one American response ...
StormPay.com issued a letter to all its members today. That letter can be viewed at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/better-life/message/278
_
StormPay is an online payment processor - a service upon which we should be able to rely to conduct legitimate business worldwide on the Internet or offline.
Instead of focusing on performing that primary function, it seems StormPay is now acting as an ad hoc agency of the United States Government, deciding what is and is not legitimate business or business practice.
Most of us are well aware that the PTS [paid-to-surf] industry, which is a little over three years old ( please correct me if I am wrong ) is rife with fraud in that many so-called PTS are in fact no more than Ponzis. Many PTS are "business" in a marginal sense, operating with no means of profit, but instead recycling member upgrades to make payouts. Such practice is unquestionably illegal, at least in the U.S.
www.autohits.dk is a Danish autosurf site ( not PTS ) where I agree you can see how " a true auto-surf works " - in fact, since I have been a member almost since autohits.dk opened, I can personally vouch for that service as one of the best if you want worldwide exposure for your website. On the other hand, some of the content there you might find offensive whether you are an American or not.
Maybe next month StormPay will decide to freeze autohits.dk on the basis that content displayed there is objectionable to TOS.
I personally want to thank StormPay for educating us on what is PTC and PTR ("Paid to click", or "Paid to Read"); however, such discussion is beyond the realm of the issue at hand regarding StormPay.
The simple fact of the matter is that NOT all PTS are Ponzis - not any more than all Americans are criminals. One PTS in particular is registered in the State of North Carolina, which means that state's authorities are already aware of how that company operates, and has approved that company's operation. Would the North Carolina State Attorney General's Office approve the operation of a Ponzi Scheme within the state borders ? Beyond which, that PTS has its own legal staff, which will now be bringing another lawsuit against StormPay.
I personally will back any action taken again StormPay.
It is time, past time really, that we, as Americans, take a stand to stop the intrusion into our personal decisions. Granted, the public needs a remedy for online fraud. That remedy does not need to come in the form of an online business acting as if everyone is guilty until proven innocent, nor does it mean we need government to intrude into our affairs and privacy. What is needed quite simply is that those government agencies we have commissioned to investigate fraud do their job within the framework of the Constitution, which is what those of us who are American taxpayers expect of them.
My primary e-mail address is now "certified" by NetIBA - a simple transaction which cost me $19.95 - a test, but what does it mean ? All it means really is that it has been confirmed by the United States Postal Service that I actually receive mail at the physical address I registered. Whether I am an honest, law-abiding citizen is unknown to anyone at NetIBA as far as I know. Of course, it is easier to find me if I do break the law ... is it not ?
NetIBA (http://www.whois.sc/netiba.com) is registered to the same man as is StormPay (http://www.whois.sc/stormpay.com):
Mr. John R. McConnell of Clarksville, Tennessee.
What does it mean then that StormPay is "certified" by NetIBA ? ... and just what sort of "Internet International Business Authority" is Mr. McConnell ? Another question is why has Mr. McConnell recently removed his name from the registration pages of both sites ?
I do not read, nor have I, as some have suggested, that StormPay requires its "subscribers" to register with NetIBA, but there is clearly an incentive to do so when subscribers are told they will save 4% [Four Percent] on their transactions fees when they are NetIBA certified. That to me is a Red Flag immediately.
The statement in StormPay's latest letter:
"It has recently been brought to the attention of StormPay Inc. that the current rash of new Auto-Surf and Paid to Read accounts are NOT operating in the traditional manner."
... is pure malarkey. Even if Mr. McConnell had been off the planet for the last three years, since he OWNS StormPay, someone would have told him. To believe otherwise is not possible ... which leads me to the question whether I should believe anything in today's "Important message from StormPay Inc."
Lawsuits against StormPay for freezing accounts are not new. There is even reference to such actions on a site meant to bash StormPay's biggest competitor:
http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthread.php?fid=19&tid=9777&old_block=0
Quoting again from the StormPay letter today, " StormPay has asked the 'Merchant(s)' to provide a detailed explanation of the workings of these programs including how profit margins and customer payments are made. These questions were asked point blank by StormPay while on a conference call with the owner/operator and their attorney. The requests for information from the 'merchant' were simply denied leaving StormPay no choice other than to report those findings to the other organizations who required the information from StormPay. These findings and reports caused the seizure of funds of the merchant(s) StormPay accounts until all legal matters are resolved. Please be reminded that this could have been avoided if the merchant(s) could have, or would have provided information proving no illegal pyramid or ponzi activity. "
... I will offer that information is not straightforward or honest.
What is said in that passage may very well be true in the majority of cases, but I would submit that even an honest business owner, when put in that position, might choose not to reveal "inside information" without first consulting his or her attorney or CPA. Granted, the attorney could be present, except there is no way to know when StormPay might make such a call, and most of us cannot pay consultant fees to wait for a phone call. At the same time, StormPay then uses such "non-disclosure" as proof of guilt, with no further recourse.
When illegal activity is proven against a StormPay subscriber, I believe StormPay has every right to freeze the subscriber's funds until the matter is settled; however, freezing an account only on basis of "assumption of guilt" will not stand up in court. StormPay is not a regulatory arm of the United States Government, nor can StormPay accurately "calculate" the bottom line of any business when it does not have access to the company records.
Another line from the StormPay letter, " Get Rich Quick schemes include any type of self-employment, start-up businesses, or investment opportunity where the claims of profit or returns on investment are unrealistic or unsupported. " does not wash either. Who defines "unrealistic" ... ? Who determines what is "supported" ? There is a stranglehold on Americans by our government and banking industry desperarate to have us believe that "what the bankswill pay" is "realistic" - even though the very same banks ise money we deposit in them to reap huge DAILY dividends, for which they could return to us for our deposits far more than the measly single-digit YEARLY interest rate they allow us.
The accusation of Ponzi when applied to a legitimate business is for no other reason than to scare away would-be participants who are capable of engaging in a legal and moral activity that can actually do some good for the general population. It is wholly unreasonable that honest Americans must work in an atmosphere of distrust, under an assumption that whatever we do will be dishonest; therefore we must be constantly watched and "protected" from ourselves.
JB
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/better-life/message/278
_
StormPay is an online payment processor - a service upon which we should be able to rely to conduct legitimate business worldwide on the Internet or offline.
Instead of focusing on performing that primary function, it seems StormPay is now acting as an ad hoc agency of the United States Government, deciding what is and is not legitimate business or business practice.
Most of us are well aware that the PTS [paid-to-surf] industry, which is a little over three years old ( please correct me if I am wrong ) is rife with fraud in that many so-called PTS are in fact no more than Ponzis. Many PTS are "business" in a marginal sense, operating with no means of profit, but instead recycling member upgrades to make payouts. Such practice is unquestionably illegal, at least in the U.S.
www.autohits.dk is a Danish autosurf site ( not PTS ) where I agree you can see how " a true auto-surf works " - in fact, since I have been a member almost since autohits.dk opened, I can personally vouch for that service as one of the best if you want worldwide exposure for your website. On the other hand, some of the content there you might find offensive whether you are an American or not.
Maybe next month StormPay will decide to freeze autohits.dk on the basis that content displayed there is objectionable to TOS.
I personally want to thank StormPay for educating us on what is PTC and PTR ("Paid to click", or "Paid to Read"); however, such discussion is beyond the realm of the issue at hand regarding StormPay.
The simple fact of the matter is that NOT all PTS are Ponzis - not any more than all Americans are criminals. One PTS in particular is registered in the State of North Carolina, which means that state's authorities are already aware of how that company operates, and has approved that company's operation. Would the North Carolina State Attorney General's Office approve the operation of a Ponzi Scheme within the state borders ? Beyond which, that PTS has its own legal staff, which will now be bringing another lawsuit against StormPay.
I personally will back any action taken again StormPay.
It is time, past time really, that we, as Americans, take a stand to stop the intrusion into our personal decisions. Granted, the public needs a remedy for online fraud. That remedy does not need to come in the form of an online business acting as if everyone is guilty until proven innocent, nor does it mean we need government to intrude into our affairs and privacy. What is needed quite simply is that those government agencies we have commissioned to investigate fraud do their job within the framework of the Constitution, which is what those of us who are American taxpayers expect of them.
My primary e-mail address is now "certified" by NetIBA - a simple transaction which cost me $19.95 - a test, but what does it mean ? All it means really is that it has been confirmed by the United States Postal Service that I actually receive mail at the physical address I registered. Whether I am an honest, law-abiding citizen is unknown to anyone at NetIBA as far as I know. Of course, it is easier to find me if I do break the law ... is it not ?
NetIBA (http://www.whois.sc/netiba.com) is registered to the same man as is StormPay (http://www.whois.sc/stormpay.com):
Mr. John R. McConnell of Clarksville, Tennessee.
What does it mean then that StormPay is "certified" by NetIBA ? ... and just what sort of "Internet International Business Authority" is Mr. McConnell ? Another question is why has Mr. McConnell recently removed his name from the registration pages of both sites ?
I do not read, nor have I, as some have suggested, that StormPay requires its "subscribers" to register with NetIBA, but there is clearly an incentive to do so when subscribers are told they will save 4% [Four Percent] on their transactions fees when they are NetIBA certified. That to me is a Red Flag immediately.
The statement in StormPay's latest letter:
"It has recently been brought to the attention of StormPay Inc. that the current rash of new Auto-Surf and Paid to Read accounts are NOT operating in the traditional manner."
... is pure malarkey. Even if Mr. McConnell had been off the planet for the last three years, since he OWNS StormPay, someone would have told him. To believe otherwise is not possible ... which leads me to the question whether I should believe anything in today's "Important message from StormPay Inc."
Lawsuits against StormPay for freezing accounts are not new. There is even reference to such actions on a site meant to bash StormPay's biggest competitor:
http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthread.php?fid=19&tid=9777&old_block=0
Quoting again from the StormPay letter today, " StormPay has asked the 'Merchant(s)' to provide a detailed explanation of the workings of these programs including how profit margins and customer payments are made. These questions were asked point blank by StormPay while on a conference call with the owner/operator and their attorney. The requests for information from the 'merchant' were simply denied leaving StormPay no choice other than to report those findings to the other organizations who required the information from StormPay. These findings and reports caused the seizure of funds of the merchant(s) StormPay accounts until all legal matters are resolved. Please be reminded that this could have been avoided if the merchant(s) could have, or would have provided information proving no illegal pyramid or ponzi activity. "
... I will offer that information is not straightforward or honest.
What is said in that passage may very well be true in the majority of cases, but I would submit that even an honest business owner, when put in that position, might choose not to reveal "inside information" without first consulting his or her attorney or CPA. Granted, the attorney could be present, except there is no way to know when StormPay might make such a call, and most of us cannot pay consultant fees to wait for a phone call. At the same time, StormPay then uses such "non-disclosure" as proof of guilt, with no further recourse.
When illegal activity is proven against a StormPay subscriber, I believe StormPay has every right to freeze the subscriber's funds until the matter is settled; however, freezing an account only on basis of "assumption of guilt" will not stand up in court. StormPay is not a regulatory arm of the United States Government, nor can StormPay accurately "calculate" the bottom line of any business when it does not have access to the company records.
Another line from the StormPay letter, " Get Rich Quick schemes include any type of self-employment, start-up businesses, or investment opportunity where the claims of profit or returns on investment are unrealistic or unsupported. " does not wash either. Who defines "unrealistic" ... ? Who determines what is "supported" ? There is a stranglehold on Americans by our government and banking industry desperarate to have us believe that "what the bankswill pay" is "realistic" - even though the very same banks ise money we deposit in them to reap huge DAILY dividends, for which they could return to us for our deposits far more than the measly single-digit YEARLY interest rate they allow us.
The accusation of Ponzi when applied to a legitimate business is for no other reason than to scare away would-be participants who are capable of engaging in a legal and moral activity that can actually do some good for the general population. It is wholly unreasonable that honest Americans must work in an atmosphere of distrust, under an assumption that whatever we do will be dishonest; therefore we must be constantly watched and "protected" from ourselves.
JB
posted by JamesB at 9:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home