vos questions/reponses 12dailypro

Spartakus13 · Argentexpert

Faut plus rêver là depuis l'temps Rolling Eyes

Ca vaut même plus la peine d'en parler...
Le point positif c'est qu'il est devenu plus difficil de trouver des pigeons maintenant Laughing

dinky42 · Argentamateur

si 12DP avait garde seulement e-gold il serait surement en piste aujourd'hui

Sicilien94 · Modérateur

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charis Johnson, LifeClicks, LLC, and 12Daily Pro; USDC, Central Dist. of CA, Case No. CV 06-01018-NM(PLAx)

This letter is being sent to you to provide information about this case. On April 21, 2006, and May 20, 2006, Thomas F. Lennon, the United States District Court appointed Receiver sent e-mail letters to a large number of e-mail addresses derived from 12 DailyPro and StormPay databases. The Receiver has now recovered additional e-mail addresses and is using them, as well as all the previous e-mail addresses, to send this e-mail. The previous letters as well as this document can be viewed at www.tlennonfor12dailypro.com. In addition, the Receiver's website contains his e-mail address and a list of Frequently Asked Questions with recent updates along with other case information.

As previously noted in the letters sent to investors/members, investors who used credit cards for a credit transaction are not prohibited from initiating a charge back through their credit card issuer. Investors that used checks, electronic fund transfers and debit cards are prohibited from initiating a charge back by the Orders issued by the Court. The Orders are also posted on the web site. Please note that in many situations the period within which you could have initiated a charge back may have passed. The rules of the credit card issuer determine the time allowed. The rights of consumers to dispute electronic transfers are limited to unauthorized debits or errors in the amount of debits, but do not provide a right to reverse a transfer because the consumer has discovered that the recipient was perpetrating a fraud. Moreover, all investors and creditors are enjoined from initiating any legal action against 12Daily Pro, LifeClicks or Charis Johnson.

The Receiver realizes that the investors have many questions and concerns. The web site referenced above and the FAQ will answer many of those questions in more detail, but some of the answers to your questions can be summarized as follows:

All investors, foreign and domestic will be treated equally under the law. Investors who used EMO and E-Gold as payment processors will be treated the same as investors that used StormPay. Any distribution plan proposed by the Receiver will be done on an equitable basis. The length of time an investor was invested in the program will not be a considered in distributions. If you received this e-mail or the first e-mail sent on April 21, 2006, or the second e-mail sent on May 20, 2006, you are on the investors list. The Receiver will be providing the Court and all interested parties Reports on the status of the case as required and when otherwise appropriate. These Reports will be posted on the Receiver's web site. While queries to the Receiver by phone and e-mail will continue to receive a response, it is not the Receiver's practice to provide updates to individual investors because of the prohibitive costs associated with trying to communicate with thousands of investors on an individual basis. Please minimize these costs by checking the website and the FAQ before calling or e-mailing the Receiver. The Receiver realizes that this is an extremely frustrating situation for investors, but please understand that he is working as diligently as possible to reach a fair and equitable result. Please check the website for updates and further information including answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

Sicilien94 · Modérateur

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charis Johnson, LifeClicks, LLC, and 12Daily Pro; USDC, Central Dist. of CA, Case No. CV 06-01018-NM(PLAx)

This letter is being sent to you to provide information about this case. On April 21, 2006, May 20, 2006, and July 17, 2006, Thomas F. Lennon, the United States District Court appointed Receiver sent e-mail letters to a large number of e-mail addresses derived from 12 DailyPro and StormPay databases. This letter and the previous letters can be viewed at www.tlennonfor12dailypro.com along with the First Interim Receiver's Report which was recently filed with the Court. In addition, the Receiver's website contains his e-mail address and a list of Frequently Asked Questions with recent updates along with other case information. This report is also posted on the website.

As previously noted in the letters sent to investors/members, investors who used credit cards for a credit transaction are not prohibited from initiating a charge back through their credit card issuer. Investors that used checks, electronic fund transfers and debit cards are prohibited from initiating a charge back by the Orders issued by the Court. The Orders are also posted on the web site. Please note that in many situations the period within which you could have initiated a charge back may have passed. The rules of the credit card issuer determine the time allowed. The rights of consumers to dispute electronic transfers are limited to unauthorized debits or errors in the amount of debits, but do not provide a right to reverse a transfer because the consumer has discovered that the recipient was perpetrating a fraud. Moreover, all investors and creditors are enjoined from initiating any legal action against 12Daily Pro, LifeClicks or Charis Johnson.

The Receiver realizes that the investors have many questions and concerns. The web site referenced above, the Receiver's Report, and the FAQ will answer many of those questions in more detail, but some of the answers to your questions can be summarized as follows:

All investors, foreign and domestic will be treated equally under the law. Investors who used EMO and E-Gold as payment processors will be treated the same as investors that used StormPay. Any distribution plan proposed by the Receiver will be done on an equitable basis. The length of time an investor was invested in the program will not be a considered in distributions. If you received this e-mail or the first e-mail sent on April 21, 2006, the second e-mail sent on May 20, 2006, or the third e-mail sent on July 17, 2006, you are on the investors list. The Receiver intends to set up and utilize a secure web portal to gather information from investors regarding their accounts. The same portal may also be utilized to receive and process claims when the Court approves such a process. The Receiver will be providing the Court and all interested parties Reports such as the one referred to above on the status of the case as required and when otherwise appropriate. Further Reports will be posted on the Receiver's web site as well. While queries to the Receiver by phone and e-mail will continue to receive a response, it is not the Receiver's practice to provide updates to individual investors because of the prohibitive costs associated with trying to communicate with thousands of investors on an individual basis. Please minimize these costs by checking the website and the FAQ before calling or e-mailing the Receiver. The Receiver realizes that this is an extremely frustrating situation for investors, but please understand that he is working as diligently as possible to reach a fair and equitable result. Please check the website for updates and further information including answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

Sicilien94 · Modérateur

suite

NOTICE OF HEARING ON FIRST INTERIM FEE APPLICATIONS OF RECEIVER AND HIS PROFESSIONALS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 23, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Stephen G. Larson, in Courtroom No. 1 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, located at 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, California 92501, Thomas F. Lennon ("Receiver") will move the Court for an Order approving the first interim fee applications of the Receiver and his professionals, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP ("Allen Matkins"), counsel to the Receiver; William H. Ling, CPA ("Ling"), accountant to the Receiver; Poyner & Spruill, LLP, local counsel to the Receiver, and Investigative Technologies LLC ("ITL"), information and technology consultant to the Receiver. Detailed fee applications are on file with the Court. If you were served only with a copy of this Notice of Hearing, you may obtain copies of the applications and supporting papers from the Clerk of the Court, or by requesting them in writing from counsel for the Receiver, or by accessing the Receiver's website at www.tlennonfor12dailypro.com. The Receiver and his professionals request approval of the following fees and expenses:

APPLICANT
FEES
EXPENSES
TOTAL

Thomas F. Lennon
$213,154.50
$871.29
$214,025.79

Allen Matkins
$154,927.50
$4,714.55
$159,642.05

William H. Ling, CPA
$8,692.50
$124.81
$8,817.31

Poyner & Spruill, LLP
$11,362.00
$79.42
$11,441.42

Investigative Technologies LLC
$222,787.50
$20,559.08
$243,346.58

Total
$610,924.00
$26,349.15
$637,273.15

The Receiver and his professionals are requesting that an interim payment of 80% of the requested fees and 100% of the requested expenses be authorized on the current applications. The fees and expenses are requested pursuant to the order appointing the Receiver, which provides that the Receiver may employ professionals and that the Receiver's expenses and those of his professionals are to be paid from the assets of the defendants upon application to the Court. The fees and expenses of the Receiver and his professionals are requested only on an interim basis; the final determination of the ultimate allowable amount of fees and expenses to be paid to the Receiver and his professionals will take place at a final fee application hearing at the end of the case.

Procedural Requirements. If you oppose the application, you should consult, among other authorities, the Local district Court Rules for the applicable procedural requirements. Your opposition papers must be filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division, 3470 Twelfth Street, Riverside, California 92501, and served on the undersigned not later than fourteen (14) days before the hearing.

This application is based upon the Notice of Hearing, the first Interim Fee Application of Thomas F. Lennon, the First Interim Fee Application of Allen Matkins, the First Interim Fee Application of Ling, the First Interim Fee Application of Poyner & Spruill, LLP, the First Interim Fee Application of ITL, the Declaration of Thomas F. Lennon in Support of the Applications, and the pleadings and filings previously made in this case.

Dated: September 28, 2006

Loraine L. Pedowitz, Esq.

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

501 West Broadway, 15th Floor

San Diego, California 92101-3541

Attorneys for Receiver Thomas F. Lennon