Check the China Trade Commission Fraud Black List BEFORE Doing Overseas Biz

[Due Diligence]

Originally Posted by CTC IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO SLANDEROUS COMMENTS MADE BY DUE DILIGENCE A.K.A. INTERESTNG OBSERVER, AND MYSTERY GUEST, THE CHINA TRADE COMMISSION HEREBY RESPONDS AS FOLLOWS: My name is Kevin Tyler, the Operations Manager at the Beijing Office of the China Trade Commission and I have been duly-authorized by our board of directors and legal counsel to announce and clarify the following: . . . . 5. Our investigative work is confidential of course, but others have already documented some of our cases at these posts below, one of which was a pretty substantial case in China of an American who swindled more than $15 million USD from small business owners over a five year period before we exposed him with Scam Patrol International in 2009 and 2010. scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites (Peter Kwan) Fake! scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites (Scam Patrol) Fake! scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites (Fred the Fed) refers to scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites (CTC Beijing) Fake! scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites (YinYang) Fake! scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites (YinYang) Fake!

Yeah, if anyone is still not convinced that the China Trade Commission is fake, notice how they cited fake posts from fake profiles for the evidence of their exploits. Those are called shills. Remember this post by a scam.com moderator: scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites

Chuck_In_China 124.68.0.99 CTC-BEIJING 124.68.0.99 Peter Kwan 124.68.0.99 Scam Patrol 124.68.0.99 YinYang 124.68.0.99 are all posting from the same internet address, meaning they are all just one person, who should not be believed.

Now look at this little treatise put out by China Trade Commission:
A Guide To Cyberspace Due Diligence For Dummies - China Trade Commission, due diligence, fraud

and read this part:

8. Multiple identity bashing. Just as scammers use shills to bolster their false image on-line, those looking to smear a competitor will often create several internet IDs to generate false complaints or more phony allegations to make it appear that many people share the same views or mean spirit of the original poster caught in a dilemma of not being able to prove his accusations. Only those very familiar with analyzing IP addresses can catch these clever clowns in the act.

Yeah, well I guess the scam.com moderator was familiar enough to analyze IP addresses and tell that China Trade Commission was using "shills to bolster [its] false image on-line"! As far as a "competitor" creating several internet IDs to generate false complaints, we haven't seen any evidence of that, just a lot of posts from shills, just like a scammer. There is more information here: 419 Advance Fee Fraud: Anthony Demarco / Dimarco / Gorcyca and the China Trade Commission Scam

[Not Today]

Originally Posted by PleaseNThankYou Any knowledgeable lawyers out there? If so please comment on my friend (From the U.K. who visited U.S. Embassy in Beijing and got detained for 12 hours only to be questioned about someone she met 5 years ago related to an immigration warrant. While she was detained for questioning she was not allowed to us a telephne and as a result nobody was able to pick up her 4 year from Kindergarten. U.S. embassy official said they could do anything they wanted since he claimed once you walk through the embassey gate, you are technically on U.S. soil. Then I found this on the Internet... Is an embassy on foreign soil the sovereign territory of the host country or the embassy's country? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers Is an embassy on foreign soil the sovereign territory of the host country or the embassy's country? Thus, if, for example, you are in the British embassy in Beijing, are you in China or the UK? Are you subject to British or Chinese law? by dognhors... Member since:03 June 2006Total points:28,118 (Level 7) Best Answer - Chosen by Asker Oh, good grief. Here we go again. Contrary to popular perception and a lot of careless news reporting, embassies are the sovereign territory of the country in which they are located, NOT of the country whose diplomatic mission is housed there. That is why an office building can host an embassy on some floors and, say, a bank on others. The reason for the misperception is probably that the Vienna Convention states that the local government foreswears the right to enter an embassy, and diplomatic immunity protects the diplomats working inside. However, this does not mean that that space is somehow transmuted into UK (or other) soil or legal territory for purposes of law enforcement. Imagine, if a person should enter the British embassy and kill someone, who do you think will arrest him? Correct answer: the Chinese police. They cannot enter the embassy without the Ambassador's permission, but with that permission they will go in, take away the miscreant, and then try him in Chinese court under Chinese law. Or else the embassies security officers will deliver him to them outside the embassy gate. Imagine, if you can, the utter nonsense of the fellow being hustled onto an airplane and flown to London for trial. Source(s): I am a US diplomat and consular officer. Here is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Notice the absence of claim that an embassy is the sovereign territory of the country that occupies it, only that the embassy is protected, see article 22 and on. http://www.un.int/usa/host_dip.htm How does one sue an embassy for such onerous behaviour that stressed out their entire family?

I was looking for the guy who said you could not sue an embassy. Anyway this article at this link shows that you CAN indeed sue an embassy. But my guess is that it will cost you a fortune! GOOD LUCK and be sure to post the results here so we can see how you made out! I will check back in 2 years (chuckle ;-))

Lawsuit filed against Israeli embassy in Jordan

"The Jordanian public prosecutor has launched an investigation after a Jordanian woman has filed a lawsuit against Israel’s ambassador in Jordan after she was detained and criminally abducted.

According to the indictment, excerpts of which have been published by Jordan’s Al-Ghad newspaper, several of the embassy’s employees detained the woman, also an employee, for 24 hours and used psychological pressure to elicit confessions on a former female employee at the embassy who was involved in a corruption scandal.

The prosecutor has confirmed that the woman endured psychological pressure while detained and questioned and was also threatened to be abducted.

‘’No one in Jordanian soil may abuse or restrict its citizens’ freedoms,’’ Shakir al-Abadi, the woman’s lawyer, stated, citing the Jordanian constitution.

It marks the first time a lawsuit has been filed against the Israeli embassy in Amman since the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace was signed in 1993."

[IFIC]

Your logic is impeccable as you post your following statements in a free forum where you can say anything you want and it doesn't have to be the truth. Give me a break Mr.

Name a fraud, produce a victim, a valid complaint, some evidence of a crime would be helpful as well. It seems like you must have had some previous contact or experience with the CTC if you are so hell bent on smearing them. There is a tremendously bias tone in your baseless accusations.

Originally Posted by Due Diligence Well that's the problem with free press releases, you can say anything you want and it doesn't have to be the truth. The China Trade Commission claims that is being smeared, actually, what it is concerned about are its claims being scrutinized. In the free press release just printed, CTC claim that their site was hacked by someone whose IP address was traced to Vancouver, Washington. If you read one of the links they site: scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites they specifically state that the hacker's IP was traced to: "5 miles from the below registered address of Mystery Guest in Vancouver, Washington. P.O. Box 821650 Vancouver, WA 98682 US" So this supposed hacker lives in a post office box? Complete with electricity and internet access? Ironically, enough, the address of this hacker is an address used by Privacy Post which offers a service that shields the contact information of domain registrants. How credible does that sound? Well it doesn't have to be because its a free press release. Looking at the links on scams - report the scam here they cite, you see CTC and its supporters claim that CTC has done many things in the area of anti-fraud. They cite many links to media stories as evidence.. However, none of those stores mention the CTC. CTC also claims that it had a .cn domain for 7 years but moved their domain to its present location because it was constantly blocked by the Chinese government. Their evidence of this are links to stories that state that China has a history of blocking certain websites and doesn't like whistelblowers. None of the stories say that China blocked CTC's .cn domain or what that domain was. So you are simply supposed to take those posters word as truth? 1. What is the fraud or scam committed by the CTC. Stating that they have been doing due diligence since 1996 and implying that they were created by the Clinton Administration, when in reality, their websites were both registered in July of 2011, by a Canadian investor group. Why would someone pay $5,000 for membership in, or hundreds of dollars for access to debtor databases, or due diligence reports from an organization that had been in business three months? Well not many, which might explain why "CTC" claims to have been around since 1996 when there is no independent evidence of this. Claiming you have been in business since 1996 when you have been in business for three months would be a fraud and/or a scam. 2. If they are doing something wrong, why is there no evidence of any victim or complaint? Just because there is no complaints of fraud, doesn't mean a fraud isn't being committed. It only means nobody has fallen for the fraud yet or nobody has come forward. The website has been up only three months. 3. Why is someone trying to get all their press releases deleted with phony abuse reports (which we confirmed in our own little investigation)? Well that's interesting, the poster is actually part of China Trade Commission, not an independent party? What investigation did they conduct? What website honors a false abuse report? Anyway, CTC's press releases are all self-serving, promotional, unverified and most are simply false. Every website that circulates free press releases clearly states that they simply print what the company submits and doesn't verify it. So one would not be diligent if they acted based on what a free press release states or what other posters vouch for. Do you your own research, scrutinize the evidence and make your own assessment.

[Due Diligence]

There is nothing baseless about my accusations and you would see that if you bothered to read the thread. Go to 419 Advance Fee Fraud: Anthony Demarco / Dimarco / Gorcyca and the China Trade Commission Scam and the case is set out in excruciating detail, but don't take my word for it, and I'm sure you won't. You are posting on a free forum as well, so I guess nobody should pay attention to what you have to say?

[Sherlock Holmes]

A T T E N T I O N::::: M O D E R A T O R S ! ! ! ! ! !

Hello are their any mods out there? This Due Diligence Guy just keeps posting the same crap over and over again. He made his point over a dozen times and now is just spamming his message. Whether he is right or wrong, enough is enough already! I think he may be advertising for another forum called 419 at our expense. I think an example should be made of this spammer and have him deleted and banned if he doesn't give up what can be only one of two things 1) Spam or 2) A Smear job.

[Due Diligence]

Another fake profile Anthony? Maybe the mods should investigate the fact that you keep putting up fake profiles using the same IP address?

Remember this post by a scam.com moderator: scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites

Chuck_In_China 124.68.0.99 CTC-BEIJING 124.68.0.99 Peter Kwan 124.68.0.99 Scam Patrol 124.68.0.99 YinYang 124.68.0.99 are all posting from the same internet address, meaning they are all just one person, who should not be believed

Now who started referencing posts on another forum. Well your fake profiles did. So I guess you were advertising scam.com? Unfortunately, the evidence against China Trade Commission is so long it can't just fit in posts so it has to be linked, now of course you had no problem linking to post on another forum, did you?

[Raji In Beijing]

Originally Posted by Due Diligence Another fake profile Anthony? Maybe the mods should investigate the fact that you keep putting up fake profiles using the same IP address? Remember this post by a scam.com moderator: scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites Now who started referencing posts on another forum. Well your fake profiles did. So I guess you were advertising scam.com? Unfortunately, the evidence against China Trade Commission is so long it can't just fit in posts so it has to be linked, now of course you had no problem linking to post on another forum, did you?

Concerning the above post, I actually went to Scam.com and checked out the link by "Mumbles" who is NOT a moderator, but rather a "Senior Member" and I do not think a senior member would have access to other people's IP addresses. And even if they did, it does not matter in China because of their unique security monitoring that gives the same IP addresses to thousands of foreigners every day, as explained at this link...

Are Chinese IP Addresses Dynamic or Static?

I was also checking out the other posts of that thread and now I think that there is some personal vendetta or war being waged here between someone exposed and the the people who exposed him. I refer to these three posts...

scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites


scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites


scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites

Actually this entire thread pretty much explains all the passion and anger from both sides. It starts about half way down page 1 with post number 27 from "Chuck_In_China"...

List of Scam Websites

It really doesn't matter because your warning about the CTC is based on what you think may happen in the future because as of today, there are no complaints filed against the China Trade Commission from what I can see. I mean, does anyone know of any victims? I cannot find a single one.

[Due Diligence]

Well, this "Senior Member" obviously had access to the IP addresses or he wouldn't have listed them. The allegation that China has a "unique security monitoring that gives the same IP addresses to thousands of foreigners every day" is just too silly to even respond to. And of course you would cite to a post on scam.com as hard evidence of this, from a profile you most likely put up. Of course, I would expect nothing less from you Anthony! When one person is posting from the same IP address, on five different profiles, the profiles were set up by the same person, in an effort to deceive people into thinking they are separate entities, like "Chuck_In_China". and that applies to China just like every other country. So when you analyze what those profiles said, and look at the totality of the evidence, it becomes clear that China Trade Commission is a fake and has never exposed anybody because they only exist on a website, free press releases, and multiple fake profiles. Apparently, you are foolish enough to believe the obviously profile, "Mystery Guest."

Now, of course there are people who might have a vendetta against scammers, especially ones that put up fake profiles and put out fake press releases, me I just try to warn people about them. 419 Advance Fee Fraud: Anthony Demarco / Dimarco / Gorcyca and the China Trade Commission Scam

[IFIC]

So anyone can set up a profile and say that he is a private investigator and give people advice or smear someone else? Ok thanks for the advice. I will definitely look into this deeper.

Originally Posted by Due Diligence You don't read very well, as I told you previously, anybody can set up a profile and say that he is a private investigator and that doesn't mean he actually is! Only a fool would simply take your word or Scam Patrol or Bandit-Buster's posted words as fact when they can't be verified. You could be a 10 years old taking a break from his X-Box, a bored felon on home release, even CTC for that matter. I'm certainly not foolish enough to simply believe that some poster is what he claims to be and take their posts as truth and I don't think anyone else is. I'm starting to think that Fred the Fed, Scam Patrol and Bandit Buster are all one person and who would be able to tell, but I don't really care. I'm just concerned with verifiable facts. What was the name of the old .cn domain/website? That would be a fact! I asked that question of you before. I asked it of China Chic and other posters here who post that they remember visiting the site. Nobody remembers its name. How ironic, because that is the one thing that would be verifiable. You are supposed to be a former federal agent and a private investigator and you can't remember the domain name of a website you supposedly visited frequently? You had a 45 minute talk with "Kevin" from CTC, but you didn't ask him the name of the "old .cn domain"? Why didn't you just Skype him again and get the name of it or has he forgotten it also? The simple conclusion is, it doesn't exist. An attorney using a free email address? Yes, that would be reliable. How many scam emails have I received telling me that I need to consult a barrister or attorney using a free email address? Sure, don't do you own investigation, just email this guy and you can trust what he emails you back. Well that shows your detective credentials. Because I tell visitors to this forum that they should perform basic due diligence on a company before giving them their money I must be vengeful scammer, dishonorable competitor or a hacker. Your professional opinion, sure assuming you are a private investigator which is at this point is a huge leap! So this "Mystery Guest" hacked it CTC's website? According to who exactly? Oh, CTC of course. We can believe everything they say in their free press release! From what I can see, That free press release is a joke. Let's look at it: "CTC has simultaneously been targeted for slanderous comments made by an anonymous poster on various fraud forums." An anonymous poster? All posters are anonymous. I mean some can say they are "John Doe", from "Pokonow" but since anything they can say cannot be verified, they are anonymous. And "slanderous" comments? What? That China Trade Commission's domain was registered in July 2011 when the claim to have been created in 1996? Domain registration is public information and CTC itself states that they were created in 1996. Oh, and their website was hacked! "Today, Paul Zhang the Public Affairs Director of the CTC revealed that a malicious hacker with IP addresses traced to the Vancouver, Washington area was caught hacking into the web site" Well that doesn't say much for GoDaddy's hosting if its that easy to hack into it. I won't use them for hosting services. I would have thought someone with enough skills to hack into a website would at least hide their IP address. The press release has an interesting link. scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites This was apparently posted by Scam Patrol which coincidentally is also involved in this controversy. It says, among other things, “...suddenly Kevin tells me they are getting over 5,000 spam emails a day and VOIP calls every 2 minutes from autodialers originating from two IP addresses that are located less than 5 miles from the below registered address of Mystery Guest in Vancouver, Washington. P.O. Box 821650 Vancouver, WA 98682 US" So, let me get this straight, CTC traced these IP addresses to within 5 miles of a post office box in Vancouver, WA? So that's how they figured out who the "hacker" was! He lives in a post office box? With internet, power and indoor plumbing? I wonder how they get the idea that this was "Mystery Guest's" registered address in the first place? I'm still wondering, because I Googled the address and apparently it belongs to Privacy Post! Again, you don't bother to read. For starters pressbox.co.uk is a free press release. eNotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More. doesn't even mention the China Trade Commission. All the news items you site say CTC put on children's shows so in 2009, let's say 2008 just for arguments sake. So what? How does that prove that they were created in 1996? It doesn't. How does that prove that they do due diligence? It doesn't! Only anonymous posters like yourself and your friends, and CTC's website and its free press releases say they do due diligence. It's ironic that you call me a clown because from what I can see, CTC is in the clown business and that's about it. Nothing I have to say is gossip, assumptions or innuendo. I have been very clear. Who am means nothing, just as who you claim you are means nothing. Hey, I'm a former federal investigator, I'm an investment banker, I'm a private investigator, I'm a former LAPD detective, who cares what I say I am or who you or your buddies say you are, it can't be verified so its meaningless. We're all anonymous posters. If you read back in the thread, you'll see I answered your questions. Do I know if there is a legal complaint about them, no but I haven't done any research because it doesn't matter. I also know that there are many scammers who never caught or sued and they are still scammers. Somebody asked me about China Trade Commission because they had never heard of it and he saw this thread - China Trade Commission is a SCAM - chinatradecommission.org chinatradecommission.com - Fraudwatchers So I looked into it and this is what I've found, which anybody can find. 1. China Trade Commission registered two domains in July 9, 2011. It claims to have been created in 1996 and claims to have been doing due diligence since that time yet the only independent news item about states it did children's shows in 2009. 2. There are a bunch of anonymous posters on this forum and on scams - report the scam here that claim China Trade Commission had a .cn domain for 7 years prior to registering the current domain, but nobody names it, even though they state that they have visited it many times and know CTC so well. There is no record of China Trade Commission of ever having a .cn domain on the internet or anywhere else for that matter.. 3. There website was suspended for copyright infringement and they have misrepresented images of other people as images of their staff. 4. China Trade Commission put out one very incredulous press release accusing someone who expressed skepticism about them of hacking into their website. This person apparently accomplished this feat from his alleged registered address which is a post office, in Vancouver, Washington, an address which ironically enough also belongs to Privacy Post. I guess they'll soon accuse me of doing the same thing soon enough.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Before I weigh in on this self-created controversy which in the end, is just a very clever, elaborate, and malicious on-line smear job, I have to share a bit of my background with you so you understand how and why I know some of what I will say here… I am a white hat hacker (*******) who finds security flaws in networks on a B2B basis. For those who don’t know the difference between white and black hat hackers, please see this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/co...-hackers_N.htm

I am also a licensed private investigator registered in Nevada, California, and Arizona since 2002, 2003 and 2005 respectively, but do most of my work consulting on network security matters and last year, began doing investigative work related to IP theft via hacking after this report made corporate America wake up and smell the coffee:

http://www.uscc.gov/researchpaper/2009/NorthropGrumman_PRC_Cyber_Paper_FINAL_Approved%20R eport_16Oct2009.pdf

'White hat' hackers in demand - USATODAY.com

I have been posting at Scam.com for over a year – 9 months before these false allegations erupted. I have posted on other similar forums for over five years. I have no interest in, nor relations with the China Trade Commission, nor with anyone else who appears as a poster in this on-line dispute.

Now why do people smear one another on the internet? The motives are always one of three… 1) Envy, 2) Revenge, or 3) Commercial Sabotage, and of course because it is sooooo easy to do it – anonymously.

Now having introduced myself, let me say this… Any hacker worth his salt (even a semi-amateur) can fabricate anything on-line and make it appear to be believable for a variety of motives – including to maliciously tarnish a party’s reputation. Others have already given examples and I will only confirm that I could, if I had a grudge and wanted to extract some revenge, make anyone look like a criminal on-line. And like the hacker who was exposed by his own former employee at these links:

scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites

scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites

· I would first create a bogus but believable resume that would contain at least 10% to 20% truthful information so that something would actually check out if checked, and then fill it with other information that I could then build “incidents” or “coincidences” around. After all, people who check out the 10% that is true, will likely assume the rest must also be true (human nature). If I was especially mean and cruel I would include a few lines like “rehabilitated and dry for over 5 years” or “successfully completed probation,” or “married 3 times”, or “achieved early release from prison for good behavior.” Or I could even make false employment histories appear on the on-line resume and then accuse and then publicly accuse him/her about lying on their resume! To see how gullible and naïve people can be about accepting on-line resumes as genuine, see this outrageous but very real link:

http://creativecriminals.com/tag/elba/

· I then find a person with the same or similar name that has some public record of criminal activity. For example, I want to smear John Doe in Hoboken (fictitious person), so I look for another John Doe in New Jersey or even elsewhere (about the same age and race) who has a criminal record or online complaints of some misdeed. I will now create a trail of phony incidents and “coincidences” linking these two people. It will become extremely believable if I can find and use some government agency links that talk about John Doe the criminal. Newspaper articles are even better. Most people will not even think to ask for a middle name, date of birth or photograph to verify they are one in the same “John Doe”.

· I would then use hundreds of free ad, dating, and job sites, free classified ads and dozens of free news release sites to upload a dozen or so ads or “press releases” that I myself could create and link them to the person in the fabricated resume – in a negative fashion. Keep in mind that as a hacker, I know how to back-date any on-line document and I can also upload any photograph, real or cut and pasted from some other legitimate source, or use photoshop and create whatever I like or need to support my fraud. In this case it appears that a photo was scanned from some old magazine article (look at wrinkles in photograph) and inserted into the phony resume. Why? Because it was actually cut and pasted from a 2002 CTC Newsletter!

· I could even create false posts of other people in the same thread without their knowledge, and even claim to be a moderator since most moderators are volunteers who cannot possibly check and read every posting. If you research on-line forums you will see that 90% of those who post only do so, one or two times while 5% are veterans and the other 5% are occasional visitors.

· After I do all of the above, I would then create multiple identities and spread the rumors to other forums and to spread the same lies posing as someone else as this hacker has done. He is known as “Due Diligence”, “Mystery Guest”, and “Shuecraft “ at other forums. At one forum he even gave himself the title of “Senior Member” after posting only for 5 days to give himself false credibility.

· If I am exposed or caught in a lie, I would call my accusers “shills” or simply resort to red herrings that would confuse people so much that they would stop reading and checking and simply assume that since I write so much, I must know what I am talking about.

Now being able to do all of the above (and a lot more that I shall not reveal now as I do not want to give more ideas to malicious minds), I can use all three of the above FALSE FABRICATIONS and weave an elaborate smear story line that will appear to be quite believable especially when there are simply so many “coincidences” (that I myself created!). By themselves, each “coincidence” may be harmless information, but if I am creative and devious, I would find a way to link the “coincidence” to suggest something really shady or sinister.

And if someone finds on-line documents that contradict or disprove my story line, I also know how to delete or break the link of that inconvenient source and can do so by corrupting the html code (like deleting a single character of the string or filing a dales abuse or spam report)

Disproving a lie is very difficult on line and the more people try to deny it the worse they often look. As someone else asked in this thread… “If someone asked you on line “Are you still beating your wife John”, how could you possibly reply without looking like a jerk? How can you disprove an event that never took place? Could a husband ever disprove to his wife that he slept with a non-existent woman?

Granted, all of this would take at least one or two days of fabrication and postings but if someone was passionate about getting revenge like this fellow Interesting Observer/Due Diligence, it is quite easy. Remember this hacker was exposed by the CTC and got his source of considerable income cut-off and his IP addresses banned and black-listed at all the favorite on line phishing holes (Alibaba, Trade-Key, Made-In-China, Kijiji, etc. so clearly the hacker has a very big ax to grind. See these links:

scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites

scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites

Disproving an on-line smear job is expensive and takes a long time for the party that is falsely accused and by the time they clear themselves the damage has already been done in terms of lost business, and even friends who are “shocked”. In this case however I see a lot of BS that a person of average intelligence should be able to pick up on.

· First there is a glaring absence of any real victim of any real fraud. All frauds and scams create victims who lose something of value – usually money. There are no known victims of the CTC – anywhere (See this link:

scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites or do your own search)

· Most all on-line scams require the use of credit cards or Western Union to perpetrate a fraud. The China Trade Commission does not ask for either.

· The hacker who is making all the allegations uses identities that were all recently created in the last 4-6 weeks AFTER he was listed on the CTC black list

(See this link: Black List ).

After others who have been posting on line for more than a year caught him in various lies, he ran off to another forum to start another thread where he would not be challenged with any inconvenient questions or arguments.

· The hacker has changed his arguments and story-line 6 times at Scam.com and if anyone starts reading the posts there starting at post 27 and scrolling down will see the forest from the trees. You’’ll see that his smear starts with CTC’s dates of origination, to copyright infringement, to photographs, to then trying to confuse identities when he cannot put his finger on a single victim or identify the actual fraud he is alleging. Go to post no. 27 of this thread when you have an hour to read all the arguments and just scroll down for all the unedited comments:

List of Scam Websites

The hacker was caught deleting more than 30 on-line ads and press releases of the CTC that go back many years Here are some links that he could apparently not hack into:

Expat kids get the chance to connect with Santa

http://www.wanguoqunxing.com/cms8/mo...rticle&sid=600

China Trade Commission holds 5th Annual Technology Symposium in Beijing | PRLog

China Trade Commission Offers $10,000 Reward To Expose Charity Scams - Beijing Today Events

China Trade Commission Free Seminar - Beijing - Events Community | City Weekend Guide

China Trade Commission Opens Beijing Office | PRLog

ScandAsia.Com - Expat Kids Get the Chance to Connect With Santa

Why would the hacker make these deletions? To remove anything that disproved his false allegations! As you yourself can see from the above links as well as this “community link” on the CTC’s web site,

Community

the CTC has donated hundreds of hours and considerable money to fund various kids activities in China for many years. Is this typical of a scam operation?

· The hacker who claims the CTC was only formed in 2011 was unable to delete news archives and similar links like this one that go back to 2008 and 2009:

China Trade Commission Opens Beijing Office | PRLog

And he simply ignores posts from others who say otherwise, or calls them “Liars” or “shills” – the only convenient solution. He also forgot to delete this link as well which exposed his scheme in the early stage of its production when first caught, apparently by the hosting company or webmaster:

China Trade Commission Victim Of Cyber Smear Scam By Vengeful Hacker Fraud

· In post no 69 of this thread our hacker friend spews forth so many allegations ”supported” by links that he assumes people will be too busy to check out. I checked out these links and half of them do not say what he claims, and the others prove nothing – especially since most of them were obviously self-created by the accuser! He cites many phone numbers that are false, belong to other people, out of service, or always go to an answering machine. He selected these numbers for his fabrication after confirming that if anyone actually bothered to call, they would be able to confirm NOTHING and his claims could not be disproved. Quite convenient yes? Here is post 69:

scams - View Single Post - List of Scam Websites

· In the end, when no actual fraud or victim could be identified, our hacker resorts only to confusing identities (an attempt at “guilt by association) and at first he says the CTC Director was “wanted” then “released from prison in 2008”. Various people then posted news releases and witnesses proving the man was living and working in Shanghai/Beijing China since 2005. So the hacker was directly asked to provide the source of his information and name the jail from where the man was supposedly released. He refused to do so because he realized that if he gave a name of jail, that jail if contacted, would deny his claims.

Likewise, Interpol database searches indicate that no person by any name put forth by the accuser is wanted for any crime – anywhere. See for yourself at this link:

Wanted Persons / Internet / Home - INTERPOL

Further, if he had the right guy he would be able to produce arrests records that indicate dates of birth, mug shots, scars, tattoos, etc. Also, when people are arrested, the first step of being prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced, a mugs shot is required, and this information is public information. Go to this link:

www.mugshots.com

and you will not find any mugshot for the CTC’s Director.

If you read the above threads this hacker was asked by four different people to produce this documentary evidence and he was unable to do so.: He then alleged that the CTC director was on the “ICC blacklist”, but the ICC admits on-line that they have never even had such a blacklist! See this link:

ICC-CCS refutes bogus blacklists.

You can also visit this fugitive database which searches the most current consolidated files of 32 International law enforcements agencies including the FBI, U.S. Marshals, Interpol, Homeland Security, ICE, DEA, and Scotland Yard. None of the names that our hacker friends claims are wanted shows up here either:

Most Wanted FUGITIVE SEARCH

Also, none of the names provided appear on either the FBI’s nor U.S. Marshal’s fugitive lists, as can also be verified on line at these government links:

FBI — Be part of the solution. and

U.S. Marshals Service, Profiled Fugitives

These are FACTS – not opinions, assumptions, or allegations. The hacker who claims to know so much about the CTC’s director did not even know his middle name, date of birth, citizenship, passport no., or even that he has lived in Shanghai since 2006.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST DUE TO LENGTH RESTRICTIONS...