posted on September 25, 2002 09:54:38 AM new
PayPal(TM), Inc. (Nasdaq:PYPL)(www.paypal.com) today announced that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service recently presented awards to members of its anti-fraud team in appreciation and recognition of their aid in the investigation of a man accused of Internet auction fraud.
posted on September 25, 2002 09:58:39 AM new
"failing to deliver thousands of items he offered for sale on Internet auction sites"
Yea so those who were not protected by Paypal buyer complaint program which offers no protection at all are just out of luck I guess.
I love how it failed to mention those who got no help from Paypal on any funds recovery.
Paypal should not wait for a shining star to stop mail fraud and make a big stink over their one effort. They should do it every chance when given reasonable evidence not just the big one.
And I wonder if Paypal returned all the seller fees they collected from this guy to some of the victims or did they try to pocket them for their own profit.
posted on September 25, 2002 10:11:51 AM new
Point is, you should drop your fales claims that PayPal does no investigation. It appeats the USPS does not agree with you.
posted on September 25, 2002 10:25:46 AM new
Jay Nelson, aka harddrives4sale, and several other yahoo and ebay ids. This guy was a real winner. I have to admit, PayPal did help out all those people that were scammed by this loser.
posted on September 25, 2002 10:36:54 AM new
Coonr,
Again it comes down to a matter of opinion.
Most people base their opinion on their own experiences.
If they have had a bad experience dealing with a company, ANY COMPANY, they will most likely tell others & stop doing business with the company.
It does not matter if the TOS was followed or not. What matters is the customer's or former customer's opinion.
In any given situation a company has many of chances to SERVE it's customers. If it does not live up to the expectations of the customers the customers will leave.
If even beyond that someone from the company were to call & try to get the former customer back I can understand.
What I don't understand is why after the decisions are already made that you insist on dealing with former customers who have no intention of ever dealing with PAYPAL again with the exception of court dates.
Do you not think it wise to better spend your time in places where you may actually be able to recruit new customers rather than in a place where the former customers not only no longer respect your opinion but believe you to be a laughing stock for having that opinion.
You say you are not a PAYPAL employee.
Then why are you posting the link?
If PAYPAL wants everyone to know then a PAYPAL employee should be the one posting the link.
How many more times are we going to see you post PAYPAL information first before we see it come from a PAYPAL employee?
No, you do not work for PAYPAL......
Then why are you doing this?
posted on September 25, 2002 11:49:26 AM new
I am not trying to recurit new customers. I am not trying to win back old customers. In fact I do not care who does or does not use PayPal. I use it because my customers want it.
New customers do visit these boards and often believe every thing they read, especially if it is allowed to go unchallenged. I intend to correct false and misleading information.
I did not know it was required to be an employee before I could post a link? If PayPal did not want the info released, why would they create a web page for it? I picked the info up on eBay and cross posted it here, as it refutes one of kkaaz's major flase claims.
I am not now and have never been an employee of PayPal.
posted on September 25, 2002 11:57:39 AM new
My question is how did you know what is false or mis-leading information, do you have some crystal ball that allows you know.
posted on September 25, 2002 12:05:19 PM new
Any person with significant experience, who cannot tell truth, from shall we just say fiction, is in store for real problems.
You will notice, that my usual mode is to ask questions, except for the the instances of bashers (like kkaaz) I am familair with, and than I just let there own words condemn them.
posted on September 25, 2002 12:10:01 PM new
And I have read some of your questions, not objective, always assuming that the person is lying until they can prove differently. If the person or poster states that an account has been restricted due to a chargeback, from the beginning you attack and when the person is proved to be right, you do not even offer an apology. Shall I bring up the post after the 9th circuit judge ruled against paypal, you tried to say the Judge had power over paypal, here is a copy of you post in case you forgot.
Oh how little some seem to understand.....
Courts in the UK or Germany have no jurisdiction over PayPal. They will still have to file in Calif.
The 9th circuit does not have the final word on anything.
posted on September 25, 2002 12:47:21 PM new
That is not mis-information. The 9th circuit does not have the "final"" word. The loser can always file an appeal. That would be the "final" word.
If you read my post again, you will see I never said the 9th did not have jusridiction over PayPal. I said courts in Germany.
posted on September 25, 2002 01:12:36 PM new
Lets look at this post and thread again.....
Your first post
Nothing to say. It don;t mean anything, shoudl PayPal decied to appeal and get a stay
Most people would think that a ruling by a Federal Judge does mean something. I call that mis-information. In fact, in several articles that are on the internet, this ruling can mean and if your lawyer is good enought that you can sue and not have to Santa Clara County for arbitration hearing, but there is more to come.
Your second post......
Oh how little some seem to understand.....
Courts in the UK or Germany have no jurisdiction over PayPal. They will still have to file in Calif.
The 9th circuit does not have the final word on anything.
On this thread, there was no mention of Germany or UK until you brought it up. Why did your bring it up? Trying to confuse people into thinking that the 9th circuit is in UK or Germany, or did you just want to throw that in there since no even mentioned it before you did.
Now, lets talk about the power of the 9th circuit, they do have the final say unless the Surpreme Court takes the case. The Surpreme Court does not take every case. So if the Surpreme Court does not take the case, the 9th circuit will have the final say on this.
Although, you may not have said that the 9th ciruit did not have jurisdiction, you implied in your mis-leading post.
Lets look at some of the other posts that you have written that could be considered misleading.
Here is another post by you regarding the famed anylsis of the paypalwarning hall of shame.
Coonr
A friend of mine wrote and orginally posted the following on the eBay message boards,
After reading the posts on the "paypalwarning Wall of Shame" site, it is obvious that many of the cited problems were directly related to the member's failure to read and understand PayPal's terms. [a href=http://cinderellie.digitalrice.com/page03.html]Click here[/a] to read a brief analysis of the most recent stories.
"Take the "PayPalwarning" site with a grain of salt. Its full of misinformation, outdated information and 100% full of unverified stories. Better to see what eBay supports, dissiminates and disperses.
eBay has locked the following post at the top of their discussion board AND featured it on the right hand sidebar:
I think it's better to go with what eBay thinks is a good analysis of payment methods, rather than some dubious site where the owner refuses to reveal their identity."
Further that site appears to be about dead as the last I checked it had not been updated in quite sometime.
Now, here we talk about the famed anlysis that you have posted on several threads stating most complaints are baseless. You claim that you did not do the anlysis, but you are treating it like it is coming from the bible.
So, if I understand it the examples that I have written, a Federal Judge does not know anything, but some guy on ebay does.
posted on September 25, 2002 01:33:05 PM new
Lets try to correct some of you information.
1. A ruling by a single Federal Judge does not mean anything if an appeal is filed. The appropriate appeals court will rule. (You chould have learned this in elementary civics.)
2. For the 1st reference to courts in the UK and Germany, look about two posts before mine. See what club1man posted on September 9, 2002 10:23:41 PM ?
3. As to the analysis I referenced of the hate site, anyone is welcome to do their own objective analysis, and they will draw the same conclusions. eBay did not do the referenced analysis, but I think they probably did their own, and determined the company was worth $1.5 Billion.
posted on September 25, 2002 01:41:33 PM new
Appearantly you need to go back to school, the ruling does not mean anything if the apeals court put a stay on it as it hears the case. That is providing that it will hear the case. The appeals court can deny the apeal as well, and therefore, the ruling by this judge is the final word. Since that has not happened yet, the ruling does mean something and right now is the ruling of the court.
EBay wants to make money and sees a great scheme in making money, however, they have also bought all the law suits as well.
Second, shareholders have to vote for the sale, and there is already two class action law suits by shareholders already.
I stand corrected regarding the post by club1man, however, regarding whether they do have a say will be something a court says. Both UK and Germany can have a say or deny the use of the payment service in their countries.
posted on September 25, 2002 02:39:06 PM newAppearantly you need to go back to school, the ruling does not mean anything if the apeals court put a stay on it as it hears the case. That is providing that it will hear the case. The appeals court can deny the apeal as well, and therefore, the ruling by this judge is the final word.
Thank you for proving my point. The appeals court has a say, afther the 9th. Regardless what they say, even if nothing, it is their say, hence the 9th is not final.
posted on September 25, 2002 02:41:50 PM newSecond, shareholders have to vote for the sale, and there is already two class action law suits by shareholders already.
I don't think any of these have been certified as "calss action" yet. Further, the two I am aware of, do not apply to the eBay acquisition.
Predicitions the acquisition will fail, are about as reliable and well thought out as the predicitions that PayPal would never last 6 months or make a profit.
posted on September 25, 2002 03:52:05 PM new
[kkaaz's major flase claims. ]
You however coonr make them almost daily.
I have yet to make any false claims. All claims I make I can back up with support and all are factual or are opinions.
Paypal fought me over their own incorrect terms of use and their customer service was rude, unsupportive and misleading. They then changed their terms of use.
Paypal themselves told me they do not investigate claims made by buyers. They told me sellers are at buyer’s mercy when a claim is made even if it's a false claim.
Paypal told me it does not matter if a buyer receives their item. If the seller is not protected, they are liable for any reversal.
They told me they investigate seller’s protection and not the claim made by the buyer.
Paypal told me they would not look at my proof of shipping unless I had a court order forcing them to release the "hidden" confirmed address on the account to match the one on the tracking form. They made no effort to ever help me out.
Paypal refused to penalize the account used for fraudulent activity and chose to charge me for service never received.
Paypal knows my buyer gave me the address where they received the item at. They saw it listed on the notes of the payment. (If they took the time to look)
Paypal knows an account was used to fraud me. The buyer has confessed to this verbally and with a confessionary payment to a US mails fraud complaint.
Paypal knows my buyer received the item and has confessed to a US mail fraud investigation with a partial payment and an unpaid IOU.
They refused to except beyond reasonable proof and refused to reply to my e-mails within the first 5 days of a 7-day "investigation" that never took place.
Paypal knows they wrote the terms of use in 2001 misleading and so they changed it in 2002 to reflect ever single point I made to them publicly.
Those are all true statements. Even Paypal's own terms of use on http://www.archive.org proves Paypal changed the entire sellers protection section from the word "chargeback" in October 2001 to the word "reversal" in Jan 2002 which is right after I first contacted Damon and made a public claim of their mistakes.
In my opinion, they are no better then the criminals who use their service to pull scams.
posted on September 25, 2002 04:12:51 PM new
kkaaz,
I would normally point out the flaws in your arugments but will not wast the time right now. I will only address one. (Maybe some others later, if I get bored.)
I have yet to make any false claims. All claims I make I can back up with support and all are factual or are opinions.
Your claims in your last post are not revelant to your reversal and only intended to confuse.
posted on September 25, 2002 04:13:23 PM new
Most elementary students know that each part of the country is broken up in circuits and unless the supreme court take the case, the 9th circuit is the final say.
Perhaps, you should go back to school and learn some more. Also, most people that follow court descisions also know that the 9th circuit is also the most liberal and anti-business court district in the country. So if the Supreme Court does not hear the case (and they do not hear all cases, about 25% of cases see the supreme court), they are the final word.
posted on September 25, 2002 08:39:54 PM new
Coonr said
"I am not trying to recurit new customers. I am not trying to win back old customers. In fact I do not care who does or does not use PayPal. I use it because my customers want it."
So what else do you do for your customers if they want it? If they ask you for better prices do you automatically lower them?
If your customers want $1000000 do you give it to them?
Just because they want the service does not mean it is your best option.
"New customers do visit these boards and often believe every thing they read, especially if it is allowed to go unchallenged. I intend to correct false and misleading information."
Correcting false & misleading information is a wonderful thing. The problem is you sound no better than anyone else posting. I am just as likely to believe a post from you as I would be a post from clubman. So tell me, Why should I believe what you say compared to anyone else who posts here?
"I did not know it was required to be an employee before I could post a link? If PayPal did not want the info released, why would they create a web page for it? I picked the info up on eBay and cross posted it here,
as it refutes one of kkaaz's major flase claims. "
Your right it is not required.
But if PAYPAL saw no need to post it here for whatever reason your posting it becomes a moot point. I mean you say you do not work for PAYPAL so why are you fighting so hard to defend them?
"I am not now and have never been an employee of PayPal."
Well I am sure that if Damon ever quits they will come looking for you.
posted on September 26, 2002 05:14:09 AM newYou will normally post mislead or flase information or insult me and my family all the way to making slanderous criminal accusations against me.
I have never posted misleading or flase information about you. As to insults or crimianl accusations, your actions and the truth speak for themselves.
posted on September 26, 2002 05:16:37 AM new
kkaaz, had a few minutes so here you go.
Paypal fought me over their own incorrect terms of use and their customer service was rude, unsupportive and misleading. They then changed their terms of use.
You incorrectly interpurted their terms. You agreed to them, you just are not allowed to interpert them as you like.
Paypal themselves told me they do not investigate claims made by buyers. They told me sellers are at buyer’s mercy when a claim is made even if it's a false claim.
You are either a liar or misinformed. They do ivestigate. However, the seller is not protected unless they play by the rules.
Paypal told me it does not matter if a buyer receives their item. If the seller is not protected, they are liable for any reversal.
The truth is a seller is liable unless they are protected by the SPP. There is no other way to know the Payer got the item.
They told me they investigate seller’s protection and not the claim made by the buyer.
You are either a liar or misinformed, plain and simple.
Paypal told me they would not look at my proof of shipping unless I had a court order forcing them to release the "hidden" confirmed address on the account to match the one on the tracking form. They made no effort to ever help me out.
You are a liar. Damon even told you on the eBay chat boards, that you shipped to a different state than the confrimed address.
Paypal refused to penalize the account used for fraudulent activity and chose to charge me for service never received.
You are making a blatant false claim. You have no idea what PayPal did or did not do to the person you accused.
Paypal knows my buyer gave me the address where they received the item at. They saw it listed on the notes of the payment. (If they took the time to look)
This is NOT relevant. The buyer may or may not be the rightful owner of the funds paid to you. The only way to prevent this fraud is to comply with the SPP, which you have repeatedly claimed did not apply to you.
Paypal knows an account was used to fraud me. The buyer has confessed to this verbally and with a confessionary payment to a US mails fraud complaint.
Confessed to whom? You? Sorry, You are not judge and jury. In fact, as you claimed and retained payment from PayPal and deny and responsibility for the debt, it could be alledged you filed a false mail fraud complaint.
Paypal knows my buyer received the item and has confessed to a US mail fraud investigation with a partial payment and an unpaid IOU.
Confessed to whom? You? Sorry, You are not judge and jury. In fact, as you claimed and retained payment from PayPal and deny and responsibility for the debt, it could be alledged you filed a false mail fraud complaint.
They refused to except beyond reasonable proof and refused to reply to my e-mails within the first 5 days of a 7-day "investigation" that never took place.
They refused to accept proof that was not in accordance with the terms of use. If your emails were as rational as the posts you have made on AuctionWatch and the eBay boards, they deserve to be ignored.
Paypal knows they wrote the terms of use in 2001 misleading and so they changed it in 2002 to reflect ever single point I made to them publicly.
Again, you are wrong. They still do not say what you claim they do. They have made several changes, but none affect your case as it was than or is now.
Those are all true statements. Even Paypal's own terms of use on http://www.archive.org proves Paypal changed the entire sellers protection section from the word "chargeback" in October 2001 to the word "reversal" in Jan 2002 which is right after I first contacted Damon and made a public claim of their mistakes.
If this is true, as you claim, at the time of your transaction, reversals were not covered under the SPP. Therefore according to the balance of the terms, you would still be liable for the reversal.
posted on September 26, 2002 05:43:29 AM new
I said
"Just because they want the service does not mean it is your best option."
Coonr said
"Have not seen one any better."
Well I have.
It is my merchant account.
I get a better rate & it costs less over all.
The 1.5% cash back would not even make a difference because I would have to be able to spend it all with the PAYPAL CC.
My distributor gives me a better price for not using a credit card to pay him.
I no longer have to worry about getting my money out of PAYPAL.
I no longer have to be ready to defend my sales & shipping.
I no longer have to worry about dealing with PAYPALs customer service that is nothing more than a glorified answering service.
You keep right on using them.
I am sure you will not have any problems whatsoever.
As for me & many others, we made our decision about PAYPAL already.
IMHO PAYPAL is a bad company with a bad reputation.
Seeing you fight tooth & nail with the other posters proves it. Instead of having situations get resolved we now have PAYPAL wannabe employees more intent on finding out what is wrong with a transaction than PAYPAL itself.
