posted on May 9, 2002 08:20:15 PM new
I had no choice they picked him.
I think I found out why the arbitrator ruled against us. This comes from his web page.
Our client list includes many of the most widely recognized firms in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as throughout the nation and the world. Here is a small sample of our clients:
Adaptec, Inc.
Alcatel USA, Inc.
American Express Company
Ariba, Inc.
Banc of America Securities LLC
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
California Commission of Judicial Performance
California Micro Devices
Chemoil Corporation
Citicorp Real Estate, Inc.
City and County of San Francisco
Esprit de Corp
Hambrecht and Quist Group
Hewlett-Packard Company
Kmart Corporation
Longs Drug Stores
Major League Baseball Properties
Merrill Lynch & Company
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
Oakland Raiders
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Prudential Securities, Inc.
R.J. Reynolds
Sega Enterprises
Sotheby's, Inc.
Starbucks U.S. Brands Corp.
State of California
Sutro & Co., Incorporated
Taco Bell
Technology Crossover Ventures
The Charles Schwab Corporation
The Gap, Inc.
The Good Guys
Thomas Weisel
Time, Inc.
Transamerica Corporation
U.S. Trust Corporation
United Business Media
Valley Media, Inc.
Wells Fargo Bank
I know you have spent tons, and I really feel badly for you........
Is there any way you could have another judge look at the ruling? Sometimes, you can walk in and ask to speak with someone (least here you can) and they will oftentimes tell you possible next steps.
Who picked the arbitrator? Whoever it was, had a stick up their .... because that sure doesnt sound right.
I like and use PayPal, and I sure wouldnt want to think of them as rigging something.
posted on May 11, 2002 07:44:39 PM new
Coonr The list represents the big corporate interests the arbitrator shares. He's affiliated with the American arbitration assoc. as is paypal. The AAA and paypal picked the arbitrator and I had no choice of him or were it was held. Personally I think their all in bed together as you might say.
Pez We're trying to get it over turned and I'm trying to get congressinal hearing started on this unregulated company. Any help anyone can give will also help.
If you want to join us --http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nopal-paypal/
posted on May 11, 2002 08:23:13 PM newThe AAA and paypal picked the arbitrator and I had no choice of him or were it was held. Personally I think their all in bed together as you might say.
And if the decision had been in your favor the arbitrator would have been beyond reproach, right?
I'm trying to get congressinal hearing started on this unregulated company.
If they are unregulated why are some states requiring and issuing licenses? If they are unregulated why do they bother to send me a 1099 DIV Form at the end of each year? If they are unregulated how were they able to be listed on the NASDAQ?
posted on May 11, 2002 08:29:32 PM new
They might be regulated in some areas. They have to give you tax forms for interest earnings. They have money transfer licenses in some states. But they do not have a banking license, yet they let you have funds deposited into them, they let you have a debit card, and they let you have a money market fund. Sure, some of these services might be provided by other companies but they still offer these services. That is the area they aren't regulated in (depositing money). If they were regulated they would have to follow by certain rules (e.g. they wouldn't be able to restrict accounts for as long as they sometimes do now).
[ edited by andrew123s on May 11, 2002 08:32 PM ]
posted on May 11, 2002 08:44:10 PM newBut they do not have a banking license, yet they let you have funds deposited into them, they let you have a debit card, and they let you have a money market fund.
Federal regulators have already said two months ago that PayPal is not a bank. Maybe in your opinion PayPal is a bank, but in the opinion of the feds they aren't.
As for club1man's sweeping statement that PayPal is unregulated I wanted to point out that they they seemed to be having to comply with a lot of regulations. Every stock listed on the NASDAQ must comply with SEC regulations. PayPal's Money Market must comply with SEC regulations. PayPal must report customer dividends and report them, which might explain why they have to send me a 1099 DIV Form.
Waving your arms around and saying they are an unregulated company isn't exactly true now, is it?
posted on May 11, 2002 08:53:47 PM new
Uaru Please read this and tell me what you think are they violating California law or not.
Below is the California civil code that was entered into law in 1989. The arbitrator chose to ignore this when it was noted in the final brief filed by our attorneys.
1748.7. (a) No person shall process, deposit, negotiate, or obtainpayment of a credit card charge through a retailer's account with afinancial institution or through a retailer's agreement with afinancial institution, card issuer, or organization of financialinstitutions or card issuers if that retailer did not furnish oragree to furnish the goods or services which are the subject of thecharge.(b) No retailer shall permit any person to process, deposit,negotiate, or obtain payment of a credit card charge through theretailer's account with a financial institution or the retailer'sagreement with a financial institution, card issuer, or organizationof financial institutions or card issuers if that retailer did notfurnish or agree to furnish the goods or services which are thesubject of the charge.(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply to any of thefollowing1) A person who furnishes goods or services on the businesspremises of a general merchandise retailer and who processes,deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of a credit card chargethrough that general merchandise retailer's account or agreement.(2) A general merchandise retailer who permits a person describedin paragraph (1) to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment ofa credit card charge through that general merchandise retailer'saccount or agreement.(3) A franchisee who furnishes the cardholder with goods orservices that are provided in whole or in part by the franchisor andwho processes, deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of a creditcard charge through that franchisor's account or agreement.(4) A franchisor who permits a franchisee described in paragraph(3) to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment of a creditcard charge through that franchisor's account or agreement.(5) The credit card issuer or a financial institution or aparent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the card issuer or a financialinstitution.(6) A person who processes, deposits, negotiates, or obtainspayment of less than five hundred dollars ($500) of credit cardcharges in any one year period through a retailer's account oragreement. The person shall have the burden of producing evidencethat the person transacted less than five hundred dollars ($500) incredit card charges during any one year period.(d) Any person injured by a violation of this section may bring anaction for the recovery of damages, equitable relief, and reasonableattorney's fees and costs.(e) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of amisdemeanor. Each occurrence in which a person processes, deposits,negotiates, or otherwise seeks to obtain payment of a credit cardcharge in violation of subdivision (a) constitutes a separateoffense.(f) The penalties and remedies provided in this section are inaddition to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.(g) The exemptions from this title specified in Section 1747.03 donot apply to this section.(h) As used in this section1) "General merchandise retailer" means any person or entity,regardless of the form of organization, that has continuously offeredfor sale or lease more than 100 different types of goods or servicesto the public in this state throughout a period which includes theimmediately preceding five years.(2) "Franchisor" has the same meaning as defined in Section 31007of the Corporations Code.(3) "Franchisee" has the same meaning as defined in Section 31006of the Corporations Code.
posted on May 11, 2002 09:53:50 PM new
I'm not a legal expert but just looking at it from a common sense point of view:
b) No retailer shall permit any person to process, deposit,negotiate, or obtain payment of a credit card charge through theretailer's account with a financial institution or the retailer'sagreement with a financial institution, card issuer, or organizationof financial institutions or card issuers if that retailer did notfurnish or agree to furnish the goods or services which are thesubject of the charge.
This is what PayPal does.
Exceptions:
1) A person who furnishes goods or services on the businesspremises of a general merchandise retailer and who processes,deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of a credit card chargethrough that general merchandise retailer's account or agreement.
Users do not do this on PayPal's premises.
(2) A general merchandise retailer who permits a person describedin paragraph (1) to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment ofa credit card charge through that general merchandise retailer'saccount or agreement.
PayPal does not have customers who do this on their premises.
(3) A franchisee who furnishes the cardholder with goods orservices that are provided in whole or in part by the franchisor andwho processes, deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of a creditcard charge through that franchisor's account or agreement.
Users provide the goods or services, not PayPal.
(4) A franchisor who permits a franchisee described in paragraph(3) to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment of a creditcard charge through that franchisor's account or agreement.
Again, users provide the goods or services, not PayPal.
(5) The credit card issuer or a financial institution or aparent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the card issuer or a financialinstitution.
I doubt most PayPal users are a subsidiary or affiliate of PayPal.
(6) A person who processes, deposits, negotiates, or obtainspayment of less than five hundred dollars ($500) of credit cardcharges in any one year period through a retailer's account oragreement. The person shall have the burden of producing evidencethat the person transacted less than five hundred dollars ($500) incredit card charges during any one year period.
Now while PayPal processes less than 500 dollars of credit card transactions to many users, they process a lot more to many others.
It looks like none of these exceptions apply to PayPal (except the 500 dollar one, which only applies to some of PayPal's users).
[ edited by andrew123s on May 11, 2002 09:55 PM ]
posted on May 12, 2002 12:56:14 AM new
Travelers insurance was a SCAM to begin with. I called them and they told me there was a 250k agragate deductible. which means if your account was hacked for 100k you had to deal with paypal. only when payponzi had paid out 250k would Travlers be responsible. plus there were other clauses that they couldn't tell me about. Think about it read the terms their out for NO ONE BUT themselves. IN OTHER words YOU don't count unless it suits them. You should have heard the BULLSH_T they gave me before they took me down the road.
Do you know what a 'Ponzi' scheme is? I realize you hate PayPal, but if you tempered your hate with a bit of reason it wouldn't make you look like someone throwing around wild accusations.
The arbitrator was on the take. PayPal scammed you. Traveler's scammed you. You see a pattern here?
You engaged in a very high risk enterprise. You don't seem to be telling anyone anything about how e-gold works except in the most vague reference of "people investing in gold." I can invest in gold through Merrill Lynch, or A.G.Edwards, or Monex. Why would I be sending money orders or credit card orders to an private individual to invest in gold?
Before you jump the gun and think that Uaru is attacking you stop and try and understand where I'm coming from.
posted on May 12, 2002 09:39:02 AM new
where can we read about the whole episode??
club1man,
in one of your past postings,you said you have talked to 2 paypal persons-one i think could be the president of paypal and asked them to pass the credit card data to you so you decide if you want to accept or decline the transaction as you feel you know your customers well .
did any of these transactions result in chargeback??
also i would like to offer a way of looking at this case from a different perspective-you have spent a lot of money on this case and most of them is legal fees to lawyers and para legal.the suit itself is if i am correct involves transactions totalled 30-40,000 and the legal fee is 10 times that-300,000-400,000 range.is this correct??
posted on May 12, 2002 10:15:32 AM newwhere can we read about the whole episode??
In a dispute wouldn't the 'whole episode' require participation from both parties? I know club1man is willing and eager to give his story to any that will listen, but I don't think PayPal (or any other cooperation) is going to put their case in a dispute before a public message board.
Both sides did get to offer their story to an arbitrator, and now club1man has hinted that the arbitrator was in bed with PayPal.
posted on May 12, 2002 01:17:25 PM new
Man a lot of questions to answer.
First as far as Travelers is concerned I had nothing to do with them except calling an checking out something I heard. People are lead to believe that if their account is hacked then Travelers takes care of it. Paypal does not inform people about the fact that accounts totaling 250k would have to be hacked before Travelers even becomes envolved.
As far as paypal operating against California law, my lawyer took it to a large group of Calif Lawyers and they agreed 100% that he was right. Question why was master card going to shut them down?
Yes your right I'm angry. I started a business just like all of you. I didn't expect to do the business that I did but because I was honest, people dealt with me. All of a sudden after doing over 2500 transactions with them they started reversing transactions. They took the credit cards I didn't and they told me that because I was dealing with e-gold I was responsible and not covered by their SPP. By the way the arbitrator ruled against that saying I WAS covered.
As far as speaking to exec. of paypal Yes when we were trying to work this out they,at my suggestion put the accept or reject preference in their software. It wasn't any help for the 71 reversals I already had but I was able to change my preferences to allow my regular customers to use their credit cards. No I didn't have any charge backs after that. Please remember that all this was going on over a year ago. Since then they've changed their TOS more than I've changed my shorts--lol.
Stopwhinning My legal fees run about 125k which were forced on me because I had to defend myself The counterclaim was a necessary part of this. Yes I could have just payed them but by the time I had a lawyer they we holding me responsible for over 10k of their legal fees plus I was receiving bills from the arbitration assoc.
The arbitrator was charging 250 an hour. The 338k in legal fees that I'm expected to pay is paypals.
Why was paypal awarded leagal fees costs and interest when the arbitrator said I was covered under the SPP. He didn't give me interest on that part.
E-gold is both a payment system and an investment.
I have a complete transcript of everything and Because paypal doesn't want others to know what went on the filed a protective order on them. That won't last long.
As far as the arbitrator is concerned I didn't say he was on the take I said he was pro big business He knows which side his bread is buttered on.
By the way Andrew what is your conclusion
[ edited by club1man on May 12, 2002 01:19 PM ]
posted on May 12, 2002 02:13:24 PM new
what is e-gold??does it advertise its service and where is it incorporated??
i remember when gold price was flat and no one like the south african racial policy,the krugerrand was trading at slight premium over spot gold,it was a good buy for gold bugs!!
i always suggest to my friends then,go buy some krugerrand coins,and take it out once in awhile and play with it,get over this gold fever business!!
no one listen to me.
posted on May 12, 2002 02:24:44 PM new
Here is the link to e-gold you can find all you want about it there http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=177360 Thanks for asking
posted on May 13, 2002 12:45:20 PM new
uara; RE: "If they are unregulated why are some states requiring and issuing licenses? If they are unregulated why do they bother to send me a 1099 DIV Form at the end of each year? If they are unregulated how were they able to be listed on the NASDAQ? As for club1man's sweeping statement that PayPal is unregulated I wanted to point out that they they seemed to be having to comply with a lot of regulations. Every stock listed on the NASDAQ must comply with SEC regulations. PayPal's Money Market must comply with SEC regulations. PayPal must report customer dividends and report them, which might explain why they have to send me a 1099 DIV Form. Waving your arms around and saying they are an unregulated company isn't exactly true now, is it?"
Maybe if you weren't so busy being such a smug ASS, you'd realize that having your stock offering regulated by the SEC has NOTHING to do with operating under a regulatory agency that would have some control over your day to day business operations, and the things you can and cannot do with your customers funds.
Just because Paypal is required to follow the IRS rule that they send out a form 1099DIV doesn't mean the IRS regulates how they do business with Joe Consumer when it comes to money they're screwing him out of.
And to answer your first question: "If they are unregulated, why are some states requiring and issuing licenses?" BECAUSE THEY'RE UNREGULATED.
Would it have shut you up if Club1man had said (without waving his arms around)LOL "Their day-to-day business operations, specifically transactions that the average consumer would use them for, are unregulated." ?
posted on May 13, 2002 12:59:07 PM new
Thanks for clearing that up for me By the way isn't enron listed with the sec. That didn't stop them from screwing their employees and stock holders.
posted on May 13, 2002 01:10:12 PM newMaybe if you weren't so busy being such a smug ASS
Okay, I'll try and not be a smug ASS for this post.
Look you little twit, I'm not Damon, I can respond with a disagreeable tone without regard to diplomacy. You seem to feel you have some obligation to shut me up when I post. Well, my clueless little twit it is time you woke up and smelled the coffee.
I'm sure you'd love the board to work in a way that Club1man or you can make post and not have them subject to a 'counter-point' but that ain't the case. Deal with it bucko.
Now if you would like to get Diana in on this little tiff please do so. I would dearly love to direct her to numerous posts where you come across like a child that is out of his element. Disagreeing without being disagreeable isn't your forte.
If you want me to make this clearer then let me know. I've tried to use a tone and terms that you can relate to.
posted on May 13, 2002 01:37:01 PM new
Well look what happened - you said you'd TRY not to be a smug ASS for that one post, and it didn't work.
Re your comment: "I'm sure you'd love the board to work in a way that Club1man or you can make post and not have them subject to a 'counter-point' but that ain't the case. Deal with it bucko." YOU deal with it "bucko" - How is what I'm doing different than you making a counter-point? At least I'm addressing the issue at hand, and at least I'm correct.
And who the hell is Diana? LMAO!
re: "...where you come across like a child that is out of his element." Oh okay, and you calling me "Your clueless little twit" comes from what, your Masters Degree language skills program?
Re: "You seem to feel you have some obligation to shut me up when I post." Unfortunately, shutting you up isn't an option, but just as you seem to have some obligation to post every time Club1man posts, I am entitled to point out where you're being a smug ASS who just happens to be incorrect.
"Disagreeing without being disagreeable isn't your forte." Well if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black! It's a good thing it's a free country!
posted on May 13, 2002 02:28:33 PM new
HOLD ON LADIES AND GENTLEMAN I think we're getting away from the point. Our energies would be better off trying to solve the problems with paypal rather then calling one another names. The facts as I see them are, that if no one takes up a campaign to stop the injustices paypal wreaks on people and not specifically myself. Paypal sure won't. As I said before the net needs a service LIKE they provide, but not the way they provide it.
posted on May 13, 2002 05:44:06 PM new
Uaru
Main Entry: Pon·zi scheme
Pronunciation: 'pän-zE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Charles A. Ponzi †1949 American (Italian-born) swindler
Date: 1973
: an investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks
posted on May 13, 2002 06:14:47 PM new
This was just send to me by another person forced into arbitration. It has nothing to do with paypal but I think it shows a trend.
Can someone please help me understand this Arbitration process that is sweeping the nation?? How many people are aware that when they are signing a contract for a purchase, there may be in very small print, on the back of that contract, an Arbitration Clause? How many consumers know what Arbitration is, let alone understand the process? The business using these Arbitration clauses know it well, and use the process over and over, & usually with the same Arbitration forum, but the consumer gets only one shot! Ok, so I'm bound by this Arbitration since I signed a contract a year ago when making a purchase. I do hours of research, get all my paperwork together, read their thick booklet of procedures, and submit all my evidence by certified mail to this forum that's half way across the country from me! I get a letter in return stating an Arbitrator has been appointed for a document hearing, and attached was a resume of her experience, (that I later found out was inaccurate). I submitted evidence that the company who filed this suit blatantly broke the law, and did not deserve an award. Their evidence contained a simple denial from an attorney. I tried to request more evidence from them, but was denied and the hearing began. So now my life is in the hands of an Arbitration Forum I know nothing about, and an arbitrator who was chosen for me. A month later I received a letter in the mail stating an award has been entered against me for over $10,000!! This award didn't state how or why, just pay it! When I called the forum to ask how a company could win an award for breaking the law and how I could appeal, I was told case closed, I have to accept this decision. I though, this can't be true, even in a court of law you can appeal a decision. I thought, I will take this into my state court in front of a judge who will be fair, and I can stand in front of someone to tell my side. NOT so easily done! On the advise of some friends, I tried to find an Attorney who would help me with this, but the answer was all the same....It's next to impossible to get an arbitration award overturned or vacated! They all said I had proven this company broke the law, but it's now too late to do anything about it! How was I to know the arbitrator would totally disregard the law? Did I even have a say in the matter? I don't know if the Arbitrator even received my paperwork? Where is the justice when I did not have a VOICE in the Arbitration Forum to be used, I did not have a VOICE in the Arbitrator who would decide this case, I did not have a VOICE in the evidence submitted, I did not have a VOICE to appeal, I'm not sure why I was even asked to participate? I'm sure Arbitration is an excellent source in resolving disputes when BOTH parties agree to it and the decision. BOTH parties have a voice in choosing the Arbitrator, and the process is fair with ALL evidence submitted. But there has to be a way to right a wrong when the process is so unfair, and especially when anyone breaks the law! Laws are put in place for a reason, to protect consumers, and we can not allow big business a venue through Arbitration to break those laws! I continue to fight this case & had a chance to be heard in my state (NJ) court, but the Judge advised me to seek councel, and post-poned until June. If anyone has any comments, suggestions, or advise....please...I don't want to loose this now after fighting for 2 years. I can't find an attorney that wants this case, and I don't think the judge wants to see me back in his court Pro-se. Thanks
I would have to say you're right. It seems that big companies are using Arbitration Agreements as a kind of legal insurance.
It just doesn't seem right that the company you're up against is using an arbitrator THEY'VE hired! (Just like PayPal did in your case). The part I don't understand in the letter that was sent to you (and I don't know how much additional information you have, if any) - was this person being sued for the unpaid amount of the purchase (contract)?
About 4 years ago the corporation I work for had all current employees sign arbitration agreements (in trade for 25 worthless stock options), and at that time, it became a condition of employment - going forward new applicants either sign it or they don't get hired.
The big differences I notice, though, between an 'employee/employer arbitration agreement' and the one described in your post (i.e., between retailers or service organizations & consumers) seems to be in what your recource is after arbitration. (Maybe it varies by state - or it could be that the one described is 'binding arbitration' - which is why he can't find a lawyer that wants to touch it). The one I signed doesn't use the term 'binding'. I've also been told that here in California, being a 'sue-happy' state - many employees were reluctant to sign the agreement initially - but were told that it does not take away their right to sue after arbitration - it's just a way to try to have differences resolved in a manner that is quicker and less co$tly. (And I'm sure with less potential media exposure, etc).
The other HUGE difference is the fact that the one I signed with my employer is administered by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF)(who knew?)- and to select an arbitrator; "...the NAF shall provide each party a list of arbitrators and each party shall have the right to strike one name."
It also says that the 'Federal Arbitration Act' governs the interpretation, enforcement and all proceedings.
BTW - if it helps at all (in case you don't have this info) there's a toll-free number for the Nat'l Arbitration Forum (1-800-474-2371) and their web site is: www.arb-forum.com. This is where you can request a copy of the NAF 'Code of Procedures'.
It certainly should be interesting, if nothing else, as more and more companies use these agreements in their dealings with customers - as long as the company gets to choose the arbitrator - it kinda nullifies the definition (i.e., "unbiased" 3rd party).
posted on May 14, 2002 12:13:41 PM new
ltlcrafty1
I only have what he sent me although I'll try to get more info. As far as arbitration being less costly than court. MY half of the fees where $14,000 and the court fees would have been less than $1000 and now I'm supposed to pay paypals share.
1) A person who furnishes goods or services on the businesspremises of a general merchandise retailer and who processes,deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of a credit card chargethrough that general merchandise retailer's account or agreement.(2) A general merchandise retailer who permits a person describedin paragraph (1) to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment ofa credit card charge through that general merchandise retailer'saccount or agreement.(3) A franchisee who furnishes the cardholder with goods orservices that are provided in whole or in part by the franchisor andwho processes, deposits, negotiates, or obtains payment of a creditcard charge through that franchisor's account or agreement.(4) A franchisor who permits a franchisee described in paragraph(3) to process, deposit, negotiate, or obtain payment of a creditcard charge through that franchisor's account or agreement.(5) The credit card issuer or a financial institution or aparent, subsidiary, or affiliate of the card issuer or a financialinstitution.(6) A person who processes, deposits, negotiates, or obtainspayment of less than five hundred dollars ($500) of credit cardcharges in any one year period through a retailer's account oragreement. The person shall have the burden of producing evidencethat the person transacted less than five hundred dollars ($500) incredit card charges during any one year period.(d) Any person injured by a violation of this section may bring anaction for the recovery of damages, equitable relief, and reasonableattorney's fees and costs.(e) Any person who violates this section shall be guilty of amisdemeanor. Each occurrence in which a person processes, deposits,negotiates, or otherwise seeks to obtain payment of a credit cardcharge in violation of subdivision (a) constitutes a separateoffense.(f) The penalties and remedies provided in this section are inaddition to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.(g) The exemptions from this title specified in Section 1747.03 donot apply to this section.(h) As used in this section