My Advertising Pays Lawsuit Versus TaraTalks Dismissed0
My Advertising Pays Lawsuit Versus TaraTalks Dismissed
A fellow Scam Buster TaraTalks was threatened with a lawsuit by My Advertising Pays on February 25th, 2016. Many believe this lawsuit was just an attempt to try and give some legitimacy to the business they are running. My Advertising Pays filed the lawsuit against TaraTalks on April 6th, 2016.
I reviewed My Advertising Pays and came to a similar conclusion as TaraTalks about the money making opportunity they offer.
Here are the details of the case by My Advertising Pays against TaraTalks:
Due to the fact that TaraTalks is an online blog, the residency of the individual hiding behind the computer screen is unknown. Therefore, MAP is bringing a federal law suit founded upon diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction arises when the Plaintiff to a suit and the Defendant reside in different states or even different countries. However, because the suit is based on diversity jurisdiction and not a question of Federal Law or the Constitution, the claims contain in the Complaint arise under State Law. By filing the suit in a federal court located in the State of Illinois, Illinois law will govern the substantive matters within the proceedings.
As a general legal principal, defamation is the publication of false claims about another. Under Illinois law, in order for a party to successfully bring a defamation claim they must prove the following: a.) that the Defendant made a false statement about the Plaintiff; b.) that the false statements were published (spoken or written) to a third party; c.) when making the statements, the Defendant either knew the statements were false or had reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements; d.) and the publication damaged the plaintiff’s reputation.
Defamation can be broken down into two categories:
1.) verbal defamation, which is called slander, and
2.) written defamation, which is called libel. Because TaraTalks is an online blog where the false statements have been written and published on the internet, MAP, as Plaintiff, has brought libel claims against TaraTalks as the defendant.
Within the written defamation categorized as libel, two additional categories of libel can be distinguished:
1.) libel per se and
2.) libel per quod. Libel per se means that the false statements made are in and of itself defamatory. In other words, these statements are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory and are assumed to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, without further need to prove that harm. Under the laws of Illinois, a statement that does any of the following things amounts to defamation per se:
- accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime;
- alleges that the plaintiff is infected with a loathsome communicable disease;
- alleges that the plaintiff is unable to perform or lacks integrity in performing his or her employment duties;
- attributes to the plaintiff a lack of ability or otherwise harms the plaintiff in his or her profession; or
- accuses the plaintiff of engaging in adultery or fornication.
Alternatively, statements are considered defamatory per quod if the defamatory character of the statement is not apparent on its face, and extrinsic facts are required to explain its defamatory meaning. If a statement is per quod defamatory, the plaintiff must plead and prove that he or she sustained actual damage of a pecuniary nature. In other words, when a claim of defamation per quod is made, damages are not presumed.
Because TaraTalks has attacked MAP’s business and has spread false statements covering a wide array of topics from business to personal, MAP and Deese will bring both libel per se and libel per quod claims against the Defendant.
Tortious Interference with Existing and Prospective Business Relations:
In addition to the two (2) libel claims, MAP and Deese will also bring a claim against TaraTalks for tortious interference with business relationships. In essence, this claim will allege that TaraTalk’s false comments caused MAP affiliates to terminate their relationship with MAP or prevented potential MAP affiliates from becoming members. To successfully plead tortious interference, a Plaintiff must prove: the existence of a valid business relationship or expectancy; knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the part of the interferer; an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy has been disrupted. The interest protected is the reasonable expectation of economic advantage.
Lastly, because TaraTalks has spread vicious lies about founder and CEO, Michael Deese, he, in his personal capacity, will be brining a false light claim against TaraTalks. A claim for false light requires that the Plaintiff show the defendant, acting with reckless disregard, placed the Plaintiff before the public in a false manner that was highly offensive to a reasonable person. TaraTalks has made numerous attacks at Michael Deese’s character and integrity alleging that he has corrupt morals and has defrauded MAP affiliates. These claims could not be more false. As a Disabled United States Air Force Veteran, Deese spent years looking for an internet income model that can create a secure and reliable income for his affiliates. By establishing MAP, Deese has provided thousands of affiliates with supplemental income. Over the years Deese has created close trusting relationships with his MAP affiliates and takes great pride in the fact that MAP has helped so many men and women of all ages.
– Source myadvertisingpays.news
The judge has dismissed the case:
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, April 12, 2016:
‘MINUTE entry before the Honorable Joan B. Gottschall: In light of this court’s ruling dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction , Plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery  is denied.
My Advertising Pays Lawsuit Versus TaraTalks Conclusion
It is always a good idea to sue someone in a court that actually has jurisdiction over the person you are suing. TaraTalks is going to keep exposing them for who they are. Here is a great new example of this:
A perfect explanation from a MAPS affiliate on the new improved Version 2:
‘I had not seen your blog, i wish i had before i signed up to this.Its unbelievable! I had bought a 6 months membership in January at $99.99 which was supposed to expire in June and its only halfway through they just dissolved it with no notice whatsoever and expect me to now pay a monthly membership of 26.99 euros. On top of that whereas before i bought credit packs at $50 each expecting to earn $60,with the change to euros i have just asked how much it will cost me to use my US dollar earnings to buy the new credit packs in euros. You won’t believe they told me $62.71 apparently because VXgateway’s exchange rate is 0.88 instead of the usual 0.81. So instead of earning $60 i’m now actually loosing money because i am being charged an extra $2.71 on top of what i expected to earn. Can i request a cashback if i used a debit card instead of a credit card. Please Tara help there will be a lot of people in this situation. How can i go about getting my money back? Something serious needs to be done about scammers like these rather than casually letting people like these go scott free all the time. You would do well also to expose their poxy threat to sue you that that’s also just a scam to try and convince unsuspecting people that they are genuine.’
The post My Advertising Pays Lawsuit Versus TaraTalks Dismissed appeared first on Ethan Vanderbuilt.