I agree...though i really don't care where a company is located as long as i know who the people behind the company. Might not be the best choice either, but hell...got to throw caution to the wind sometime or another.

I have no idea who runs either program. I thought Epoch owned epassporte, but as explained in another thread, i believe they just have some invested interest. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

And if not wrong, who runs Epassporte?

if you were located in an offshore jurisdiction and at the same time had a company incorporated there - that wouldn't be called offshore company anymore :)

One of the people that represents epassporte here said some of the owners of epoch may also be owners of epassporte, she doesnt know for sure. A little vague dont cha think?

We are looking to go with ePassporte, but to date we've had three buyers opt for them and not pay, the form was too complicated. Then one who did buy, but he is already registered with them.

But I think ePassporte is only for B2B today, it may change in the future.

Oh wow, look, confusion rears its ugly head again. Wouldn't you feel like even more of an idiot if you realized that every IPSP is now looking at ways to join in the suit against Visa? And that several of the people who still run their own merchant accounts or ran them recently are also looking to get into the mix on that?

Your presumptions are on about the level of a 4th grade comprehension, so by all means continue to post your witty little bonmots, apparently the best way for you to come by them is to appropriate them, as you've done with my tag line. So charmingly original...

And further for the record, ePassporte is not a high risk transaction base, and is completely unassociated with Epoch's lawsuit against Mastercard.

As to the ownership issue, it's been answered multiple times as well, so I'm not going over it again. There is no confusion, and no thinking about anything... eP is a Curacao company, for obvious reasons to most people that think about the possibilities for the system.

MikeEP -- the bottom line with ePassporte is this -- if you have a problem, you know where to go to get immediate service and resolution of that problem. If an email doesn't get a response fast enough for you, there is always this board or any other in the business to voice your concerns and get a resolution :)

Here I will quote it in your words, so you dont have to go over it again. You said this on this board on 4/24 "Some of the staff is the same for both, certainly not all of it, and the investors may or may not be the same people that own Epoch, since I am not privy to, nor did I ask to be informed, of who held what percentages of ownership in either company." You're a smart business woman doesnt it bother you, that you dont know who owns the company you work or consult for?

I agree. But that same regulation also protects webmasters, at least to some degree.

If you were one of the PayPal merchants who lost a lot of money, you could at least sue them in the U.S. (and, that's already being done.)

And bank regulators did get on their case when both consumers and webmasters filed complaints against PayPal.

But I doubt there's many remedies available with these offshore entities.

I'd rather have some regulation than little or none, but that's just my personal preference.

As always, you raise an excellent point Tony404. All we do know for sure is that the Epoch people have relentlessly promoted Epassporte on this board.

Despite the obvious confusion this would cause, they go out of their way to say it's a seperate company. But, at the same time, specific questions about Epassporte ownership, management and the like remain unanswered.

I know who to talk to in the company that I consult for if I need anything, and depending on what I need or want to do, I consult with different people. The actual ownership on a piece of paper neither concerns nor bothers me, since my wires are always on time (early if my wire date falls on a weekend), any concerns I have with my personal or business ePassporte accounts are addressed in a timely manner, and suggestions that I make are discussed and implemented if they make sense from a legal and monetary standpoint.

I don't make it my business to know how other sponsorship programs are set up or how their ownership looks on paper or the distribution of ownership percentages either -- I simply expect that the reputable ones will pay as they are supposed to, and if they don't, I call or email and ask why.

At the end of the day it's not my business as to the details of any company, be it ePassporte, CCBill, CEN, CE, RJB, ARS, or any other company that I don't own.

fitty

Ok Kimmy, this is a bit confusing:

On the one hand you say:

EP is run by people with a more than intimate knowledge of fraud control in the adult marketplace, which means that there won't be any surprises like suspension of adult transactions like Paypal and Yahoo have done recently.

But later on you say:

And further for the record, ePassporte is not a high risk transaction base.

Adult transactions are generally considered high risk. Are you saying that Epassporte is set up in such a way that reduces that risk?

If so, that's fine. I'm merely pointing out the documented fact that Epoch's previous risk management on the Mastercard situation was not very good.

And, since the Epoch people are both promoting and, apparently, operating Epassporte ... that track record does not necessarily assure people that they will avoid yet another PayPal type situation.

Correct, Google only accepts Eyeballs. And boy do they deposit a lot of those everyday.

Now some math:

Eyeballs = Time

Time = Advertisers

Advertisers = Money

The cleverest folks know how to get you to deposit cash without you realizing you're doing so. That's one of the secrets to successful marketing.

:thumbsup

Ummm, ok, like I've posted before. I've been screwed over by more US companies than foreign companies and I've been running lemonade stands for two decades.

Gee, nevermind, it's a shame you weren't born a boy since you sure do seem to have a hard on for anything and everything Epoch or ePassporte related, regardless of what the thread is about, as evidenced in the IBill thread on here earlier.

I'm not sure if you flunked English, didn't get out of high school at all, or what, and I really hate to be ugly to someone like you, so I'm going to say this one last time and I'd like you to read carefully -- and by all means, any more illuminating queries you can come back with from my comments, then do so, since after I say this, I am finished replying to your repetitive questions that have been answered in multiple threads already. You seem to know how to use the search feature so I'll refer to you that in the future when you are looking for that horse that's still laying dead in the road a mile or two back.

*******************
ePassporte is, and has been, from day one, set up to minimize risk for any high risk transactions it may support. It is not a 5967 product, Visa approves of how it is used on the issuing side, thus it is a viable product for these transactions.

Epoch's risk management on the Mastercard issue was not, and is not any different than any other IPSP. If you'd like to put a little bet on that, I'll be happy to take your money, just keep in mind that when I win, I do collect and I have no problem saying I told you so on something as simple as this. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly, by more than just myself. If you need the link to Intercept's financial reports I will be glad to find it for you, so you can perhaps puzzle through it and realize they too have had issues with Mastercard, at the same level. Since none of the other IPSPs are either public or have filed suit against Mastercard YET you apparently seem to refuse in your narrow mind to understand the situation for what it is. I could name at least two other companies that run their own merchant accounts that no longer even accept Mastercard due to MC's decision to count credits in the same category as chargebacks and fine them for issuing credits.

I certainly commend you for your persistence, misguided as it is, but at this point I have wasted enough time correcting your misconceptions about things which are semi-public and public knowledge, easily researched and confirmed. I will also caution you to remember that when you add water to soap it often becomes a slippery situation and I'd hate for you fall off your box and land on your head.

Now, if you have any more questions about this issue, please post them here this afternoon, otherwise I will consider the subject closed and expect that if you reference it again, it is in a purely rhetorical manner.

Kim you make my heart throb!

Ya just know Kimmy's got a whip in her toy box.

:1orglaugh

Seems nevermind needs a new hobby. This got boring about 5 threads ago.

I believ she does, you however look enough like Tony Soprano that I think you could handle her. :)

Actually, I do agree with you on this point --- very much so. Ibill screwed up with Mastercard, so did PayPal as well.

But, as far as I can tell (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), those other companies don't post constant PR hype about how supposedly honest and competent their managers are.

As far back as August, 2002, there have been many GFY threads where many webmasters have questioned Epoch's billing practices --- and whether they were pushing the limits on chargebacks.

The response from Epoch was always the same: Don't worry about it. We know what we are doing. We won't cause you any problems with the credit card companies.

The Mastercard lawsuit told completely different story. Epoch was being fined millions of dollars during the same time period they were telling webmasters everything was fine. By their own account, it's gotten so bad that they had to file suit.

On top of that, Chris Mallick blatantly lies to me about Epoch's supposed lack knowledge about Mastercard's rules when, in fact, they did know --- and mismanaged the situation --- badly.

Now here comes the Epoch/Epassporte people once again --- selling Epassporte with the same motto: Trust us. We know what we are doing. We're not going to get you in trouble like PayPal or others did.

But we're not going to disclose details of the Epassporte operation.

It comes down to credibility, and there's not much to speak of.

I have rules too ...
__________________________________________

"I have rules, and one of them is that if you lie to my face, I will come back and bury you repeatedly in every forum I have. " -- James Cramer, Thestreet.com

It's a cat 'o nine tails, darling, you want to come over and play? ;)

YES! On my knees as I type Goddess KimmyKim!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Harder, harder, harder, snap, crackle, pop, . . .

OK nevermind. You still hide and refuse to say who you are or for whom you work. You have an unusually high interest in EPOCH / Epassporte and now me. So in an effort to put a period at the end of a long and boring series of your bullshit, here goes, point by point on your last. And hear this: I am not replying to any more of your bullshit until you come out of the shadows.

I think you have an agenda. I will find out what it is and who you are. Let?s start with a $250 Bounty, payable on the true and verifiable identification of ?nevermind?, paid on an epassporte card. (I?ll pay the cost of the card so it?s a net money deal?)

My comments are in line >>>>

Actually, I do agree with you on this point --- very much so. Ibill screwed up with Mastercard, so did PayPal as well.

>>>>You don?t really know what Ibill or PayPal did. You are just trying to look like you are informed.

But, as far as I can tell (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), those other companies don't post constant PR hype about how supposedly honest and competent their managers are.

>>>>You are wrong. Look at any one of these Public Companies SEC filings.


As far back as August, 2002, there have been many GFY threads where many webmasters have questioned Epoch's billing practices --- and whether they were pushing the limits on chargebacks.

>>>>EPOCH is in compliance with all card association rules and ratios. This has been discussed to death.


The response from Epoch was always the same: Don't worry about it. We know what we are doing. We won't cause you any problems with the credit card companies.

>>>>We have not caused any problems and Webmasters do not need to worry. We are solving the problems that card associations caused. Get a clue.

The Mastercard lawsuit told completely different story. Epoch was being fined millions of dollars during the same time period they were telling webmasters everything was fine. By their own account, it's gotten so bad that they had to file suit.

>>>>You can?t read. You are wrong and deliberately spreading lies. The lawsuit speaks for itself.

On top of that, Chris Mallick blatantly lies to me about Epoch's supposed lack knowledge about Mastercard's rules when, in fact, they did know --- and mismanaged the situation --- badly.

>>>>You should try and understand how serious it is to call people liars. I did not lie, blatantly or otherwise. But your secret purposes are not served by the truth.

Now here comes the Epoch/Epassporte people once again --- selling Epassporte with the same motto: Trust us. We know what we are doing. We're not going to get you in trouble like PayPal or others did.

>>>>The truth is the truth. You are not a candidate for epassporte or EPOCH. Webmasters make choices everyday. You want to lie to deliberately try and influence those choices, fine. Just remember that Webmasters are smart enough to understand that you have an agenda and that you are probably motivated to damage us.

But we're not going to disclose details of the Epassporte operation.

>>>>No. Most businesses that don?t choose to sell stock to the public choose to keep their private (not secret) information private.

It comes down to credibility, and there's not much to speak of.

>>>>I agree. You are full of shit.

I have rules too ...

>>>>Wait till you see my rules.

Now, come out, come out wherever you are, unless you have something to hide.

Oh gee, looks like I missed your post, since I skimmed and noticed my tagline at the bottom of it.

LOL your childish persistence with this fallacy just doesn't stop does it. If you had 15 chargebacks and 16 credits in a single month, Mastercard could choose to fine you for those credits by treating them as chargebacks. I realize that your mind doesn't do math well at this point, so we'll leave this one here.

Call me blind but don't call me deaf. The major sponsors and other processors in this industry are delighted with Epoch's lawsuit and see the reasoning behind it. Of course they are also the same guys using Epoch, who also use cross sells etc and don't have additional chargeback issues because if that use. I'm so sorry that the people who are the backbone of this industry don't agree with you, I'm going to email them all right now and tell them they are wrong. I am sure they will be delighted to know that before they also file their suits against Mastercard.

Wow, you're a pornographer and an attorney? Who'da thunk it? You obviously have never filed or counterfiled in any sort of civil suit that was handled outside of small claims court. Geez, Brad Shaw managed to generate as much paperwork in one response to my attorney as Epoch did in their initial Mastercard claim. But then again I guess your brilliant legal mind never realized that attorneys pile it on, since a judge is going to trim the fat heavily in any suit of this size.

Chris Mallick blatantly lies to you? Or you blatantly libel and defame Chris Mallick with that statement? I think the jury wouldn't have too much trouble deciding this argument.

No, we aren't disclosing how ePassporte is run.

Especially not to someone anonymous with no credibility. Not even to think of, much less to speak of.

OK Chris.

You say:

EPOCH is in compliance with all card association rules and ratios. This has been discussed to death.

We have not caused any problems and Webmasters do not need to worry. We are solving the problems that card associations caused. Get a clue.

You can?t read. You are wrong and deliberately spreading lies. The lawsuit speaks for itself.

Yes, it does:

http://www.paycom.net/mastercard/lawsuit.pdf

Page 30-31:

Paycom (Epoch) has experienced chargeback ratios in excess of Mastercard's 1% chargeback threshold in the months of August, September, and December of 2001, and January, February, March, April and May of 2002. Paycom's chargeback ratio has been below Mastercard's 1% chargeback threshold each and every month since June, 2002.

However, Page 39 of the lawsuit also states:

Mastercard is threatening to impose fines of $2,500 per day and/or terminate Paycom's ability to accept Mastercard unless Paycom substantially re-structures it's business.

In regards to this post:

You should try and understand how serious it is to call people liars. I did not lie, blatantly or otherwise. But your secret purposes are not served by the truth.

Your explanation for falling out of compliance for eight months up to May, 2002 was that you were not aware of new Mastercard rules imposed two years earlier in March, 2000:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...pagen umber=5

We were not informed in March of 2000. No one was. Every 3rd Party / IPSP / Aggregator / Merchant with their own account, all of us believed that 2.5% was the threshold until we were told in May of 2002 that there had been changed a year and a half earlier and that enforcement and fines were coming down for the entire period. Now that is deceptive, imo.

AVN article published in:

May 2000 ... where the ENTIRE ADULT INDUSTRY was informed about the new Mastercard Rule:

http://www.avnonline.com/issues/2000...c0500_01.shtml

If you didn't lie to me, then you must have been hiding under a rock in 2000 and missed what the entire industry knew. The entire industry "got a clue." Strange that you didn't --- considering the huge impact it had upon your business and clients, as well as your supposed expertise in this area.

Either you are a liar or you are completely incompetent. Take your pick.

Wait till you see my rules.

Bring on the lawyers, bounties and anything else you can think of.

Just FYI, I've litigated four cases in my lifetime as a plaintiff, both in state and federal court.

I won all of 'em.

I'm more than prepared to file a counter suit if it comes to that.