Epassporte account denied??

I really don't understand how this is panning out. The crux is very simply that the release form was altered or it was not and no-one seems very interested in settling that. So we are left wondering whether we have a money-handling company run by someone who lies in public, or a sponsor who illegally uses content, or a content provider who sells illegal content. Those are all serious possibilities, so I hope this thread will not just trickle away down the board without any answers.

If the release was not altered, then you are remarkably calm about the public accusation Chris Mallick made here. Not only did he accuse you of using content illegally, but since this arose out of his refusal to do business with you and because he made no reference in his post to the content provider, he effectively implied that you had made the alterations.

Alternatively the documents were altered, but not by you. Then why aren't you, Chris and Lesley all over the content provider? In similar circumstances I would have got together with Lesley, identified the changes and then come down on him like a ton of bricks.

And where is the content provider in all this? If his hands are clean, he should have a serious beef with either you or Chris because at least one of you is guilty of raising questions about him and the last thing a content provider needs is people wondering whether it's safe to use his content.

I tend to believe that even if the release was changed, you did not do it. Once the issue was raised (at that point in private) between you and ePassporte, you would have been incredibly reckless to bring it public. You could not have known Chris would bluster instead of simply showing us a "before" and "after", nor that the content provider would sit quietly by through all of this. Nor do I understand why, if Chris had enough damaging facts, he needed to fluff out his post with comments about your promo materials and site presentation which were clearly not true.

Sounds like sexy-babes is not telling the truth.
What about the other models on your site? Don't they deserve the same respect? Or are you afraid of a lawsuit?

its called extortion

Like I said if she was say Angelina Jollie then sure she can dictate special terms. She's just some everyday chick. Yeah she's pretty, still not a famous person. So there can be only 1 of 2 conclusions;

A) She signed a standard release.
B) She got a special clause in her release and the content producers are absolute dipshits when it comes to business.

If she got a special clause in her release then more power to her.

I hear good things about Funds2Go - check them out

good job epassport - thank fucking god there are companies out there with the BALLS to deny people who run SCAM organizations.

2257 is a requirement to use any processor - try using ccbill or epoch and not haveing proper 2257 - they will cancel your account.

catching someone commiting fraud on 2257 means they don't mind operating outside of the law and there would be a HIGH chance they would cheat or fuck over the processor as well.


i hope this fool LOOSES his credit card processing as well.


if they had a legal release they would post it

HA... I just heard about this thread... Fuck man talk about idiots.

Lesley is a Gold Person, heart soul she got it...

Anyone here dissing this lady just show how much you can be an idiot.

Who's dick do you have to suck at Epass for some support. This guy has an employee who models for his sites that works for epass yet he cant get an account.

i dont think anyone was dissing lesley..

I'm pretty sure most people would agree its perfectly fine for a company to deny service to someone merely for personal reasons ( some dont , but for the most part we can all agree on that )

I think this fellow just felt a little insulted that they didnt just "TELL" him that it was for personal reasons and instead chose to accuse him or his content provider of altering documents..


Lets use a hypothetical situation.. If my wife or girlfriend or close employee , shot porn when she was younger or nude or bikini shots , and she regretted it , and at some point i had the option of using my influence to help her possibly remove some of the content , i would... , but i also wouldnt feel "slighted" that someone felt "gyped". Its either worth it or not worth it..

If i ran a bar and told people i didnt like, that they needed i.d. to get in so hey go home to get it and come back and then they did , and i told them their id was fake ( even though it wasnt ) after they went home to get it , i wouldnt feel slighted that they told my fellow bar patrons about getting shafted.

I think his point was that it probably could have benn handled in a much more professional way i.e. simply telling the truth .. ( hey i notice you have one of our employees on your site and she really regrets the pictures being presented in that fashion , can you help ? )

ummm, if he had the 2257 docs he would post them - no?

without posting the docs i tend to believe epassport.

He said he sent them to epassporte , and they said they were "altered" , they wouldnt say they were "altered" if they hadn't seen them.. I think the onus is on epassporte to provide him with what is "altered". The pictures are up on several sites.. so obviously a contract exists in some fashion and there is a content provider that has a legal right to sell them no ? If epassporte's position is merely about 2257 then i can understand the problem.. just as any biller would.

i missed that in the thread - if that IS the case - it would be epassport's onus to show where the docs were altered.

if i bought altered 2257 docs from a content company i'd sure a fuck want to know about it. but i'd want proof too.

exactly , thats what his point was.. he cant be sure the content provider DIDNT alter the documents, and he is just as concerned to know IF that really is the case , or if he just got blown off because they assumed he had just copied the pics and didnt want his business ( or at least thats as much as i undertood )

Just to clarify, the content is non-nude, bikini type. No
2257 documentation required.

The documentation in question is the model release.

thnx for the clarification i didnt even realise that, but yes its model release..