Too Much Media Statement

50...The drama is getting out there

sig spot.......

Nice Responce TMM!.

Looks like lawyer bills are doing to start adding up, welcome to the real world.

Good call TMM.

i'm confused, exactly *what* is tmm suing xc for? i mean i understand the basic concept of filing countersuits, but what possible claim could tmm have against xc?

i understand why xc is suing tmm, defamation and breach of contract, those seem pretty clear.... but given that xc paid their bill in full i can't possibly see what damages tmm could hope to recover... and if it's just an information seeking lawsuit it seems silly since discovery in the other case will go both ways.

lawyers are the only ones who will profit from this one.

Whoa

Good luck John

Actually, and unfortunately, I think that NR Media might prevail and that sucks because I think Nats is a great piece of software and I've heard nothing but good things about the folks over there. I don't know anyone at NR or use their program so I can't comment on those folks...

That said, I think the gun was jumped a bit by coming to the boards and making public certain "issues" when the initial post regarding this drama was posted.

If the two parties had an issue and Nats had a legal right to discontinue access to the admin section - then they should have done so and kept the issue between the two parties private. At this point in time, Nat's software reputation was not under question or the issue public knowledge (that I'm aware of).

Had an affiliate not been paid or stats not updated and such an affiliate posted on the boards because of some "perceived problem" that occured because of the revoked privleges to the admin section, then the issue becomes public and there is a possible interpretation of a Nat's software problem or error and, given the community we do business in, creates a possible reputation issue.

At this point in time, and assuming the above conditions exists, Nats has every right to defend it's software by making a post that says something to the effect of:

"This is not a Nat's software issue. In accordance with section [blah- blah] of our licensing agreement with NR, we have terminated access to the admin section for the NR cash program owners. Such revocation shall remain in force for NR until such time as the issues that caused revocation remain unresolved."

This protects Nat's reputation and doesn't deflame NR. You've said what you did but not why you did it - and you don't owe it to webmasters to explain why you did - that's for NR to explain to its' affiliates. The upside to this approach would have been with their described frame of mind, it may have provoked a less than outright and impeccably honest answer from them and you would have had them on a slander suit too should they taken that approach toward a possible response

I would, if I owned Nat's, and if it doesn't already exist, code in the ability for revoked access program owners, to have just enough privleges to ensure all affiliates get paid if it doesn't already exist.

Best case scenario is for all of you guys to go bobbing for apples and let cooler heads prevail!

john is right here.
glad to see you guys take action here

read thru the original complaint filed and posted on every major adult news site. many things were said about nats in those complaints which carry a much bigger case for a defamation suit against NR media, imo a much stronger case than what they have relative to TMM.

in the original nats statement, they didnt say anything false. it was nothing more than a set of facts. if NR wants to sue someone, they should be suing the people/posters they cited in their complaint who made the assumption they were shaving and said it literally. john and crew are going to have their way with them imo, if i was NR media, i would drop everything immediately and not listen to lawyers who have a vested interest in telling them to sue, especially adult industry lawyers who operate on the business side.

I think this is going to get uglier than it ever needed to be.

Naked Rhino should sue their designer LOL

this is going to be a long ass thread

I agree. Good luck John and TMM.

See sig.

NATS post sure sounds like it was crafted by a lawyer. Can't wait to read their filiing.

Talking about spin control...

I guess since more people have a stake in NATS they will come to the defense of TMM, however that is not how the courts work.

Personally, I think both sides have made mistakes.

I'm predicting an out of court settlement. If these suits are finally determined in court, then it could go either way, since only then will all of the details be laid out.

However, since this is GFY, I'm expecting lots of chest beating speculation.

Let the games begin...



For the record, I have retained the services of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe.

If you have any questions, ask my lawyer...

ADG Webmaster

Amazing how many legal experts are on this forum.

yawn
snore
who cares

I definitely agree with your point DD - sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Edit: *I wouldn't call everyone 'fucks' though But definitely the affiliates would not have been pleased to know something isn't adding up right and nobody is telling them why.

Drama whoaoaoaoao

I'm not a lawyer.. but I did spend the night at a Holiday Inn

Who cares who is right or wrong here? I just can't wait for the discovery phase when all the dirty laundry becomes public record!

nats is a good product! good luck

90% of gfy posters are laywers

I'm waiting to see how this turns out before I make up my mind.

Whoa, whoa, whoa Miss Lippy. The part of the story I dont like is that the little boy gave up looking for Happy after an hour. That little boy's gotta think, youve got a PET you've got a RESPONSIBILITY. When your dog gets lost, you dont look for an hour and call it quits, you get your ass out there and you find that fucking dog!

LOL! Ok, this post cracks me up!

I think next year I'll wait to see who wins the Super Bowl and then place a bet after the game is decided!

Page 2? I thought this would be on page 5 by now.

What a waste of money here....

I'm with you. I don't see the grounds for this lawsuit.

God bless America, John expect a letter from my lawyer, I burnt the roof of my mouth on the pizza you ordered on Saturday, $5mil should cover it!

Which is exactly why I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that these cases actually make it to trial.

NATS ROCKS! good luck john although im sure you dont need it

Sorry, you are SOL it happened in a foreign country

madddd drama

Has anyone seen the TMM Complaint or linked to it here?

Couldn't have summed it up better myself.

Right... and ofcourse with "a discrepancy" they meant:
"there are more rebills reported to XC affiliates than at the biller"

HAHAHAHAHA.

Court: Mr. Buzz, will you please disclose the name of the sexy young man that you are on?

Nice try, but............


CHARLES L. THOMASON, Plaintiff, v. NORMAN E. LEHRER, P.C., and NORMAN E. LEHRER, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 98-2336

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

183 F.R.D. 161; 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19320


October 27, 1998, Decided

???.

B. The Litigation Privilege Under New Jersey Law

HN10 New Jersey has recognized the litigation privilege as "the backbone to an effective and smoothly operating judicial system." Peterson v. Ballard, 292 N.J. Super. 575, 582, 679 A.2d 657 (App. Div. 1996) (quoting Hawkins v. Harris, 141 N.J. 207, 222, 661 A.2d 284 (1994) (citing Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal. 3d 205, 786 P.2d 365, 370, 266 Cal. Rptr. 638 (Cal. 1990))). The litigation privilege is "firmly established in New Jersey case law." Peterson, 292 N.J. [**15] Super. at 581 (citing Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 215). The privilege protects, as absolutely immune from liability, statements by attorneys made in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. See Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 581 (citing Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co., Inc., 117 N.J. 539, 563, 569 A.2d 793 (1990)).

HN11 Originally applied in defamation cases see Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 581-82, the litigation privilege has been expanded to encompass both common-law and statutory causes of action for tortious conduct. See Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. 575, 679 A.2d 657 (applying litigation privilege to bar plaintiff's claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. 10:5-12d, and claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress); see also Rainier's Dairies v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., 19 N.J. 552, 117 A.2d 889 (1955) (applying litigation to bar claim for malicious interference with a business); Ruberton v. Gabage, 280 N.J. Super. 125, 133-34, 654 A.2d 1002 (App. Div. 1995) (applying privilege to claim for malicious interference); Middlesex Concrete Products & Excavating Corp v. Carteret Industries Ass'n, 68 N.J. Super. 85, [**16] 172 A.2d 22 (Ap.. Div. 1961) (applying litigation privilege to bar tortious interference claim); accord Lapat v. Serber, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11789, Civ. Action No. 95-1021, 1995 WL 481493, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 1, 1995).

HN12 The New Jersey Supreme Court has determined that the policy underlying application of the litigation privilege to defamation actions applies with equal force to other claims of tortious conduct based upon statements made during judicial proceedings. See Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 582 (citing Rainier's Dairies, 19 N.J. at 564; Ruberton, 280 N.J. Super. at 133-34). That Court has written:


If the policy, which in defamation actions affords an absolute privilege or immunity to statements made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings is really to mean anything then we must not permit its circumvention by affording an almost equally unrestricted action under a different label.



Rainier's Dairies, 19 N.J. at 564; accord Ruberton, 280 N.J. Super. at 133-34.

[*167] HN13 Consistent with all absolute privileges, the litigation privilege protects "the bad as well as the good." Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 590 (citing Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 213). "The supervening public policy [**17] that persons [engaged in litigation] . . . be allowed to speak and write freely without the restraint or fear of an ensuing action[,]" warrants the protection of the occasional tortious statement. Peterson, 292 N.J. Super. at 590 (citing Hawkins, 141 N.J. at 214).

grabbing this 2nd page seat..

what's that? public forum defending? lol

yeah, don't hang up on this guy or he'll go make damaging posts about you..
What's the matter? you're ego got hurt because somebody hung up the phone on you & you got mad.. that's how I interpret it..

Oh.. I get it.. when you say "preserve the integrity of NATS" , could you mean "cover up any possibility that there may have been a glitch that might cause ccbill rebills to be reported incorrectly".. I'm reading between the lines here..

Guess this is the reason you never liked my board persona.. I can't be dangled & manipulated like your sheep..

Brought it on themselves... Good taking care of business John!

man, why don't you just call john about your beef?
he probably won't go on boards to answer your posts..

Nats has become one of the top rated affiliate backends in the adult industry for many reasons. Affiliate Programs feel secure using the Nats System and in order for Nats to keep their program out of any scrutiny it is their choice to keep clients who are violating any terms of their license to ask resolve any issue before reinstating their program.

This is the same practice used by any company which has a TOS agreement that is used in conjunction with their program they are offering. I stand behind NATS and I know that anyone that is actually a real player and not just a sheep would do the same.

Let's leave this lawsuit to the courts and let justice prevail. IF NR was shaving I am sure CCBILL and other billing companies will be lined up as witness for TMM to them in their case. Since it seems like NR likes to quote the statements that are made on boards, please ICQ me for permission to use it. I would of thought that NR would of at least fixed their 2 web sites up to make them look sellable before bringing this lawsuit on.

My sentiments exactly. What Would Billy Do?

read the first post. Nats CLEARLY and publicly said that if anybody was ever caught shaving, they would make it public. They gave them the chacne to rectify the situation in case this was simply a glitch and they didn't.

Now I personally think John is an industry hero for making this public.
If it would have been over a simple grudge, I wouldn't say anything but it seems something is really fishy there.

John just said TMM actually sued XC first and XC filled a contersuite...

Actually there have been many glitches before in nats and it haven't caused them any problems.

The problems comes when they want to fix their fuckup (if it's a fuckup)... They want to fix it but it's making XR a bunch of money.

XR tells them to fuckoff...

Even thought it's nats fucking up with their software, from what we can read XR are definitly the idiots for not wanting to fix it and repay the money owed to affiliates.

John came public with facts.