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:pimp

madddd drama

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

Couldn't have summed it up better myself. :thumbsup

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? :helpme
he probably won't go on boards to answer your posts.. :2 cents:

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. :2 cents:

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.

P.S. Never mind what I said in the counter-suing thing, I'm wrong... I just miss-read.

The level of professionalism in this industry bewilders me.

sure, but getting angry because somebody hung up the phone & going to a big forum & posting shit knowing for fact that it would do what it did, that's just out of line... did he give them the chance to respond, don't look like it,, for christs sake, he couldv'e waited til NR / Xc was in their office.. nope, got pissed because of a phone call & posted in response to the phone call.. this is merely an interpretation.. only 2 people that really know anything about what occured are tmm & xc..

Ego fucks up business when you have a mentality like
"No motherfuckers gonna hangup on me & get away with it.. I'll show them"

He should have waited a few more days.. he should have allowed XC time to get home/office to check things out & to respond.. (I am assuming john may have posted immediately after the phone call)..

Also to add, who polices the Porn Site stats that John owns??:2 cents:

If their program is as small as reported, it should take no time at all for them to run out of money to pay their lawyers.

Brad

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

yup - you got it

It will be unbelieveable. I can't believe any program would put all their accounting and tax info into public record. If NR's books are not 100% the court and then the IRS will take them apart.

great post!

holy shit now this is some drama.

I've been researching, and I was leaning towards NATS vs mpa3. Perhaps I should watch the outcome of this...

Vote for Pedro

while both are great products, nothing compares to nats.
this drama will be over soon. trust me, the guy stirring the muck has had his bouts of shaddyness in the past.

duke

Situation escalating... Someone needs damage control.

Along for the ride.... weeeee

I stand by NATS' actions. If it gets to it, during the discovery in court I'm sure they will be able to prove their righteous actions about the original post TMM made which they're trying to sue over. :2 cents:

third page spot


:pimp

better late than never ... sig spot :upsidedow

I am assuming that since NR is looking for no less then 75,000 and is sueing for 5,000,000 that the lawyers are working off the retainer of prob 5,000 and will get a % of the outcome.

But, if that is not the case. Then they will need alot of credit cards to keep this going.

Its not really about that... though I agree ... and would be surprised if nats did this just for show. Anyhow thats not the issue. Court isn't about right and wrong, a good lawyer goes a long way.

Yes but the original original original post didnt say "we caught them shaving", it said there was a discrepancy and that at which time the discrepancy was sorted out, the license would be reinstated.

I guess some people think from the original post that "they were caught shaving"... and some others just figured "they'll sort it out". The way it's interepreted is key I think.

Anyway, I was just curious if it was part of the contract, oral or written.
I hope both parties simply settle things and the cosmos reverts to harmony :winkwink: