posted on June 4, 2002 06:47:57 PM new
This only bolsters my long time opinion of an inside job, which I suggested to a PP VP a year and a half ago. I suppose they'll contend this is the first time this has happened.
posted on June 4, 2002 10:28:32 PM newclub1manThis only bolsters my long time opinion of an inside job
You know, it is painfully evident to me that if eGold was to cooperate with you on any sort of investigation it shouldn't be to hard to find who profited from the fraudulent credit card charges. You know there are two insiders in this senario, PayPal and you.
You took the PayPal funds. You made deposits into eGold accounts. If eGold is the outfit you say they are they'd have a trail of where those fund were funneled to. In all your finger pointing and crying of "PayPonzi" what information/support/cooperation has eGold given you? I'm a bit puzzled as to how the money seems to disappear when it gets to eGold. You've said those egold accounts aren't anonymous accounts. So who got the money?
You can say "Payponzi" till the cows come home, but it doesn't answer a lot of questions. You're very painfully brief on any dialog about eGold other than "people investing in gold."
These 'inside job', 'arbitrator was in bed with PayPal', 'I've talked to people in the know', 'they are keeping the press from reporting my story', and other such claims isn't winning you any credibility with me.
posted on June 5, 2002 08:34:53 AM new
Uaru,
Sorry I spelled you handle wrong in the previous post (been a long time). You talk about credibility. With 3950 posts, it seems to me, as well as others that your a YES boy for PAYPONZI (hope I'm wrong). One way or the other so be it. Basically e-gold has nothing to do with it, it's between me and PAYPONZI.
It wasn't me who required anyone sitting in the room during the arbitration to sign a statement of confidentiality, it was PAYPONZI'S lawyers.
It wasn't me who insisted on filing a protective order on the documents, it was PAYPONZI'S lawyers.
It wasn't me who threatened Damian Cave from Salon.Com enough that he got a court injunction so he wouldn't have to testify. He told me personally after he wrote the story that they threatened to ruin his credibility.
It wasn't me that took other peoples money to try to offset my negative balance, it was PAYPONZI.
It wasn't me that was the merchant of record, it was PAYPONZI.
It wasn't me that didn't show up to testify at the arbitration in Frisco. I traveled from Texas but PAYPONZI'S CFU* Peter Thiel didn't have the GUTS to and he was only 5 minutes away.
It wasn't me that took credit cards that failed 2 or more AVS checks it was PAYPONZI.
It wasn't me that doctored records, it was PAYPONZI. I produced emails from them showing a verified account, they changed the records to try to show it was unverified.
It wasn't me who allowed a credit card to be listed on 3 separate accounts in different states, it was PAYPONZI.
It wasn't PAYPONZI that proved that some of the chargebacks were false, it was me.
As far as the arbitrator goes, he was the one saying he paid $80 a square foot for his office space. Go back and look at his client list, it speaks for it self. If you had them would you rule against a corporation?
Your pumping up of these gutless wonders makes me wonder what side your bread is buttered on. Good God man I don't have a damn thing to hide and the transcript would be on my other web page already, If it wasn't for those dirty bast**ds being afraid that if you saw it you'd realize, as everyone else would, that their hands are DIRTY.
I asked you a question that very much relates to your issues and charges. You have repeated that you were scammed though what you felt was 'an inside job'.
I'll ask the same questions again.
It is painfully evident to me that if eGold was to cooperate with you on any sort of investigation it shouldn't be to hard to find who profited from the fraudulent credit card charges. You know there are two insiders in this senario, PayPal and you.
You took the PayPal funds. You made deposits into eGold accounts. If eGold is the outfit you say they are they'd have a trail of where those fund were funneled to. In all your finger pointing and crying of "PayPonzi" what information/support/cooperation has eGold given you? I'm a bit puzzled as to how the money seems to disappear when it gets to eGold. You've said those egold accounts aren't anonymous accounts. So who got the money?
You answered saying this has nothing to do with eGold, and I don't see it that way nor would anyone else that is looking at the big picture. eGold has to have a tracking system to show where those funds ended up, if it is an 'inside job' as you are alleging it would be child's play to prove to the authorities.
Now you can answer this, or you can ignore it by typing your "PayPonzi" rants again and challenging my credibility as to who butters my bread, but the question remains. It's a very legitimate question.
The money went from PayPal to Club1Man to eGold, so don't tell me eGold has nothing to do with this. They are the third element, and they have to know who profited from the scam.
posted on June 5, 2002 05:24:35 PM new
Club1man has said in the past that some payments PayPal said were charged back actually weren't charged back by the cardholders. Even the arbitrator didn't disagree from what Club1man has posted. That is an issue between him and PayPal, not EGold. If PayPal says that a payment has been charged back but in reality it wasn't, that is an issue between club1man and PayPal. (This is just from the information I've seen on these boards.)
posted on June 5, 2002 09:08:25 PM new
It is evident that Uaru will do anything to try to shift the blame to anyone as long as it's not PAYPONZI. It would seem to me that if someone put money in my bank account and I took it out and gave to someone and the funds in my account turned out to be possibly bad it would be between me and my bank. The ebay thread shows the possibility of both a security breach and a bad apple in the bunch.
Why don't you address some of the other issues. Also Payponzi said I wasn't eligable For the seller protection program because they said e-gold was not a "good" and they were wrong about that. It isn't worth arguing with you because you have blinders on and as far as your concerned PAYPONZI can do no wrong. Tens of thousands of people can't be wrong.
posted on June 5, 2002 09:36:29 PM newclub1manIt is evident that Uaru will do anything to try to shift the blame to anyone as long as it's not PAYPONZI.
Club1man,
You are getting real defensive, but the question is very legitimate. If you deposited funds into an eGold account that were later deemed as 'fraudulent credit card transactions' it would seem that eGold would be able to identify who profited from that scheme. You seem to want to brush this question away by attacking me. I'm a big boy and my feelings aren't hurt easy. The question isn't going away.
Go ahead and say "Payponzi" over and over like some wild eyed child if you like, but the question is there and there's a good chance someone besides me understands that question.
No I don't believe PayPal screwed up in your case. I've told you and others have told you that your business model was horribly flawed.
I'd really love to see you get your on camera interview, I think you'd find yourself being asked some questions that you don't have some pat answers for.
posted on June 5, 2002 10:08:13 PM new
I'm getting defensive? E-gold will supply records on orders from a court. Those records weren't germain to the arbitration. The fact was PAYPONZI presented false documents,lied and continues to steal money from thousands of people. I have already been on camera and I answered all questions truthfully. It was Max Levchin that refused to discuss anything and GUTLESS Peter Theil refused to be interviewed. I'll do it again and again and we'll see when they have the GUTS to show up.
posted on June 6, 2002 03:43:45 AM new
Uaru, yes, if the funds were actually fraudulent (and PayPal didn't screw up the AVS) then EGold should be involved in an investigation to find out who the fraudulent credit card user was. But if PayPal says a transaction was charged back because of unauthorized credit card use and it really wasn't charged back, then it doesn't have to do with EGold, it is a PayPal problem.
