CHEAPCLIX.NET

Apparently.

This is a very astute comment made by “bildo69″ on the Star Tribune web site.

Pretty Sad how the whistleblower wanted severance

He (Steven Keough) was a whistleblower, claiming he knew it was a criminal enterprise, but he was demanding a severance paid by illicitly gained funds?

No matter how you cut it -  no matter the outcome for iNetGlobal in the USA Court - innocent or guilty, Steven Keough committed a crime.  In his short tenure at iNetGlobal, he learned ONE OF THREE POSSIBILITIES, AND THOSE POSSIBILITIES ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

1)  Keough learned little or nothing about iNetGlobal, therefore could make no determination of guilt versus innocence.

or

2)  Keough learned plenty about iNetGlobal, and the fact that they have valuable and powerful internet marketing products and services, and make real profits, thus making it a lie to accuse the company of a Ponzi Scheme.

or

3) Keough learned plenty about iNetGlobal, to the extent that he could make a judgment that he could blow the whistle and convince the USA Government that it is a Ponze Scheme.

__________________________________________________________________

Assume for a minute that #1, above, is correct.  Then Keough commited a crime.  As acting CEO, Keough had the opportunity and the responsibility to learn more, to work on fixing the areas that might be of concern to him, and to help people throughout the organization understand the importance of knowing about the products.  After all, one of the big concerns was and is (to the iNetGlobal critics) that there were lots of non-English-speaking members.  Keough represented to the iNetGlobal members and staff that he was fluent in Chinese.  Also, remember, the iNetGlobal web site has the option available to be read in Chinese.  His crimes, given Possibility #1 –  plentiful, not the least of which is dereliction of duty.

Now let’s assume that Possibility #2 is correct.  The obvious conclusion, given this is correct, then Keough lied to the USA Government.

Finally, let’s assume that Possibility #3 is correct.  Give this possibility, then Keough is obviously guilty of the crime of attempting to extract, or extort, “illicitly gained funds”, –  a point so aptly declared by “bildo69″ with his comment on the Star Tribune blog.

Unless I am missing something, a criminal case against Steven Keough appears to be an “open and shut” no-brainer.

Thanks for visiting! If you haven't already done so and would like, please subscribe to this blog so I can keep you up to date on all current activities.

inetglobal blow whistle ponzi scheme, criminal case steven keough no brainer, ineternet marketing products services, inetglobal comments star tribune, inetglobal ponzi scheme, inetglobal star tribune, inetglobal usa court innocent or guilty, inetglobal valuable powerful internet products, is steven keough criminal, keough demanding severence illicitly gained funds, keough extort extortion inetglobal illicit funds, lie inetglobal ponzi scheme, no brainer case steven keough inetglobal, ponzi scheme whistleblower, star tribune blog, star tribune com, star tribune web site, steven keough ceo inetglobal, steven keough criminal enterprise, steven keough dereliction duties, steven keough inetglobal case, steven keough whistleblower whistle blower, whistleblower wanted severance criminal enterprise