PM me if interested in joining potential class action suit v. Neteller

JPT III · #1 02-02-2007, 01:40 AM

I am in talks with a prominent NYC law firm that specializes in plaintiff class action suits (I practice with a much smaller firm). Although we are still in the evaluation process, we may soon need plaintiffs in order to file suit. Please PM me if interested, particularly if you have a large sum of money stuck in Neteller.

justscott · #2 02-02-2007, 01:42 AM

What are you sueing them for? Did they run off with the money already?

JPT III · #3 02-02-2007, 01:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What are you sueing them for? Did they run off with the money already?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're kidding, right? I would proffer that the moment a party entrusted with another's money refuses to return such money to its rightful owner -- after demand for the return of the money has been made, the custodian of the money has "run off with the money." Moreover, some might argue that here, Neteller's admission that its retention of US customers' money remains indefinite, further emboldens this point.

It is not appropriate for me to discuss specific substantive legal issues in any great detail, however, on this public forum. PM me if you have been affected and wish to discuss.

justscott · #4 02-02-2007, 01:56 AM

You used so many big words there let me read slowly oh ok got it. Question if the US gov is stopping them from returning it then what should they do send carrier pigeons..

cardcounter0 · #5 02-02-2007, 01:59 AM

Well to strengthen the case, they should answer the phone, turn the live chat on, unlock the accounts, allow the peer-to-peer transfers, or at least let you know when the carrier pigeons are coming.

justscott · #6 02-02-2007, 02:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Well to strengthen the case, they should answer the phone, turn the live chat on, unlock the accounts, allow the peer-to-peer transfers, or at least let you know when the carrier pigeons are coming.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally and they should also give us that secret list of non-gambling merchants. I was just making sarcastic post after seeing his prominent law firm remark etc.. I mean nothing can be done till something has been done.

train. · #7 02-02-2007, 02:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You used so many big words there let me read slowly oh ok got it. Question if the US gov is stopping them from returning it then what should they do send carrier pigeons..

[/ QUOTE ]

I've stayed out of these debates because I'm not affected by it. But exactly where does it say

[ QUOTE ]
the US gov is stopping them from returning it

[/ QUOTE ] , other than what NT says. I'm not saying that's not the case, I don't know.

But if the gov is stopping them from paying people their money, why did they have to wait until the two ex hounchos were arrested to stop it?

Is it a complete waste of time to search for ways to force the issue?

[Phill] · #8 02-02-2007, 02:01 AM

Lol, you have no case.

NY Law Firm: Hello, prominant law firm
You: I want to bring a class action suit against an off shore company which was used to launder money for me to an illegal offshore gambling company as defined by the US Dept of Justice
NY Law Firm: You are kidding right?
You: No, you see this company has had its assets effectively frozen by our government, the banks in the US arent accepting their cheques, EFTs cant be processed because the DoJ forced them to stop doing business with said illegal money laundering company so our money is held safely in some form somewhere and is regulated by the FSA in the UK
NY Law Firm: Is this Jerry? I told you to stop prank calling me dude, its not funny.
You: No, seriously, I promise to have lots of people and pay all the fees
NY Law Firm: You cant be serious, this is the worst idea ever. Did you even graduate from high school?
You: We payo mucho dollaro
NY Law Firm: Meh, whatever dude, its your cash. Just realise its our legal advice that you have no reasonable chance of winning
You: Yes, we win goot

JPT III · #9 02-02-2007, 02:11 AM

Generally speaking, U.S. courts have jurisdiction over parties doing substantial business in the U.S. It is beyond cavil that Neteller did substantial business in the US (see its 2006 3rd Q earnings statement). US federal court jurisdiction is not a major concern right now.

I'm obviously not going to respond to all of the flaming replies on this thread, most of which, understandibly, reflect a lack of understanding of the legal process, and many of which are absurd.

This is not to suggest that the case is a slam dunk, without problems, or even that we will file, but we are evaluating right now.

PoorLawyer · #10 02-18-2007, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Generally speaking, U.S. courts have jurisdiction over parties doing substantial business in the U.S. It is beyond cavil that Neteller did substantial business in the US (see its 2006 3rd Q earnings statement). US federal court jurisdiction is not a major concern right now.

I'm obviously not going to respond to all of the flaming replies on this thread, most of which, understandibly, reflect a lack of understanding of the legal process, and many of which are absurd.

This is not to suggest that the case is a slam dunk, without problems, or even that we will file, but we are evaluating right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

beyond jurisdictional issues, I think everyone is better off seeing how this shakes out for a while. If you file a class action we are all going to end up getting a check for 25 cents while your friend at the prestigious NY law firm makes partner after they take their cut.

Now I havent read all of the absurdly long posts on people's neteller theories on here, but I think they entity to sue is not neteller anyway. They would return the money if they could, but it sounds like the funds are frozen and/or there is no way to process the payments. Even if they had a court order that the money be returned, it doesnt sound like they could comply right now.