But it looks a bit like pot-kettle-black to me…)

Whatever.

Read full post from the Strangely Perfect Blog

Taken from the Salt Lake City Tribune...

According to the Google lawsuit, Bloosky promised “$200-$907 per day to anyone with a computer and basic typing skills” and used the Google name and logo to help persuade people to give up their credit card numbers.

Bloosky’s company registration in Nevada lists Blair Jackson of South Jordan as its managing member. He also is listed as the manager on the company’s Utah registration.

Jackson, an attorney, did not return a voice mail left on his office answering machine. Numbers listed for Bloosky in Provo were answered by a recording saying they were temporarily unavailable.

According to allegations made in a lawsuit filed in Illinois, Pacific WebWorks, Bloosky Interactive and Intermark Communications of New York worked together with marketing campaigns that included fake news articles and blogs to drive customers to websites that took their credit card numbers. Revenues were shared by the companies, according to the lawsuit.

Intermark and Pacific WebWorks have denied the allegations in the Illinois lawsuit. Bloosky has yet to respond. At least three other proposed class action lawsuits are pending against Pacific WebWorks.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/49686325-79/google-pacific-webworks-bell.html.csp