VoIP Mailing List Archives

[stotaro at totarotechn...]

Your original quote that was conveniently snipped....

"I'm quite certain this is already obvious and will simply be interpreted
as a tautological affirmation of the obvious, but such co-mingling of
personal and business assets -- whether with an evidently fraudalent
purpose or not as such -- will generally not survive the "test of
reasonableness" that must be satisfied for corporate liability to not be
pierced.

In other words, if you simply pay for your house in this manner, and
then you declare bankruptcy or are sued by creditors or whatever, the
courts will scavenge this sort of thing up as evidence that your
corporate entity is a financial alter-ego to whatever degree, and
declare that your house is actually, de facto, a personal asset and can
be included in the asset classes potentially awarded by judgments to the
plaintiffs."

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Alex Balashov
<abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:

[mark.h at cage151.com]

400 class! I'm in! haha

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Steve Totaro
Sent: June 15, 2008 9:10 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] World Cheapest Predictive Dialer!

Your original quote that was conveniently snipped....

"I'm quite certain this is already obvious and will simply be interpreted
as a tautological affirmation of the obvious, but such co-mingling of
personal and business assets -- whether with an evidently fraudalent
purpose or not as such -- will generally not survive the "test of
reasonableness" that must be satisfied for corporate liability to not be
pierced.

In other words, if you simply pay for your house in this manner, and
then you declare bankruptcy or are sued by creditors or whatever, the
courts will scavenge this sort of thing up as evidence that your
corporate entity is a financial alter-ego to whatever degree, and
declare that your house is actually, de facto, a personal asset and can
be included in the asset classes potentially awarded by judgments to the
plaintiffs."

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Alex Balashov
<abalashov at evaristesys.com> wrote:

[abalashov at evaristes...]

Is there a contradiction between them?

Steve Totaro wrote:

[jra at baylink.com]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 01:25:18PM -0400, Alex Balashov wrote:

[jra at baylink.com]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 11:13:31PM -0400, C F wrote:

[stotaro at totarotechn...]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:

[jra at baylink.com]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:11:00AM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:

[stotaro at totarotechn...]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:07 AM, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:

[shmaltz at gmail.com]

LLCs?

On 6/16/08, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:

[stotaro at totarotechn...]

You are probably confusing corporate tactics to pay less taxes vs
corporate tactics to protect assets. The first does provide some
asset protection but is mainly to pay less taxes. The second is to
basically "hide" assets through totally legal LLCs.

Thanks,
Steve Totaro

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:00 PM, C F <shmaltz at gmail.com> wrote:

[jra at baylink.com]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:00:18PM -0400, C F wrote:

[stotaro at totarotechn...]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Jay R. Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:

[jra at baylink.com]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 01:05:59PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote:

[abalashov at evaristes...]

The asset protection entities are completely legal. There's nothing
"wrong" ipso facto with doing it.

The question is only whether they will succeed in protecting your assets
when your assets are actually challenged. It depends on the size and
scope of the judgment, the circumstances in which it takes place, the
quality and nature of the litigation, and so on.

It is the gulf between the theoretical and the de facto that I am
attempting to illuminate. In practise, in situations where courts and
plaintiffs are most rabidly after your assets (i.e. bankruptcies of
various stripes), merely having them owned by entities other than the
one being sued may not be enough.

--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599

[mark.h at cage151.com]

How can they even set such 1234567890 callerIDs anyway?
For example, our inter/intra state calling depends a lot on the callerIDs.

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Matt Florell
Sent: June 13, 2008 8:20 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] World Cheapest Predictive Dialer!

Hello,

I am not suggesting that the USA's laws exist outside of the USA, I
can imagine the horrible problems that would cause in the rest of
world. I wanted to point out that if you are using this service and
doing business in the USA that you could face penalties for not
following the law. According to the FTC, both companies(the scrubber
and the client) are guilty of breaking the laws of the USA.

If you are calling the USA and need to use this company's FTC DNC list
filtering services then you may have USA-based operations of some
kind. In such cases it is important to note that companies have been
fined millions of dollars and have been shut down in the USA for
violating these regulations.

I am well aware of the fact that companies based outside of the USA
routinely call-blast the USA with auto-dialers that send out callerIDs
such as 1234567890 and do no filtering against the USA FTC DNC lists.
A large portion of these companies are doing lead-generation for
USA-based companies, and over the years a lot of those USA-based
companies have been shut down for the activities of their lead
suppliers.

MATT---

On 6/13/08, Dean Collins <Dean at cognation.net> wrote: