CCU...gone?

[Blowup Doll]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me address a few things here:

First, now that it doesn't really matter, my initial rate with SIA was $330 CPA, then I renegotiated to $345, and then to $352.50 with the new broker (all October leads were through this broker). As I never dealt directly with SIA, they actually have NO IDEA what they are talking about (they do not/cannot differentiate my traffic from other traffic through that broker, nor can they differentiate manual credit requests). They are just trying to cover their asses and disassociate themselves with CasinoCashUnlimited - I’m sure their affiliate department appreciates all the emails, though.

Regarding the NETeller issue, believe what you like – but to assume that every update I make is another attempt to smokescreen a “getaway” is immature and naïve, at best. If I was going to run I’d have been gone…and certainly wouldn’t have brought the site back up. I’m working as quickly as possible to get this cleared up, but for whatever reason; NETeller doesn’t seem too interested in a speedy resolution.

Moving on, atom new is correct about the jurisdiction of the contract; re-read my Terms and Conditions. Specifically: “I. GOVERNING LAW AND OTHER TERMS. Any action related to this Agreement will be governed by New York law, excluding (1) principles of conflicts of laws, and (2) the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Any action relating to this Agreement shall be brought in the state or federal courts located in the Northern District of New York, and You hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue thereof. You agree to comply with the laws of New York and the United States that apply to the use of this Service and the compensation You may receive. If the law of Your country, state, or province of residence prohibits or limits Your participation in this Service, then You are responsible for complying with such laws and you agree to indemnify CasinoCashUnlimited.com against any breach. If any part of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable, the unenforceable part shall be given effect to the greatest extent possible and the remainder will remain in full force and effect. This Agreement is personal to You and You may not transfer, delegate, or assign this Agreement, your referral network, your CasinoCashUnlimited.com account or other benefits you receive as a CasinoCashUnlimited.com Member to anyone. Any attempt by You to assign or delegate this Agreement shall be null and void. CasinoCashUnlimited.com may assign this Agreement at its sole discretion.” It is apparent that some of you are lamentably unenlightened as to the laws, however, this is not my concern…I plan to meet my obligations! Nonetheless, if some of you feel it necessary to [prematurely] file suit, I encourage you to do what you feel is right. As clearly evidenced throughout this thread, nothing I say here will change your thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your T&C don't protect you like you think they do. You might wish to read Scarcella v America Online to see how that court decided a similar issue.

[FreeOffersNow]

[ QUOTE ]
Your T&C don't protect you like you think they do. You might wish to read Scarcella v America Online to see how that court decided a similar issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm familiar with the case - but take a second look at the court's rationale for their decision, and the criteria that would have afforded a different decision. Regardless of this, I am confident (and I think you have an idea) that if brought to court, it would do little more than inconvenience me and tarnish my record...it would not benefit you all much more than satisfying the desire to see me "pay one way or another." Nonetheless, I'm trying to keep this from going that far...it just seems like I'm running into every possible road-block on the way.

[atom_new]

[ QUOTE ]

Your T&C don't protect you like you think they do. You might wish to read Scarcella v America Online to see how that court decided a similar issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just did. Not only did the court of appeal and judge order stated that it was for that situation only and not a broader decision, and due to the fact AOL explicitly discouraged people from reading the T&C, the decision was based on the premise that the court could exert personal jurisdiciton on AOL(ie: AOL had an office in the state of the plaintiff). "Defendant, which was served with the Summons and Notice of Claim herein at "45 West 18th Street, New York City, NY 10011," does not dispute that personal jurisdiction over it has been properly obtained, nor that it "either resides or has an office for the transaction of business . . . within the city of New York," a prerequisite for susceptibility to suit in a small-claims action (Civil Court Act, § 1801)."

So, your argument would only work if FON had an office in your state, and even then, it's a flimsy argument.

[Blowup Doll]

Our law professor doesn't seem to agree with you on that, but of course if every lawyer agreed on everything, we wouldn't need judges to make decisions, now would we? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'll let our judge make the call on this one.

[knowlesm]

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of neteller eft are we talking about here? And has anyone ever know neteller to not solve an id/ document verification issue very very fast (like 30 min.) if you actually send them the documents they need???

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I've known them to hem and haw over large EFTs. A buddy of mine who plays high limit SNGs on Stars took on $50k of backers earlier this year as sort of a profit-sharing venture. When it was over, it took a couple weeks for Neteller to get their act together, even though he had transferred tens of thousands through his account with no prior problems.

[Frinkenstein]

FON, why have you not answered my posts in this thread, my emails to you or my PM to you???

[KISS ME]

i emailed and PM a few times also he answers to nobody i think until his neteller thing is fixed...im guessing

[hedonist]

Beware the business owner who thinks he knows all his legalese. He has no legitimate reason to contemplate these questions unless he is considering provoking lawsuits.

[FreeOffersNow]

[ QUOTE ]
Beware the business owner who thinks he knows all his legalese. He has no legitimate reason to contemplate these questions unless he is considering provoking lawsuits.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beware the 6-post mudslinger who has shown no interest in reading prior discussion:

[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, I'm trying to keep this from going that far...it just seems like I'm running into every possible road-block on the way.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks for the input knowlesm, I figured it wasn't so much me as the amount of money being deposited.

Also, Frinkenstein, while I do understand that through all of this this thread has become quite overwhelming, I simply don't have the time to continue to answer questions that have been answered here on the public forum.

KISS ME - I never received a PM from you, or at least I don't see one in my inbox (I haven't deleted any PM's).

[ottsville]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your T&C don't protect you like you think they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of this, I am confident (and I think you have an idea) that if brought to court, it would do little more than inconvenience me and tarnish my record...it would not benefit you all much more than satisfying the desire to see me "pay one way or another."

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm..let's see - lots of small claims filed in various jursidictions would definitely inconvenience you and cost you lots of time responding to all of the claims...even if you claim that your T&C protects you, you would still have to respond to multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions. You've irritated enough people here that I'm sure many people would be willing to do that just on principal. Of course, there are also the ones who would file in your jurisdiction as well.


[ QUOTE ]
tarnish my record

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mean your stellar record of honesty?