Digital Homicide Lawsuits Click Bait

Digital Homicide Lawsuits Click Bait
EventHorizon1984
23 September 2016

 

You must take a year off, one of these days, before you’re old and tired and weighed down by responsibility. Go away somewhere, and read. Read all the important books. Educate yourself, then you’ll see the world in a different way.Helon Habila

Coming back a year later, some things remain the same. It’s Fall, and lawsuits are in the air.

If you’re into computer games, and comment on games, this lawsuit is for you.

The Digital Trends article, “Steam Removes All Of Digital Homicide’s Games After It Sues 100 Users,” is one of hundreds of articles on the subject of Digital Homicide‘s current lawsuit. A riveting case of online “Harassment,” “Stalking,” “Criminal Damage,” and “Criminal Impersonation,” by 100 people.

Or as the article puts it:

“Digital Homicide doesn’t take criticism lightly. The filings indicate that James Romine, one-half of the Romine Brothers, who are Digital Homicides development team, sued 100 Steam users, alleging personal injury claims arising from online comments posted by defendants.”

YouTube personality SidAlpha has detailed commentary on the subject. And he supplied copies of the Court documents, for United States District Court For The District Of Arizona case CV-16-03092-PHX-ESW (or 2:2016-cv-03092), James Oliver Romine Jr v. Jane/John Doe 1 through 100.

But readers are probably aware that this is not the first lawsuit filed in 2016 by Digital Homicide.

 

“Let’s do it again.”
Seven Days (1998-2001)

On 4 March 2016, James O. Romine Jr. aka Digital Homicide, filed a civil lawsuit against James Nicholas Stanton aka Jim Sterling. The United States District Court, District of Arizona, case # 2:16-cv-00604-JJT, Romine v. Stanton. This was also well covered. It’s “was” as within two months it became old news. That Court case was freshened up and trotted out when Digital Homicide’s second lawsuit hit the news cycle. Here’s how Mr. Romine’s characterized the civil complaint, word for word:

When The Defendant falsely accused The Plaintiff and caused damage to reputation, damage to product, loss of product, and causing severe emotional distress to The Plaintiff, The Plaintiff has the right to receive restitution for these damages. The statements that have been made on the Internet by The Defendant have resulted in criticism and condemnation by the public towards The Plaintiff. These statements have been made in reckless disregard for duty of care that all United States Persons are legally required to follow.

Using our trusty PACER account to dust off that case, here’s a redacted copy of the docket. As of 23 September 2016. With internal links to copies of the Court documents.

 

Civil Docket as of 20160923-Header

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
03/04/2016 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number PHX169280 filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(BAS) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 2 REQUEST BY NON-PRISONER PRO SE PARTY FOR ELECTRONIC NOTICING filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. Pro se parties must promptly notify the Clerks Office, in writing, if there is a change in designated e-mail address or mailing address. (BAS) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX169280. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Judge John J. Tuchi. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-16-00604-PHX-JJT. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (BAS) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/04/2016 4 Summons Issued as to James Nicholas Stanton at case opening. (BAS) This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/28/2016 5 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr: Proof of Service re: Summons and Complaint upon James Nicholas Stanton on 3/15/2016. (REK) (Entered: 03/28/2016)
04/01/2016 6 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 1 Complaint by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Bradley) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
04/04/2016 7 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re: 1 Complaint by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Bradley) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
04/05/2016 8 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED granting the Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to the Complaint (Doc. 7 ). Defendant Stanton shall have until 30 days after the date of this Order to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer (Doc. 6 ) as moot. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 4/5/16.(JAMA) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
04/13/2016 9 ***STRICKEN by (Doc. 10 )–AMENDED COMPLAINT against James Nicholas Stanton filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (ATD) (77 pages) Modified on 4/15/2016 (ATD). (Entered: 04/13/2016)
04/15/2016 10 ORDER striking Plaintiff’s 9 Amended Complaint. Plaintiff may file a Motion to Amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Local Rule 15.1(a) by April 27, 2016. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 04/15/2016. (ATD) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
04/27/2016 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(REK) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
05/04/2016 12 ***Lodged at 15 because of Motion at 13 *** MOTION to Dismiss Case for Lack of Standing, Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and Failure to State a Claim under Rule 12(b)(6) by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of James Stanton and Attachments 1-5)(Hartman, Bradley) Modified on 5/5/2016 (REK). (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/04/2016 13 *MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hartman, Bradley) *Modified to correct text on 5/5/2016 (REK). (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/04/2016 14 *RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Hartman, Bradley) *Modified to correct event on 5/5/2016 (REK). (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/04/2016 15 *FILED at (Doc. 19 ) pursuant to 18 Order–LODGED Proposed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction re: 13 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 12] . Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, Declaration of James Stanton and Attachments 1-5)(Hartman, Bradley) *Modified to correct text re: motion types on 5/5/2016 (REK). Modified on 5/10/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/09/2016 16 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 11 MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 17 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages (after the fact) for Motion to Amend/Correct (Doc. 11 ) by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 18 ORDER granting 13 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Defendant may file his motion to dismiss not to exceed 22 pages. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to file the document lodged at Document 15. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 5/10/16.(KGM) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 19 * MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, MOTION to Dismiss Case for Lack of Standing by James Nicholas Stanton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(KGM) *Modified to correct motion type on 5/10/2016 (KGM). (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 20 RESPONSE to Motion re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/11/2016 21 *Filing fee paid, receipt number PHX171860. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Douglas L Rayes. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: MC-16-00045-PHX-DLR. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. *This was docketed in this case in error* (Entered: 05/11/2016)
05/11/2016 22 MOTION for Leave to File Amendment to 20 Response to Motion to Dimiss Plaintiff’s Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
05/11/2016 23 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for 22 Amendment to Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
05/11/2016 24 *(Filed at (Doc. 31 )–LODGED Proposed Amendment to Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss re: 22 MOTION for Leave to File Amendment to Response to Motion to Dimiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, 23 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Amendment to Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (KGM) Modified on 6/28/2016 (LSP). (Entered: 05/12/2016)
05/13/2016 25 REPLY to Response to Motion re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Hartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
05/16/2016 26 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Exceed Length of Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. 17 ). (See attached Order for details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 5/16/16.(JAMA) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
05/16/2016 27 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion/ Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (REK) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
05/16/2016 28 *LODGED Proposed Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion/ Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint re: 27 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion/ Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint. Document to be filed by Clerk if Motion or Stipulation for Leave to File or Amend is granted. Filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (REK) Modified on 6/28/2016 (LSP). (Entered: 05/16/2016)
05/31/2016 29 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 27 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion/ Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint filed by James Nicholas Stanton. (Hartman, Bradley) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
06/28/2016 30 ORDER granting 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Motion in Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and granting 23 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages of Amendment to Motion in Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. The Clerk shall file the document currently lodged at (Doc. 24 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying 27 Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint. Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 6/28/16.(LSP) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
06/28/2016 31 AMENDED RESPONSE to Motion re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (LSP) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
07/11/2016 32 Second RESPONSE to Motion (Titled: Motion in Response to Dismissal and Amendment to Motion in Response to Dismissal as Affidavit of Opposition) re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by James Oliver Romine, Jr. (2 pages) (REK) (Entered: 07/12/2016)

 

As you might expect, this the ‘jockeying for position’ phase.

Document 29:

“Plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the Supplemental Memorandum [Doc 28] is an impermissible sur-reply. Plaintiff merely repeats arguments already made in response to the Motion to Dismiss and cites new cases not within Defendant’s reply brief. The motion should be denied.”

Document 30:

“At issue are pro se Plaintiff James Oliver Romine’s Motion for Leave to File Amendment to Motion in Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Doc. 22), Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages of Amendment to Motion in Response to Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (Doc. 23), and Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Amended Motion in Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint (Doc. 27), to which Defendant James Nicholas Stanton filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 29).”

Document 31:

“The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint which is futile for the reasons stated within this Motion In Response to Motion for Dismissal.”

Document 32:

“The Plaintiff respectfully requests that The Court accept The Plaintiff’s Motion In Response to The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and The Plaintiff’s Amendment to Motion in Response to The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as The Plaintiff’s Opposition to The Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. This is only submitted as the term “Opposition” was not specifically stated in those two documents. The Plaintiff was unaware if this was a required statement and felt it may need to be stated officially. Apologies if this is obvious and unnecessary.”

At this rate, we guess the really really good stuff will begin in 2017.

/*
“And if you get hurt (if you get hurt)
By the little things I say
I can put that smile back on your face
Ooh, and it’s alright and it’s coming along
We gotta get right back to where we started from”
Maxine Nightingale (1975), “Right Back Where We Started From,” Slap Shot (1977)

cookie
//

eBay Seller -$19,250 – eBay Buyer -$1.44 – eBay 0

eBay Seller -$19,250 – eBay Buyer -$1.44 – eBay 0
EventHorizon1984
8 September 2015

MED EXPRESS, INC. vs. AMY NICHOLS, et al.
Case No.: 13CIV0351 13CIV0352
Court of Common Pleas, Medina County, Ohio

The Plaintiff’s conduct consisted of allegations or other factual contentions that had no evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, were not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. Again, Mr. Rudy had no objective evidence suggesting the statements of fact made by the Defendants were not true. Furthermore, the Plaintiff misrepresented the matter in the pleadings and to the court.
Magistrate James R. Leaver, August 31 2015, Court of Common Pleas, Ohio

Ars Technica posted the article “eBay seller who sued over negative feedback dinged $19K in legal fees” “Judge didn’t find Med Express founder’s testimony credible” on September 3 2015.  The article began with:

“When Med Express sued Amy Nicholls for giving negative feedback on eBay, she didn’t back down and remove the feedback. Instead, she lawyered up”

As can be seen in the Court document, and the Ars Technica article, things did not go well with “Med Express founder Richard Radey” and his attorney.

Beginning with this statement in the first paragraph of the “Magistrate’s Decision”:

“On July 6, 2015, counsel for the Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw from the representation of the Plaintiff citing irreconcilable differences with the client.”

The action that started the legal snowball moving?

  • Plaintiff: “Med Express pain the full amount of the shipping cost, but for some reason unknown to Med Express, the equipment was received by Nicolls with $1.44 postage due.”
  • Plaintiff: “Nicholls on February 26, 2013, apparently as a result of the $1.44 postage due, posted negative feedback and comments for the transaction on Ebay’s website”

 

Okay kids. This is where it gets complicated.
Amy Pond, Doctor Who, Time (2011)

Indeed.  The Court record, as signed by Magistrate James R. Leaver, states:

  • “Med Express initiated a second lawsuit against Defendants Dennis Rogan and Ebay, INC.”
  • “WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Med Express Inc. demands judgement against Defendants Dennis Rogan and Ebay, Inc.”

Leading to, as signed by Magistrate James R. Leaver:

  • “On March 28, 2013, the Court denied the motions for a temporary restraining order in both cases.”
  • “On April 18, 2013, the complaints in both cases were voluntarily dismissed.”
  • “Ebay never filed an answer in either case.”

Which lead to more Court action, as signed by Magistrate James R. Leaver:

  • “Counsel further prompted Mr. Rady by asking, “So as you sit here today, you remember those ratings were from Ms. Nicholls–is that right?” “Mr. Rady testified “Yes”, and again stated all categories were rated 1’s.”
  • “On November 7, 2014, Counsel for the Defendants took the deposition of Rebakah Long, an Ebay representative, in Draper, Utah.  Ms. Long’s testimony revealed that Mr. Rady’s prior testimony regarding seeing the Defendants rate him with all 1’s on Ebay’s detailed seller ratings page was false.  She testified detailed seller ratings are anonymous and the seller cannot view the ratings.  Furthermore, the ratings left by Defendants Rogan and Nicholls were not all 1’s.”
  • “The deposition of Ms. Long shows that Mr. Rady’s testimony was false.”

Ars Technica noted:

  • “Following the second trial, Radey’s original lawyer James Amodio agreed to pay part of the attorney’s fees, and Public Citizen dropped him from their motion for sanctions.”
  • “Radey had two different lawyers during the sanctions proceedings, and the second lawyer stopped representing him in July 2015.”

Moving along to the sanctions portion, “The matter proceeded to oral evidentiary hearing before the undersigned Magistrate on April 2, 2015”:

  • “Mr. Radey also testified again.  His testimony varied from the first hearing in that he attempted to clarify his prior trial testimony” … “This time he testified he must jumped to the conclusion Nicholls and Rogan rated him with all 1’s (as opposed to his prior testimony that he basically watched it happen almost live).  Mr. Rady also testified he called Ebay years ago and Ebay gave him the idea to file suit against Ebay and buyers leaving negative feedback.  The negative feedback could be removed by court order.  The testimony wasn’t credible.”  Magistrate James R. Leaver

A few tidbits from Magistrate James R. Leaver’s Conclusion of Law:

  • “4.  Opinion speech is protected speech that is never actionable as defamation.  When determining whether a statement is fact or opinion, a court is to consider the specific language used, whether the statement is verifiable, the general context of the statement, and context in which the statement appeared.  An objective “ordinary reader” test is to be applied to determine whether a statement is a false statement of fact.  The court must determine whether a reasonable reader would view the words to be language that normally conveys information of a factual nature or opinion.  If the language is factual in nature, a truthful statement cannot be defamation because an element of defamation is a false defamatory statement.”
  • “5.  The feedback generated by Nicholls and Rogan is part opinion and part statement of fact.”
  • “6.  An argument could be made the narrative statements left by Defendants Nicholls and Rogan were intended to be statement of facts even though they appear in a forum designed to elicit opinions.  Nevertheless, these statement could not have been the basis of a defamation action because the statements are undeniable true and Mr. Rady had no objective reason whatsoever to question their veracity when he caused the complaints to be filed.”
  • “7.  The Plaintiff’s complaints had no merit, legally or factually, when they were filed.”
  • “8.  R.C 2323.51(A)(2) defines frivolous conduct …”
  • “9.  A violation of any one of the above sections is frivolous conduct.  The Plaintiff has violated all four sections.”
  • “13.  The Magistrate finds the Plaintiff’s complaint and motions set forth factual contentions that the Plaintiff knew or should have known were not warranted by the evidence.”
  • “14.  R.C. 2323.51 allows a party adversely affected by frivolous conduct to recover an award of court costs, reasonable attorney fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the civil action.”
  • “22.  The Magistrate finds the Defendants are entitled to an award of attorney fees in the amount of $16,446.00 (total hours of 164.46 x 1/2 x $200.00) plus expenses of $2,804.00,, for a total award of $19,250.00 against Med Express, Inc.”

There was one bright spot, for the Plaintiff’s lawyers James Amodio and Richard Cardenas:

  • “Defendants withdrew their motion for sanctions as to Attorney James Amodio only.”
  • “The Defendants’ motion for a default award of sanctions is denied.”

 

“What is the moral?
Must be a moral.
Here is the moral, wrong or right: Morals tomorrow!
Comedy, comedy, comedy, comedy,
Comedy, comedy, comedy, comedy tonight!”
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966) 

The moral?  Well, don’t sue eBay INC.

According to the court document, Amy Nichols never did get the $1.44 refund.

/*

“Section 11, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides in relevant part: Every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of the right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech, or of the press.”
Magistrate James R. Leaver, 2015

“Take it easy, lad. Everybody’s entitled to an opinion.”
Montgomery Scott, The Trouble With Tribbles, 1967

cookie
//

Ebay, PayPal, Hewlett-Packard – Breaking Up Is Hard.

Ebay, PayPal, Hewlett-Packard – Breaking Up Is Hard.
EventHorizon1984
8 October 2014

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do
Neil Sedaka, Howard Greenfield, 1962

Convention wisdom about the 2015 split of eBay INC, says the separate parts will be quickly sold off.  Might not happen quickly.

In The Wall Street Journal article, “Dealpolitik: EBay, PayPal Takeover Talk May Be Premature”, Ronald Barusch makes this interesting point.

eBay probably has massive gains on its PayPal shares that would trigger huge taxes if the deal didn’t qualify as a tax-free spin-off.

For up to two years after the spin-off, an acquisition of either PayPal or eBay (regardless of which company is spun off) could destroy the tax-free status of the deal and trigger an enormous corporate tax. In spin-offs, the agreements usually make the company that’s taken over bear the risk of that tax.

Such an agreement operates as a kind of poison pill of its own: Anyone trying to take over one of the companies would indirectly be responsible for that big tax bill”

The short version being:

The bottom line is that those expecting a quick deal following the spin-off may be jumping the gun.

Of course with eBay INC CEO John Donahoe leading the separation plans, there is no guarantee that a monetarily smart long-term plan will be made.  I.E. shareholders could be stuck with a huge tax bill, while John Donahoe skates.

“A monkey could drive this train.”
Margaret “Meg” Whitman, during her tenure as eBay INC CEO.

Monkey sees, monkey does.
Alexander Boot and Shoe Company, 1892

On the heals of John Donahoe splitting eBay INC, Margaret “Meg” Whitman is leading the charge to split Hewlett-Packard.  However not into “Hewlett” and “Packard.”

Hewlett-Packard to split into two public companies, lay off 5,000
October 6, 2014
Supantha Mukherjee and Edward Chan

“Hewlett-Packard Co said it would split into two listed companies, separating its computer and printer businesses from its faster-growing corporate hardware and services” … “HP said its shareholders would own a stake in both businesses through a tax-free transaction next year.” … “Whitman, who will be CEO of HP Enterprise, the business that will sell computer servers and networking gear and data storage to businesses.

Perhaps the ‘monkey see, monkey do’ reference is not entirely fair.

Meg Whitman is planning “a tax-free transaction” and will be CEO of one of the split companies.  John Donahoe has not mentioned “tax-free” and will not be CEO of either the new eBay or PayPal.

Plus:

  • 2 January 2014 to 8 October 2014, Hewlett-Packard stock has surged, $27.98 to $35.92.
  • 2 January 2014 to 8 October 2014, eBay INC remains stagnant, $53.94 to $54.51.

Meanwhile, at the close of market. 8 October 2014:

  • Alibaba – $88.30
  • Amazon – $322.70
  • American Express – $87.41
  • MasterCard – $74.06
  • Visa – $212.36

I didn’t think eBay was right for me.
John Donahoe, 17 June 2013

Indeed.

/*

Addendum 9 October 2014

No one here has received anything directly from eBay INC, about their separation into “eBay” and “PayPal”.

Whereas days after the public announcement, Hewlett-Packard sent this Today:

20141009 HP

We’re no fan of Meg Whitman, but Hewlett-Packard does keep it’s customers informed.

eBay INC, ‘not so much.’

/*

No sequel for you.
Jack Slater, Last Action Hero (1993)

cookie
//


September 2016
S M T W T F S
« Sep    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Categories

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.