Shaving lawsuit - GoFuckYourself.com

[Labret] · 11-29-2001, 11:55 AM

Say you are working in sales of tangible products in the real world... televisions for example. And your employer agrees to pay you 50% on each sale. If that employer only paid you for a portion of those sales, it is pretty safe to assume that you have the makings of a nice lawsuit.

Why should this be any different when it comes to per click and per signups programs?

If XXX Pussy Cash (made that up) offers to pay me 50% on ALL signups, makes me sign their standard contract, and I can provide proof that XXX Pussy Cash do not end up paying me on ALL signups, I think I have the makings of a lawsuit.

Say I have proof, very good proof, that I am being shaved. Say I can round up several others in the same program that can also prove that they are being shaved. You think I should go for it? It would set an awesome precedent.

[This message has been edited by [Labret] (edited 11-29-2001).]

Gary · 11-29-2001, 11:57 AM

hmm, wonder which company your talking about. LOL

rollin · 11-29-2001, 12:01 PM

the courts will throw it out
you have no solid evidence (actual documents that are signed etc. with an agreement) just a bunch of text on a webpage that can be edited by anyone, at anytime

sucks, but thats the way the ball rolls.

better bet is to e-mail the cash program owner, tell them you know they shave, here is your proof, and you want them to turn shaving off on your account hehe

Wizzo · 11-29-2001, 12:02 PM

It's that proof thing, that always seems to get in the way...

Warphead · 11-29-2001, 12:06 PM

Absolutely. It helps every honest webmaster out there to take down a scumbag.

[Labret] · 11-29-2001, 12:08 PM

I am not talking about Joe Schmo making screen caps and waving around credit card statements.

I am talking about enlisting the help of a third party auditing group. You know, there are groups that are out there that aid in combating this kind of fraud.

It would help this industry as a whole if one good sized program took it in the ass.

Quote:

Originally posted by rollin:
the courts will throw it out
you have no solid evidence (actual documents that are signed etc. with an agreement) just a bunch of text on a webpage that can be edited by anyone, at anytime

sucks, but thats the way the ball rolls.

better bet is to e-mail the cash program owner, tell them you know they shave, here is your proof, and you want them to turn shaving off on your account hehe

Lightning · 11-29-2001, 12:09 PM

I don't think you will win any money, but I'll bet you do get canned from every sponsor you go after??? I do agree with your thinking, but like Wizzo said, it's that proof thing...

Just my 2 cents

------------------
Smiles

[Labret] · 11-29-2001, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by askmomma:
I don't think you will win any money, but I'll bet you do get canned from every sponsor you go after??? I do agree with your thinking, but like Wizzo said, it's that proof thing...

Just my 2 cents

And like I said, I dont think "proof" is such a hard thing to establish. How many people on here have seen shaving in action? How many people on here have bitched about being shaved? We have all seen it, and sponsors basically admit to it. Esp per click. Motherfucker, if you say 4 cents per unique no shave no bs, then motherfucker, pay me 4 cents per unique.

Say you can also get your hands on ex employees.

And it is not about winning money.

My income does not primarily come from sponsors, so I have absolutely nothing to lose.

[This message has been edited by [Labret] (edited 11-29-2001).]

rollin · 11-29-2001, 12:14 PM

labret,
it seems like such a smart move, but it ends up to be a waste of time...
i mean, the sponsor could say, "we don't shave, the credit card proccessor declined" or something like that, there is too many pillows to fall on

maybe if you had a screen cap of their admin script, where it says like "shave traffic" or "shave sales", then maybe you could get them good..

Wizzo · 11-29-2001, 12:14 PM

I imagine if you had "real" proof, making it public knowledge would hurt a sponsor bad enough to put them out of business.

------------------
Don't Fuck Yourself, get paid 71%...
JOIN CASHTOUR

rollin · 11-29-2001, 12:15 PM

there are - typeo (i put is)

rollin · 11-29-2001, 12:15 PM

wizzo,
i think he is after the bank account rather the publicity

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 12:16 PM

Well so much for my fantasy of Labret actually having a brain.

rollin · 11-29-2001, 12:19 PM

LOL kimmykim
he has a brain, just has high intentions

[Labret] · 11-29-2001, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Well so much for my fantasy of Labret actually having a brain.

Of course anyone involved in shaving and or associates with known shavers is going to find this idea extremely unpopular.

[This message has been edited by [Labret] (edited 11-29-2001).]

[Labret] · 11-29-2001, 12:26 PM

I am off to the casino.

Feel free to verbally abuse me while I am away.

rollin · 11-29-2001, 12:26 PM

pimplink · 11-29-2001, 12:27 PM

Labret,

The best way to proceed with this is probably to 1) file with the federal trade commission a charge of intercommerce fraud
2) have them conclude their investigation and piggyback on their factual findings by filing a civil suit 3) given the market dynamics of this kind of suit and the fact that your factual claims can be similar along a whole class of people [people with the same claim], I would suggest filing a class action suit in federal court. If you need a legal referral just email me. A buddy of mine is a litigator for one of the largest class action law firms in the country. They handle mass torts and also the Holocaust class action against German corporations that used forced labor during WWII.

Pimplink

Quote:

Originally posted by [Labret]:
Say you are working in sales of tangible products in the real world... televisions for example. And your employer agrees to pay you 50% on each sale. If that employer only paid you for a portion of those sales, it is pretty safe to assume that you have the makings of a nice lawsuit.

Why should this be any different when it comes to per click and per signups programs?

If XXX Pussy Cash (made that up) offers to pay me 50% on ALL signups, makes me sign their standard contract, and I can provide proof that XXX Pussy Cash do not end up paying me on ALL signups, I think I have the makings of a lawsuit.

Say I have proof, very good proof, that I am being shaved. Say I can round up several others in the same program that can also prove that they are being shaved. You think I should go for it? It would set an awesome precedent.

[This message has been edited by [Labret] (edited 11-29-2001).]

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by [Labret]:
Of course anyone involved in shaving and or associates with known shavers is going to find this idea extremely unpopular.

I would be very careful what implications I might be making if I were you.

Lightning · 11-29-2001, 12:28 PM

It would be virtually impossible to prove in civil court beyond a preponderance of the evidence, that a sponsor shaved. Even a copy of their script with a shave o meter option wouldn't hold up in court. You could never prove they used it... I do commend you in your thinking that sponsor shaving is bad, but it kind of become part of life. Everyone shaves, Hubby shaves his face, I shave my P^%^SS&^Y, and some sponsors shave traffic or sales...It's like a natural ecological process...LOL

Kimmy babe is also right, you best be very careful with what you say and about who you are talking about. Slander is much easier of a case to win in court...

------------------
Smiles

[This message has been edited by askmomma (edited 11-29-2001).]

Theo · 11-29-2001, 12:30 PM

believe it or not, this time I'm with Labret. Every system, from business to social needs a good example to have in mind, so next time to act properly. Labret, since you have evidences and you know how to handle the case go for it and give them a good lesson.

rollin · 11-29-2001, 12:32 PM

you guys are overlooking the time and money it costs for this kind of suit

it's not worth it...LOL
maybe if you pushed $100,000 a month through the sponsor, and you know they shaved $30,000 for like 9 months straight lets say. then you have $30,000 x 9, @ $270,000 total shaved...a law firm would take a look at your case for probono then hehe

Hooper · 11-29-2001, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Well so much for my fantasy of Labret actually having a brain.

Hmmmm... tell us about more fantasies ;-)))

KKfantasies.com is available ya know & i bet ccbill would cut you a great deal on processing :-)

[This message has been edited by Hooper (edited 11-29-2001).]

pimplink · 11-29-2001, 12:39 PM

Your conclusion assumes that the plaintiff will be funding this suit through a retainer. However, if there is a reasonable basis for the allegations Labret raised, and the class of potential plaintiffs is large enough, many law firms would take a large class action suit on contingency. While most reserve the right to charge for costs in their retainer agreements, this is normally ignored in light of the large potential settlement.

Another factor militating towards class action firm involvement is the number of defendants, whether they can get a "deep pockets" defendant [probably the card processor], and whether a government agency, usually the FTC, has made a preliminary investigation on which they can "piggyback." The latter is normally the approach firms use in filing class action suits -- used most extensively in shareholder derivative suits.

If the factors above are present, then cost may not be an issue. The question that may be left is...do you have the time to do this?

Keep in mind, assuming that a class action is successful, the plaintiffs normally end up with cents on the dollar. This is the case with most shareholder derivative suits.

Quote:

Originally posted by rollin:
you guys are overlooking the time and money it costs for this kind of suit

it's not worth it...LOL
maybe if you pushed $100,000 a month through the sponsor, and you know they shaved $30,000 for like 9 months straight lets say. then you have $30,000 x 9, @ $270,000 total shaved...a law firm would take a look at your case for probono then hehe

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 12:39 PM

Ach they'd probably charge me that same 26% that SleazyDream has to pay.

Rivux · 11-29-2001, 12:49 PM

Go labret...Kick some ass, they deserve it.

Wizzo · 11-29-2001, 12:51 PM

Another thing to think about, is Most sponsors, if not all, are LLCs at the very least, with little to no actual assets, couple of servers and some content maybe.

Which means they are easy to liquidate into nothing very quick, which means a settlement against them would net you zip...

Rivux · 11-29-2001, 12:56 PM

I would just like to see them admit they are scum sucking assholes and then die

Who cares about the cash.

heymatty · 11-29-2001, 12:56 PM

I only studied British law (fairly unsuccessfully!) and so I don't really know anything of the disclosure laws in various stats. But if I was investigating this I would certainly start with tax records, if that information is available.

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 12:58 PM

Gee I guess we know who's going to get a dvd this week.

pornsuite · 11-29-2001, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by [Labret]:
Say you are working in sales of tangible products in the real world... televisions for example. And your employer agrees to pay you 50% on each sale. If that employer only paid you for a portion of those sales, it is pretty safe to assume that you have the makings of a nice lawsuit.

Why should this be any different when it comes to per click and per signups programs?

If XXX Pussy Cash (made that up) offers to pay me 50% on ALL signups, makes me sign their standard contract, and I can provide proof that XXX Pussy Cash do not end up paying me on ALL signups, I think I have the makings of a lawsuit.

Say I have proof, very good proof, that I am being shaved. Say I can round up several others in the same program that can also prove that they are being shaved. You think I should go for it? It would set an awesome precedent.

[This message has been edited by [Labret] (edited 11-29-2001).]

go to their apartment/house/office and beat them up.

You'll get more satisfaction out of that than going to court

Theo · 11-29-2001, 01:06 PM

KK, that's for sure

[Labret] · 11-29-2001, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim:
Gee I guess we know who's going to get a dvd this week.

Had to drop Tyrone and Shakeesha off at the pool first.

Just wanted to make one more statement before I step out.

I have been a part of a few click thru / revshare / signup programs and I know the bullshit these people have to put up with on a daily basis. I do have alot of sympathy for people who run these programs.

However, some people take this shit too far. As of late I have encountered some shaving that even for me I found extremely excessive. And like someone stated previous, shaving is a fact of life. I accept that, we all do. Shaving off non english traffic, redirecting it, shaving off a few signups... its ok, I know why its done and I have no issues with it.

I did not come on here to say that I was for sure going after someone in particular. I was merely just putting the idea out. Just wanting soem feedback. I am amazed nobody has done it, or attempted it before. And I really do think it would do some good.

And I sure as hell wasnt going for a DVD. If for some odd reason this thread gets out of hand and wins it, I would like to donate it to my poor Canadian friend, CDSmith. Even though he will probably pawn it and buy vaseline. Or maybe donate it to the people of Afghanistan.

And maybe KK shaves, maybe she doesnt. Only Gary knows.

Lighten up Kimmy.

pimplink · 11-29-2001, 01:17 PM

Wizzo,

Interesting point re legal protection against personal liability through corporate or limited liability company [LLC] form. Unfortunately, many suits succeed in "piercing the corporate veil" ie., removing corporate/llc protection to award personal liability. Courts weigh factors such as a) using the corporate/business form as a personal "alter ego" for personal business, systematic disregard for corporate formalities, etc. Once the legal form is "pierced" then the litigant can sue the persons behind the corporation/LLC individually.

Legal business form is not an all inclusive protection against personal liability--it is good protection, but not 100%.

Labret:
Like any lawsuit, your chances of success depend largely on your facts and your lawyer's ability to prove them. Lucky for you, we are not in England. In England, the losing party pays all legal costs.

Pimplink

Quote:

Originally posted by Wizzo:
Another thing to think about, is Most sponsors, if not all, are LLCs at the very least, with little to no actual assets, couple of servers and some content maybe.

Which means they are easy to liquidate into nothing very quick, which means a settlement against them would net you zip...

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 01:18 PM

Labret, Labret, Labret.

Maybe you'll go to the casino and decide the slots aren't loose enough for you and you'll find another target.

Rivux · 11-29-2001, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim:
Labret, Labret, Labret.

Maybe you'll go to the casino and decide the slots aren't loose enough for you and you'll find another target.

Had to re-read that one a few times...way to close to 'sluts arent loose enough for you'

i got all excited there for a minute.

Wizzo · 11-29-2001, 01:44 PM

It is possible pimplink to do that, but I don't think it would be real easy in this case, based on the protection I have seen it give a number of big players that are still in this industry, leads me to believe it's not that easy. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding that the veil can only be broken, when it is used as "false front"(not the legal term)... Which the basis of the whole case is on the fact that the sponsor is doing business without paying you a owed commission, but who knows...

Another issue is the fact that there would Likely be bias towards both parties from any govt. offices(including the courts), just because of the type of business we are in which could be a factor as well.

That's why I think if someone has REAL proof, not "my stats are funny type proof", the public forum could hurt a sponsor in a big way, probley more than a lawsuit.

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 01:45 PM

Y'all might want to stop worrying about who might be shaving you and start thinking about who's selling your ass up the river straight away.
http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/cgi-bi...1&topic=013212

[Labret] · 11-29-2001, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim:
Labret, Labret, Labret.

Maybe you'll go to the casino and decide the slots aren't loose enough for you and you'll find another target.

Slots?

No way. I am all about the dollar "Jackpot Party".

12clicks · 11-29-2001, 02:07 PM

istead of cramer vs cramer we'd have dog lover vs porn peddler.

yeah, it will be given its proper merit.

Chris R · 11-29-2001, 02:16 PM

I am not against suing people, but you would be more or less wasting your time.

In some areas you can sue people for around $10 - you would probably have to go to US District Court which is around $150.

Unfortunately, other than scaring them with your suit - which you could very well do - as they would most likely have to hire an attorney and everything - you would almmost never make it past summary judgement.

Basically, what happens is their lawyer would say they didn't shave - you would say they did. Unfortunately, if you do not have at least SOME PROOF upfront - they will dismiss the case. You would need a sworn affidavit at the very least from someone who "witnessed" the shaving. If you can provide proof - then they will let the case go onto discovery - where you can get their records audited and such.

I know it seems backwards (you need the proof first), but take it from someone who has both won and lost summary judgement motions - you face a very, very, very uphill battle. But like I say, it is $150-$250 to start out - and if you did it yourself - who knows what would happen.

Trust me - even if you got 100 webmasters together to say they were being shaved - it wouldn't count. You could survive summary judgement with only one ex-employee that was willing to SWEAR under oath that he or she SAW it being done. You could depose them (you can not force them to produce records at this stage) in order to TRY to get this.

It would be very hard even if you managed to beat summary judgement.

Just my 2 cents.

------------------
TopBucks.com - Converting at better than 1:130
David Lace Content - Highest Quality Teen Content
ConversionCash.com - Make Money off your WebTV Traffic

Lightning · 11-29-2001, 02:22 PM

Chris your on the right path there

To add to it, I would say that the people doing the complaining about this allegged shaving, are 2 bit nobodies,(probabally hiding what they actually do) that if they added up all their shaving claims from those that would actually be willing to go public with their claims well...it wouldn't add up to enough money to pay for their daily parking fee at the court house...
LOLLOL

[This message has been edited by askmomma (edited 11-29-2001).]

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 02:26 PM

Damn I always thought it was Kramer vs. Kramer...

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 02:41 PM

Damn I always thought it was Kramer vs. Kramer...

Hooper · 11-29-2001, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Who cares about the cash.

I do... and if you DONT i've got a job for y!

pimplink · 11-29-2001, 04:57 PM

Hi AskMomma,

While I agree with the spirit/substance of your comment [vigilance against frivolous lawsuits], I take issue with directing that ire against the potential plaintiff [in your words "two bit nobodies"]. The issue here is the substance and evidentiary weight behind the claim, not the status of the person bringing the claim. US legal history is filled with, in your words "two bit nobodies", that revolutionized our society--Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade [abortion is an emanation of an individual's right to privacy], Gideon [arguing successfuly for incorporating the 6th Amendement's right to councel to states' due process protections], the little girl in Brown v. Board of Education [overturning legal racial segregation in schools and areas of public accomodation], and a host of others.

While Labret's shaving claim/nonclaim may seem trifling to you, this perception should not get in the way of him being able to exercise his legal rights. If only "big shots" or people other than "two bit nobodies" can file suit in this country, then our laws would not have evolved as they did--producing legal protections that the very existence of the online adult industry depend on.

Just my two cents,
Pimplink

Quote:

Originally posted by askmomma:
Chris your on the right path there
To add to it, I would say that the people doing the complaining about this allegged shaving, are 2 bit nobodies,(probabally hiding what they actually do) that if they added up all their shaving claims from those that would actually be willing to go public with their claims well...it wouldn't add up to enough money to pay for their daily parking fee at the court house...
LOLLOL

[This message has been edited by askmomma (edited 11-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 11-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 11-29-2001).]

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 05:45 PM

Interestingly enough there is NO parallel between Roe vs. Wade and one pornographer suing another.

Wizzo · 11-29-2001, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim:
Interestingly enough there is NO parallel between Roe vs. Wade and one pornographer suing another.

Key word being "pornographer"...

Kimmykim · 11-29-2001, 05:49 PM

Well actually I was thinking more like the creation of law unto the land, versus the fact that one pornographer wanted more money from another one.

[Labret] · 11-29-2001, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim:
Well actually I was thinking more like the creation of law unto the land, versus the fact that one pornographer wanted more money from another one.

I would say it is your time of the month, but given that you have probably already gone thru menopause... I can only come to one conclusion.

11-29-2001, 11:55 AM	#1
[Labret] Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: Са́нкт-Петербу́рг Posts: 10,945	Shaving lawsuit Say you are working in sales of tangible products in the real world... televisions for example. And your employer agrees to pay you 50% on each sale. If that employer only paid you for a portion of those sales, it is pretty safe to assume that you have the makings of a nice lawsuit. Why should this be any different when it comes to per click and per signups programs? If XXX Pussy Cash (made that up) offers to pay me 50% on ALL signups, makes me sign their standard contract, and I can provide proof that XXX Pussy Cash do not end up paying me on ALL signups, I think I have the makings of a lawsuit. Say I have proof, very good proof, that I am being shaved. Say I can round up several others in the same program that can also prove that they are being shaved. You think I should go for it? It would set an awesome precedent. [This message has been edited by [Labret] (edited 11-29-2001).]

11-29-2001, 12:26 PM	#17
rollin Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 436	haha

11-29-2001, 11:57 AM	#2
Gary Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Kimmykims couch Posts: 6,110	hmm, wonder which company your talking about. LOL

11-29-2001, 12:01 PM	#3
rollin Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 436	the courts will throw it out you have no solid evidence (actual documents that are signed etc. with an agreement) just a bunch of text on a webpage that can be edited by anyone, at anytime sucks, but thats the way the ball rolls. better bet is to e-mail the cash program owner, tell them you know they shave, here is your proof, and you want them to turn shaving off on your account hehe

11-29-2001, 12:02 PM	#4
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	It's that proof thing, that always seems to get in the way...

11-29-2001, 12:06 PM	#5
Warphead Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Kiss my yankee dick. Posts: 994	Absolutely. It helps every honest webmaster out there to take down a scumbag.

11-29-2001, 12:09 PM	#7
Lightning Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 870	I don't think you will win any money, but I'll bet you do get canned from every sponsor you go after??? I do agree with your thinking, but like Wizzo said, it's that proof thing... Just my 2 cents ------------------ Smiles

11-29-2001, 12:14 PM	#9
rollin Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 436	labret, it seems like such a smart move, but it ends up to be a waste of time... i mean, the sponsor could say, "we don't shave, the credit card proccessor declined" or something like that, there is too many pillows to fall on maybe if you had a screen cap of their admin script, where it says like "shave traffic" or "shave sales", then maybe you could get them good..

11-29-2001, 12:15 PM	#11
rollin Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 436	there are - typeo (i put is)

11-29-2001, 12:16 PM	#13
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Well so much for my fantasy of Labret actually having a brain.

11-29-2001, 12:19 PM	#14
rollin Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 436	LOL kimmykim he has a brain, just has high intentions

11-29-2001, 12:28 PM	#20
Lightning Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 870	It would be virtually impossible to prove in civil court beyond a preponderance of the evidence, that a sponsor shaved. Even a copy of their script with a shave o meter option wouldn't hold up in court. You could never prove they used it... I do commend you in your thinking that sponsor shaving is bad, but it kind of become part of life. Everyone shaves, Hubby shaves his face, I shave my P^%^SS&^Y, and some sponsors shave traffic or sales...It's like a natural ecological process...LOL Kimmy babe is also right, you best be very careful with what you say and about who you are talking about. Slander is much easier of a case to win in court... ------------------ Smiles [This message has been edited by askmomma (edited 11-29-2001).]

11-29-2001, 12:30 PM	#21
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	believe it or not, this time I'm with Labret. Every system, from business to social needs a good example to have in mind, so next time to act properly. Labret, since you have evidences and you know how to handle the case go for it and give them a good lesson.

11-29-2001, 12:32 PM	#22
rollin Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 436	you guys are overlooking the time and money it costs for this kind of suit it's not worth it...LOL maybe if you pushed $100,000 a month through the sponsor, and you know they shaved $30,000 for like 9 months straight lets say. then you have $30,000 x 9, @ $270,000 total shaved...a law firm would take a look at your case for probono then hehe

11-29-2001, 12:39 PM	#25
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Ach they'd probably charge me that same 26% that SleazyDream has to pay.

11-29-2001, 12:49 PM	#26
Rivux Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,026	Go labret...Kick some ass, they deserve it.

11-29-2001, 12:51 PM	#27
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	Another thing to think about, is Most sponsors, if not all, are LLCs at the very least, with little to no actual assets, couple of servers and some content maybe. Which means they are easy to liquidate into nothing very quick, which means a settlement against them would net you zip...

11-29-2001, 12:56 PM	#28
Rivux Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,026	I would just like to see them admit they are scum sucking assholes and then die Who cares about the cash.

11-29-2001, 12:56 PM	#29
heymatty Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Scottsdale :) Posts: 2,188	I only studied British law (fairly unsuccessfully!) and so I don't really know anything of the disclosure laws in various stats. But if I was investigating this I would certainly start with tax records, if that information is available.

11-29-2001, 12:58 PM	#30
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Gee I guess we know who's going to get a dvd this week.

11-29-2001, 01:06 PM	#32
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	KK, that's for sure

11-29-2001, 01:18 PM	#35
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Labret, Labret, Labret. Maybe you'll go to the casino and decide the slots aren't loose enough for you and you'll find another target.

11-29-2001, 01:44 PM	#37
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	It is possible pimplink to do that, but I don't think it would be real easy in this case, based on the protection I have seen it give a number of big players that are still in this industry, leads me to believe it's not that easy. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding that the veil can only be broken, when it is used as "false front"(not the legal term)... Which the basis of the whole case is on the fact that the sponsor is doing business without paying you a owed commission, but who knows... Another issue is the fact that there would Likely be bias towards both parties from any govt. offices(including the courts), just because of the type of business we are in which could be a factor as well. That's why I think if someone has REAL proof, not "my stats are funny type proof", the public forum could hurt a sponsor in a big way, probley more than a lawsuit.

11-29-2001, 01:45 PM	#38
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Y'all might want to stop worrying about who might be shaving you and start thinking about who's selling your ass up the river straight away. http://bbs.gofuckyourself.net/cgi-bi...1&topic=013212

11-29-2001, 02:07 PM	#40
12clicks Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: God's right hand Posts: 19,789	istead of cramer vs cramer we'd have dog lover vs porn peddler. yeah, it will be given its proper merit.

11-29-2001, 02:16 PM	#41
Chris R Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 1,151	I am not against suing people, but you would be more or less wasting your time. In some areas you can sue people for around $10 - you would probably have to go to US District Court which is around $150. Unfortunately, other than scaring them with your suit - which you could very well do - as they would most likely have to hire an attorney and everything - you would almmost never make it past summary judgement. Basically, what happens is their lawyer would say they didn't shave - you would say they did. Unfortunately, if you do not have at least SOME PROOF upfront - they will dismiss the case. You would need a sworn affidavit at the very least from someone who "witnessed" the shaving. If you can provide proof - then they will let the case go onto discovery - where you can get their records audited and such. I know it seems backwards (you need the proof first), but take it from someone who has both won and lost summary judgement motions - you face a very, very, very uphill battle. But like I say, it is $150-$250 to start out - and if you did it yourself - who knows what would happen. Trust me - even if you got 100 webmasters together to say they were being shaved - it wouldn't count. You could survive summary judgement with only one ex-employee that was willing to SWEAR under oath that he or she SAW it being done. You could depose them (you can not force them to produce records at this stage) in order to TRY to get this. It would be very hard even if you managed to beat summary judgement. Just my 2 cents. ------------------ TopBucks.com - Converting at better than 1:130 David Lace Content - Highest Quality Teen Content ConversionCash.com - Make Money off your WebTV Traffic

11-29-2001, 02:22 PM	#42
Lightning Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 870	Chris your on the right path there To add to it, I would say that the people doing the complaining about this allegged shaving, are 2 bit nobodies,(probabally hiding what they actually do) that if they added up all their shaving claims from those that would actually be willing to go public with their claims well...it wouldn't add up to enough money to pay for their daily parking fee at the court house... LOLLOL [This message has been edited by askmomma (edited 11-29-2001).]

11-29-2001, 02:26 PM	#43
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Damn I always thought it was Kramer vs. Kramer...

11-29-2001, 02:41 PM	#44
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Damn I always thought it was Kramer vs. Kramer...

11-29-2001, 05:45 PM	#47
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Interestingly enough there is NO parallel between Roe vs. Wade and one pornographer suing another.

11-29-2001, 05:49 PM	#49
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Well actually I was thinking more like the creation of law unto the land, versus the fact that one pornographer wanted more money from another one.