Jacko's Forex House of Pleasure and Pain | Page 619 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Chicky's House of Pleasure and Pain 11 replies

Carry Backet w/ Jacko's AH 10 replies

Hello Guys is a pleasure to be here. I'm new to MT4 1 reply

Jacko's P&P Trend Trading Method 73 replies

Attachments: Jacko's Forex House of Pleasure and Pain
Exit Attachments

Jacko's Forex House of Pleasure and Pain

  • #12,361
  • Aug 28, 2010 9:12pm Aug 28, 2010 9:12pm
In my professional and personal life, when people start talking about "the lawyers" - I have generally just come to recognize that this is, you know....not good.
"If The Fool persists in his Folly he will become wise." - William Blake
  • #12,362
  • Aug 28, 2010 10:13pm Aug 28, 2010 10:13pm
Quoting billflet
Can you point me to where FF advertises Jacko's services?
How about the vouch system for starters?

I can see both sides of this argument - but i really agree that INDIRECTLY FF has some responsibilty for this

Conversly people are responsible for their own finances and should do the due dillegence before jumping on a band waggon - The trend is not your friend
Time hides Nothing
  • #12,363
  • Aug 28, 2010 10:16pm Aug 28, 2010 10:16pm
By that logic, God is also responsible and we should sue the Pope !


Edit : God, Allah, Krishna, Jehovah, Darth Vador, etc etc
  • #12,364
  • Aug 28, 2010 10:21pm Aug 28, 2010 10:21pm
Quoting Intensity
By that logic, God is also responsible and we should sue the Pope !


Edit : God, Allah, Krishna, Jehovah, Darth Vador, etc etc
haha - well i cant argue with that - the only thing i know is FF exists... Does god? I believe he does but this I cannot prove

...Lord jesus is you are up there give us a sign

EDIT: God, Allah, Krishna, Jehovah, Darth Vador, etc etc
Time hides Nothing
  • #12,365
  • Aug 28, 2010 10:27pm Aug 28, 2010 10:27pm
Quoting CindyXXXX
haha - well i cant argue with that - the only thing i know is FF exists... Does god? I believe he does but this I cannot prove

...Lord jesus is you are up there give us a sign

EDIT: God, Allah, Krishna, Jehovah, Darth Vador, etc etc
Darth Vador here, I'm speaking through Intensity. I heard your message and I understand your sorrow ! I can help you ! Just wire me a humble U$ 1999 and I will solve your problem FOR EVER ! You're not a god, you can't do it but I can easily do it.

I'm waiting your donation to the Super Secret Modern Sith Church (SSMSC).

There are only 7 adept positions left, don't let this fantastically unbelievable once-in-a-lifetime opporturnity pass you by ! Join us to the dark side of trading, where we litterally siphon accounts
  • #12,366
  • Aug 28, 2010 10:30pm Aug 28, 2010 10:30pm
Quoting kk007
Has FF "advertised" any threads at all??????
They don't necessarily need to be found culpable. They provide the environment, have knowledge of prior/similar problems, and had the exclusive power to take action to avoid some of the carnage and chose not to.

Many years ago there was a court case between a car owner and a valet service of a restaurant. The car own handed over his car keys like many others and went to enjoy dinner.

When he returned to his car he found it was vandalized. The valet manager kindly pointed to a sign, in plain view, that stated they are not responsible for any losses. The court found since they had taken possession of the vehicle, and could have taken measures to prevent the theft, they were, indeed, liable regardless of any disclaimer.

This case with FF will be interesting to follow.
  • #12,367
  • Aug 28, 2010 10:33pm Aug 28, 2010 10:33pm
Quoting Slack
This case with FF will be interesting to follow.
not good
"If The Fool persists in his Folly he will become wise." - William Blake
  • #12,368
  • Edited 11:15pm Aug 28, 2010 10:58pm | Edited 11:15pm
Quoting Slack
They don't necessarily need to be found culpable. They provide the environment, have knowledge of prior/similar problems, and had the exclusive power to take action to avoid some of the carnage and chose not to.

Many years ago there was a court case between a car owner and a valet service of a restaurant. The car own handed over his car keys like many others and went to enjoy dinner.

When he returned to his car he found it was vandalized. The valet manager kindly pointed to a sign, in plain view, that stated they are not responsible for any...
I don't think FF is responsible on this one...the car case is way different..FF has not taken possession of anything....and anybody that sues FF on Jacko will end up paying FF's attorneys' fees in defending...
BUT...IN THE FUTURE, if they want to be respected, they need to stop these people that are requesting funds...it is a joke and some cleaning up is needed...not b/c they might be liable, but b/c it is becoming ridiculous all these commercial members asking for funds. FF takes the position that the members take care of this by pointing out the scammers, that FF is mainly self-policed by the members, but that is not good enough, as seen here..and for what, to subject yourself to abues?...FF needs to clean the nonsense up themselves if they want to be respected. They need to be more proactive when something does not appear to be good.
Now let me ask you, why did Jacko switch from DailyFX to FF...could it be that FXCM would have stopped this BS immediately once he went commercial. I think so.

I could maybe see a miniscule argument for liability on FF if it happens again, depending on how obvious the scam is, but not this time..., who knows, maybe it will be similar to the dog bite rule...your dogs bites for the first time, you are not liable...your dog bites a second time, you are liable, as you then were aware of the dog's propensity to bite and did nothing about it.
  • #12,369
  • Aug 28, 2010 11:13pm Aug 28, 2010 11:13pm
Quoting wwwin
I don't think FF is responsible on this one...the car case is way different..FF has not taken possession of anything....and anybody that sues FF on Jacko will end up paying FF's attorneys' fees in defending...
BUT...IN THE FUTURE, if they want to be respected, they need to stop these people that are requesting funds...it is a joke and some cleaning up is needed...not b/c they might be liable, but b/c it is becoming ridiculous all these commercial members asking for funds. FF takes the position that the members take care of this by pointing out...
Good point about Daily FX. Let's keep n mind, that website is FXCM's Research and Development site. No way in hell would they have tolerated Jack-off.

The above case wasn't meant to be a point for point parallelism. I think one of the court's points was, if it's your power to do something reasonable, and rational, to protect a customer's property, putting up a stupid sign doesn't waive the customer's rights. I didn't mention this before, but there's another very good argument to made as well. This site derives its revenue from advertisement. Ad rates are based on size and site traffic, so you could say FF had a financial incentive NOT to do anything. Man, I think I missed my calling as a lawyer
  • #12,370
  • Aug 28, 2010 11:22pm Aug 28, 2010 11:22pm
Quoting Slack
Good point about Daily FX. Let's keep n mind, that website is FXCM's Research and Development site. No way in hell would they have tolerated Jack-off.

The above case wasn't meant to be a point for point parallelism. I think one of the court's points was, if it's your power to do something reasonable, and rational, to protect a customer's property, putting up a stupid sign doesn't waive the customer's rights. I didn't mention this before, but there's another very good argument to made as well. This site derives its revenue from advertisement....
Well if it can be proven that FF did nothing b/c of the traffic while knowing what was going on, you may have a point, but I think it is a strech. How are you going to prove that they knew what Jacko was doing and did nothing b/c of the traffic he brought. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Unless there are internal memos or emails that indicate that, I think they are off the hook on Jacko on the legal front.
I do agree with you that putting a disclaimer is not an absolute and 100% sure way of avoiding liability, particularly in the future, as they now know that the disclaimer did nothing and perhaps b/c the disclaimer is not in plain view. I think a disclaimer has to be conspicuous to be legally sound.
  • #12,371
  • Aug 28, 2010 11:28pm Aug 28, 2010 11:28pm
FF cant BE HOLD RESPONSIBLE for the decisions acted upon on the notable requests of a poster on a open forum ,terms of use state they are the provider off a tool that the user has a access too {online forum to reader } ..
If this was true i followed a trade of a poster on this forum i lost 10% of my account due this call , do this mean that the forum provider is at fault for my losses ? or the trade caller ? .. You the trader are responsible as you acted upon advice that may be true unbiased or simply rubbish...simple stuff really ...

In Australia you need to be licensed to give any form of advice ,trade setups ,and anything offering risk...this will be in forex next few years aswell. im certain..

terms of use on forex factory

Quote
However, before deciding to participate in the Forex market, you should carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience and risk appetite. Most importantly, do not invest money you cannot afford to lose. There is considerable exposure to risk in any foreign exchange transaction.
Quote
By using the Forex Factory website, the reader (thats you!) agrees not...
Quote
As an interactive computer service, Forex Factory is provided immunity by the United States Congress in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 from being held responsible for material published to our site by users of our services. As a user of this site, you will be held solely responsible for the content of any message that you post. If you post libelous, defamatory, slanderous, or otherwise untruthful remarks about a person or company, you could be putting yourself in legal jeopardy.
CHEERS/.

TERMS OF USE ARE LINKED ON ANY AND EVERY PAGE!

http://www.forexfactory.com/legal.php#terms
  • #12,372
  • Edited 11:58pm Aug 28, 2010 11:32pm | Edited 11:58pm
Quoting trj6911
FF cant BE HOLD RESPONSIBLE for the decisions acted upon on the notable requests of a poster on a open forum ,terms of use state they are the provider off a tool that the user has a access too {online forum to reader } ..
If this was true i followed a trade of a poster on this forum i lost 10% of my account due this call , do this mean that the forum provider is at fault for my losses ? or the trade caller ? .. You the trader are responsible as you acted upon advice that may be true unbiased or simply rubbish...simple stuff really ...

In...
Well, it does not matter, if they KNOW a fraud is taking place and let it go on, that statute doe not apply. The key is if they knew and allowed it to continue.
At any rate, that statute is mainly used in libel and defamtion cases...and I don't think that it applies to shield the information provider from claims by non-US residents.
----------------------
Australia
In Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick,[21] (http://www.forexfactory.com/#cite_note-20) the High Court of Australia treated defamatory material on a server outside Australia as having been published in Australia when it is downloaded or read by someone in Australia.
Gorton v Australian Broadcasting Commission & Anor (1973) 1 ACTR 6
Under the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW),[22] (http://www.forexfactory.com/#cite_note-21) s 32, a defence to defamation is that the defendant neither knew, nor ought reasonably to have known of the defamation, and the lack of knowledge was not due to the defendant's negligence.
----------------------------------------------------------------

-------
United Kingdom
The laws of libel and defamation will treat a disseminator of information as having "published" material posted by a user and the onus will then be on a defendant to prove that it did not know the publication was defamatory and was not negligent in failing to know: Goldsmith v Sperrings Ltd (1977) 2 All ER 566; Vizetelly v Mudie's Select Library Ltd (1900) 2 QB 170; Emmens v Pottle & Ors (1885) 16 QBD 354
-------
New Zealand
Failing to investigate the material or to make inquiries of the user concerned may amount to negligence in this context: Jensen v Clark [1982] 2 NZLR 26
-------
European Union


Directive 2000/31/EC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:EN:HTML) establishes a safe haven regime for hosting providers:

  1. Article 14 establishes that hosting providers are not responsible for the content they host as long as (1) the acts in question are neutral intermediary acts of a mere technical, automatic and passive capacity; (2) they are not informed of its illegal character, and (3) they act promptly to remove or disable access to the material when informed of it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Germany
In 1997, Felix Somm (http://www.forexfactory.com/w/index.php?title=Felix_Somm&action=edit&redlink=1), the former managing director for CompuServe (http://www.forexfactory.com/wiki/CompuServe) Germany, was charged with violating German child pornography (http://www.forexfactory.com/wiki/Child_pornography) laws (http://www.forexfactory.com/wiki/Law) because of the material CompuServe's network was carrying into Germany. He was convicted and sentenced to two years probation on May 28, 1998.[23] (http://www.forexfactory.com/#cite_note-22) He was cleared on appeal on November 17, 1999.[24] (http://www.forexfactory.com/#cite_note-23)
The Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Cologne, an appellate court, found that an online auctioneer does not have an active duty to check for counterfiet goods (Az 6 U 12/01).[25] (http://www.forexfactory.com/#cite_note-24)
In one example, the first-instance district court of Hamburg issued a temporary restraining order requiring message board operator Universal Boards to review all comments before they can be posted to prevent the publication of messages inciting others to download a harmful files. The court reasoned that "the publishing house must be held liable for spreading such material in the forum, regardless of whether it was aware of the content." [26] (http://www.forexfactory.com/#cite_note-25)

Let me ask you, why does eBay stops and cancel a sale once they have some reason to know that it is a fraud...b/c in that case, the statute does not shield.them.
This is a complicated matter, made more complicated by the different laws in different countries.

The easy way to be 100% protected...SOLICITATION OF FUNDS NOT ALLOWED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

  • #12,373
  • Aug 28, 2010 11:52pm Aug 28, 2010 11:52pm
Quoting wwwin
Well if it can be proven that FF did nothing b/c of the traffic while knowing what was going on, you may have a point, but I think it is a strech. How are you going to prove that they knew what Jacko was doing and did nothing b/c of the traffic he brought. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Unless there are internal memos or emails that indicate that, I think they are off the hook on Jacko on the legal front.
I do agree with you that putting a disclaimer is not an absolute and 100% sure way of avoiding liability, particularly in the future,...
Yea, I don't know, but this will get messy. Remember, this all took place under the "Commercial" section on this site, not the general free flowing BS section.

All I know is, if this was a trade, I'd be short FF with a tight stop right about now.
  • #12,374
  • Aug 28, 2010 11:56pm Aug 28, 2010 11:56pm
Quoting Slack
Yea, I don't know, but this will get messy. Remember, this all took place under the "Commercial" section on this site, not the general free flowing BS section.

All I know is, if this was a trade, I'd be short FF with a tight stop right about now.
Commercial BETA


In softwares, beta version allows you to mess everything up without a single consequence. It could work that way here should FF go to court.
  • #12,375
  • Aug 29, 2010 12:02am Aug 29, 2010 12:02am
Sorry Rastaman, I don't believe you.

No one goes to see a lawyer for $700. Judge Judy would be your best bet.

So either you are an investor and wont admit you did your dough, or you haven't gone to see a lawyer at all.



Quoting Rastaman
Well, I just talked to my lawyer, who is of the impression that FF holds some responsibility in advertising Jacko's Services on the board.

At least All I got ripped off of was $700.

I mailed Jacko and as expected got no reply.

Jako's site was unimpressive right form the start, not a single chart on the site, and after the first month, I asked for my money back.


It is now in the hands of my lawyer.
  • #12,376
  • Aug 29, 2010 12:02am Aug 29, 2010 12:02am
Quoting CindyXXXX
How about the vouch system for starters?

I can see both sides of this argument - but i really agree that INDIRECTLY FF has some responsibilty for this

Conversly people are responsible for their own finances and should do the due dillegence before jumping on a band waggon - The trend is not your friend
I was asking about the advertisement the other poster referred to.

Vouches are hardly an advertisement.

FF doesn't vouch, the members do. And yes, the vouch system is flawed. When it was invented, the criteria for a vouch was belief that the vouchee had made at least 1000 live trades. Those that vouched for Jacko early believed he'd made them. That didn't endorse him as a fund manager or anything else. Since then the vouch sytem has morphed into something completely different.

I doubt anyone has ever successfully sued a TV station because they got scammed on an infommercial, though I'm sure it's been tried. People really have trouble owning their own mistakes. It sucks to get scammed, but let's put the blame where it lies--with Jack-o and the people who sent him money. I hope they all get their money back, but I don't believe they should be expecting it from FF. Unless, like wwwin said, they were in on it or knew about it, which is very doubtful.

And yes, I agree that by operating from here, some sort of endorsement may seem implied--but FF has always made their position clear on the commercial section. Another good reason to scrape it off.
  • #12,377
  • Aug 29, 2010 12:03am Aug 29, 2010 12:03am
Quoting Intensity
Commercial BETA


In softwares, beta version allows you to mess everything up without a single consequence. It could work that way here should FF go to court.
In the Jacko case yes, but is beta in software not used to find bugs and CORRECT THE BUGS?
  • #12,378
  • Aug 29, 2010 12:14am Aug 29, 2010 12:14am
Quoting dawsonsg
Sorry Rastaman, I don't believe you.

No one goes to see a lawyer for $700. Judge Judy would be your best bet.

So either you are an investor and wont admit you did your dough, or you haven't gone to see a lawyer at all.

Ok, I just closed my short. I'm now long FF with a medium stop.
  • #12,379
  • Aug 29, 2010 12:31am Aug 29, 2010 12:31am
Quoting wwwin
Now let me ask you, why did Jacko switch from DailyFX to FF...could it be that FXCM would have stopped this BS immediately once he went commercial. I think so.
From what I remember, DailyFX implemented a lot of changes to the forum trying to bring their analysts into the threads to discuss currencies etc and it had a different feel when those changes took place. FF was/is much better laid out (for me). Easier to read/navigate and visually better.

In saying that, Jacko was a strong proponent of no scam, on any forum.

I am fully in agreement with the policy here, and in all other respected Forums, that touting for business and links to signal provider websites should be STRONGLY DISCOURAGED.

http://forexforums.dailyfx.com/115025-post17112.html

Nothing worth having is easy.
  • #12,380
  • Aug 29, 2010 12:37am Aug 29, 2010 12:37am
Quoting wwwin
In the Jacko case yes, but is beta in software not used to find bugs and CORRECT THE BUGS?
Sure it is used to find the bugs but because it's a beta and a non-final version, you can't sue them for the bugs Google mail was a beta for years because of this loophole.
3 traders viewing now