I think your confusing 2 completely different things in this thread.

http://www.porneskimo.com/leslie%20kamarad.htm

The references on this page make her appear more towards porn than bikini modelling. And I know Leslie, she would never sign a release of her pictures towards anything more than glamour pics. She's quite smart and I can't see her falling for a standard release. I'm more than certain the release she signed was exclusively for the purpose ChrisM mentioned.

WG

Now we are geting somewhere.

Who took these fucking pictures?

http://www.bikinidream.net/movies/gl....php?id=101375

I think everything is related:2 cents:

"Leslie Kamarad - No matter how often you see Leslie, her beauty never ceases to thrill. She is simply stunning in this polka dot bikini. Come see for yourself!"

http://www.bikinidream.com/images/t-leslie1.jpg

http://www.bikinidream.com/tour.html

at least you see beyond the BS that is the exact stuff they are trying to stop.. SHe was the Body glove model and many other large swimwear companies and is or was in the top of that industry. she wouldnt sign anything that would be open for stock. and if she did Epass still has the right to refuse business with anyone.
To call them idiots for standing up for his employees is crazy you would all do it for a friend or whatever

I have to agree with WG...

"Content of gallery consists of: Photos

Pornstar Description:
Leslie Kamarad - A Collection Of Good Snaps Featuring A Blonde Bikini Honey."

Thing is we both know leslie personally, so we know what she's like. Most people here have never had the chance to meet her so they wouldn't know. Nevertheless, she would never sign anything even remotely close to having her pics being used in the context of porn and she fully has the right to defend that and its good that Chris and epassporte are helping her.
WG

so what happened to the original poster?
who/where'd the content come from?
where's the model release?
wtf?

http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/for...Dead_Horse.jpg

ADG Webmaster

They were asked to show the model release, then remove her and call them to discuss they refused all 3 then they get upset because they got denied an account.

then all the haters come out and slam epass for protecting and employee i will never understand this biz fully LOL:1orglaugh

this is one of many pages on the internet http://www.porneskimo.com/leslie%20kamarad.htm

if it was done to someone close to you would you just ignore it if you could possibly help

Enough already Rog...as you keep reminding everyone, we know that you once banged the bikini chick (says a lot about her morals, hehe - j/k), oh yeah, and half the other girls who ever spread Hawaiian Tropics on their bodies, but like you've posted the same shit over and over multiple times in this thread and in multiple others. Unless you have something new to add, kindly give it a rest...

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/p...ken_record.jpg

All it sounds like to me is that you are either an attention whore, or you are trying to parlay your shining knight defense of Leslie into another jump on her bones (not that I wouldn't join you if you needed a wingman)... :winkwink: :1orglaugh

ADG Webmaster

Thats what I am trying to figure out.

In one of the the other threads it seems that Dean shot alot of content for this dude named Chasin or somthing. Twissty's bought Dean and supposedly Twistys had no idea that Dean shot for Chasin or some shit.
Suposedly those contacts for Chasin were used to produce for Twistys or somthing...

But ultimatly Dean just started cappin on Epassport or somthing about a model wearing a bikini or some shit...
Then there was some attorney thing thrown down by Mallic in another thread.

Fuck this I am gettin another beer.
This shit dont make sense and does not involve me.

And apparently did, although later Chris Mallick claimed that the release had been altered. In that it is the site owner with whom Chris is refusing to do business and he didn't suggest any wrong-doing on the part of the content provider, he effectively implied that the site owner had made the changes.

We are all aware that ePassporte can choose to do business (or not) with anyone they want. But whether it is professional to exercise that choice depends on the circumstances and despite 5 pages of drama, those circumstances are still not clear.

Was the model release altered? If so, by whom? If it was altered by the owner(s) of bikinibabes.tv then certainly that is a dishonest business no-one should want to deal with. If the release was altered by the content provider and eP demonstrated that clearly to the owner(s) of bikinibabes, asking (as opposed to demanding) the pictures be removed, but ran into a brick wall, their refusal to do business was still marginally reasonable.

But in the very first post of this thread the site owner wrote "I... asked the content provider of the sets to contact Epassporte and the sort the mess out. I was 100% sure the content was ok to use - and even more sure a respectable content provider wouldn't forge legal documents just to sell a set lol. Well it turns out all the docs are correct and ok". If that was the truth and nothing has emerged in this thread to prove otherwise, then eP's decision, admirable as it may be to want to protect an employee/friend from their own foolishness, was very unprofessional, not least because it affects affiliates of the program, as well as its owner(s).

Okay, but what does it have to do with this thread? Even if we stay on topic I doubt we shall ever find out who has been telling us lies, so why confuse things further? It's already likely that while claiming to be defending a friend, since you have nothing more solid to contribute than anyone else here, you have kept the thread going twice as long as would otherwise have happened.

Dollars4babes have come to a decision. We are going to remove ALL pictures of Lesley from our Bikinibabes site.

This is NOT an admittance to any of Chris's allegations, but solely out of respect to the model. In no way have we promoted
Lesley as a Porn Star. Inevitably some of our affiliates have linked to Lesley's galleries from their Porn Star sites, so we
will also be mailing out all of our affiliates instructing them to update/remove their links.

Let us make it clear that we brought the content in good faith and still 100% believe that we are legally allowed to do so, but to
stop any embarrassment to the model that we may have caused her we shall delete all of Lesley's content from our site.

I'm actually sorry for bringing this to the boards and causing this drama, ours as well as others, and hope by removing the
content of Lesley we can bring this issue to an end. Thanks

Nick
Dollars4babes.com

Actually I was refering to Epassporte helping her not me. I dont have that kind of leverage sorry if your missunderstanding my post. I could always use wing men I'm get old and lazy in my old age

I would just like to add that the urls people are showing are NOT ours or from our site. We did NOT suggest she was a pornstar at any time.


Anyway they are going down now, and affiliates will be asked to remove all links.

But please understand these sets have been sold to many many adult webmasters. We used the images in good faith, but will now remove them out of respect for Lesley. We would have done this in the first place if we were asked in the correct manner.

We never post drama, but this was posted to let people know about this situation....perhaps that was not the best idea :(

that was a very classy thing to do..:2 cents: like I said I thought the site looked great just hit to close to home and it wasnt your site it was really how they were promoting her to you.. and the trash talk about epass that upset me..

your program looks great BTW

:thumbsup :thumbsup

good post.. i think your original "beef" wasnt the photo's as i'm sure anyone would pull photo's if they thought they had been used in a way that was derogatory of the original contract.. it was that they first told you , it would be ok as long as you provided documents , and when you did then they decided to do it for personal reasons.. I certainly wouldn't have been offended if they had told me that up front flat out .. ( ie. we noticed one of our employees displayed on your website in a fashion that she feels she did not authroize, and we ask you to remove the pictures in question out of fairness to our employee etc etc )

What he said.....the whole way they DEMANDED to take down the pics even
prior of finding out details obviously made you go....EXCUSE ME? If Epass would
just had friendly asked to provide documents with a friendly explanaition I'm
sure you would have done so and you most likely would have been willing
to sort this thing out in a professional manner. Epass could have saved face
and you could have used Epass as a processor.....This is not the first time
and I doubt it will be the last......oh well....I guess they are free to run
their company as they see fit.....but I doubt it will benefit them. :thumbsup

No worries, and thanks for the comments :thumbsup

But who was the photographer or content supplier?

BTW very cool to remove the pics, but if the sets been sold multiple times
shouldnt it come down to the content supplier to do the right thing?

Was there something odd about the whole shoot such that paper work may have actually been altered???

The content provider was azurecontent.com
I understand they were sold exclusive rights to the pictures from the company Click1Media, who took the pics. There is nothing in my opinion to suggest that the paper work had, or has been altered.

actually it was a good idea, at least we can see how is epass staff unprofessional in such cases.

Bitch slapp'd

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:thumbsup ( 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..

http://www.bikinibabes.tv/lesley_kamarad/sample.html?

http://bikinibabes.tv/

Where on these pages does it imply you'll get nudity or porn or whatever epassporte said? It doesn't.

Total bullshit. Whoever is boning her at epass should stop thinking with their dick.
:2 cents:

Even if there were 2257 docs, don't you think posting them here would piss her off even more? I mean, I'd be pretty pissed if someone posted my id and shit on GFY.:2 cents: