Onetimefax.com SCAM, 1timefax.com, EJOAT Enterprises Fraud

There are two problems: your failure to read, and their apparent attempt to send faxes that you did not receive.
You are not going to jail, but this could impact your credit.
I would report this to their better business bureau and to the attorney general of the local state,

I suggest that you contact the Better Business Burea and the Attorney General's Office, Consumer Affairs Division and explain your situation to them. The company may have disclosed their practices, but there are guidelines that must be met. Disclosure, to be legally adequate, cannot be obscure and difficult to locate. An attorney would need specific detailed information that would then be tested against required standards. In other words, you would have to hire an attorney to specificly challenge their practices. The company may rely upon heavy handed threats to dissuade people from chalenging their practices. I would strongly urge you to consult with the two agencies mentioned above before I paid them a penny. I would allow the credit card company to investigate and go through their evaluation process as well. If they wrongfully harm your credit, you can sue them for doing so.

I just went to their website and I can't believe how outrageous their terms are. They can say anything they want, but you should have nothing to worry about. Just the fact that their name is "one time fax" and they charge $27 to cancel an account is crazy and probably illegal. You should contact the Federal Trade Commission and the Massachusetts Attorney General's Consumer division. Do not pay the fees. I would sue them under chapter 93A, the Mass. Consumer Protection Act.

I use Efax in my law practice and I find them very dependable and easy to deal with.

You intentionally went onto the site to commit fraud Sir. You simply failed to read the terms of services. The information has been recorded on the server. You can complain to all these people but you are the one at fault not this company.

Now, your wasting my time, and all of the other peoples time listening to you whine about not wanting to pay $4.50 for your usage and a 1.50 monthly account fee.

What, What,, Do you need my nine month olds pacifier?

Sorry, that was 12.00. You actually could have been charged a usual max of $40.00 for 20 resubmission's that actually consist of 15 attempts per resubmission.

Sir, fraud is defined when you say your going to stop payment on a service already proved.

As said before in an earlier conversation, we have the records that show that your fax had been dealt with in appropriate fashion.

It is not appreciated that you have put this online like this, on this web page when you submitted all of your personal and billing information before you read the terms of service. You have miss used the name of this business by placing it on this web site, and that sir, is another infringement of the terms. You are not authorized in any way to use the business name.

The administrator of this web site should flag this page and remove it from the web site. Also, the site administrator should contact the google search engine and have them remove the page from their cache and any other search engine with the same or similar information that can be found.

I too was ripped off by this SCAM website Onetimefax.com (aka Ejoat Enterprises) They charged me lots of undisclosed fees and threatened me when I complained publicly online. The following is the threatenting email they sent me.

The craigs list company reps will be sending a copy of what you submitted for our records. If you continue to harass us in this way or in any other way, you will have the police knocking at your door for Internet staulking and harassment. Legally, you have done enough, if you go any further, we will make that phone call.

Thank You Very Much
OneTimeFax.com
I filed a complaint with the Texas Attorney General and am disputing the the charges on my credit card with my bank. Is there any advice anyone can give me how to proceed.

Thanks, Pete. NY

I have a question for Mr. Bailey (the owner of OneTimeFax.com and presumed respondent above) regarding the second half of your company slogan: "Easy To Use And Saves You Money!"

Let's say that all I want to do is send a single one-page fax (a task for which the name of your company suggests proficiency) to a U.S. fax number. Assuming the fax sends successfully on the first try, then as I understand it, my total charges would be:

$1.50 - cost of the fax itself
$1.50 - monthly charge for account holders located inside United States
$27.00 - service fee to close the account

So unless I'm missing something (like another fee), then the best-case scenario means it costs $30.00 to send a "OneTimeFax". Is this correct? And if so, how exactly does that Save Me Money?!?

- Puzzled in Poughkeepsie

"You have miss used the name of this business by placing it on this web site, and that sir, is another infringement of the terms. You are not authorized in any way to use the business name."

So... The first rule of onetimefax.com is don't talk about onetimefax.com? What's the second rule?

You people are all wrong, I read the terms of service, I understand the fees, it is a very good service. You are the one at fault not the company that your trying to run through the mud. Not A Scam.

Sportman:

At last, someone who understands the fees! Was my accounting above (for a single, one-page fax sent to a domestic number) correct? I figure I must have made some error, because $30.00 seems a little steep, don't you think?

I eagerly await your (or Mr. Bailey's) reply.

I'm dealing with the same thing at this exact moment. I used their service to send an 8 page fax and was charged $12. I didn't know it was $12 until they charged my credit (which didn't go through for due to error). When they contacted me requesting payment 3 months later, I complained saying that it was a ridiculous amount. The person I spoke to with the screen name "Matthew" explained that I was stealing and I would go to jail. He has proceeded to call me from a blocked phone number a total of 11 times (and counting) in an hour. I've already contacted the police. I intend to contact the BBB, but it's apparent that they are not members so I'm not sure what good it'll do. I will also use my voice to alert other would-be faxers to stay away from this company. Regardless of their terms, they have no right to harrass me.

It seems that Matthew Bailey is at it again. On his news website he attacks AVVO with the following;

Avvo.com Scams Lawyers And Businesses
By: Matthew Bailey

At a first glance, the site looks appealing, useful and credible. The same as many other online consumer, ratings, networking and other business related sites. These sites can be enjoyed by many, use them and believe that they have valuable things to offer. However, delving deeper into Avvo’s rating system, a discovery of substantial issues came to a realization that although the concept of publicly rating attorneys and other professionals is a great idea, in terms of execution, Avvo is really lacking.

The biggest concern, is that it is believed that Avvo is medium to large firm friendly; it’s biased against solo practitioners and small businesses. Many people are saying that this is in it’s self is an AVVO.com Scam. Some have said that this web site is just a bunch of attorneys that have the upper hand on all of the others and have a place to kiss each others butt when one makes a mistake.

More specifically, Avvo’s interface is very time consuming to use, it is better geared towards firms that have the resources to devote to providing all of the information required and obtaining peer and client references (peer references from their own firm’s employees?). Information requested by Avvo includes a credit card number, even though the site is free. This aspect strikes odd to many. Moreover, attorney peers who want to leave an endorsement for another attorney or business, have to sign up for Avvo (i.e., what Avvo calls “claiming your profile” and provide the credit card information, again, even though Avvo is free, except for all of the time and effort to complete a profile and defending your business from attacks.

There’s another huge difference between Avvo and other online networking and business sites. Once a profile is “claimed” by an attorney (i.e., once an attorney or business joins Avvo or a business is attacked on the site) that attorney can’t quit/leave and the attacks and false claims can not be deleted. You’re stuck.

AVVO.com is a scam because of this. If you have to or have to hire someone to defend your business and/or claim your profile as an attorney, you are being scammed out of your time and resources. Of course there is a thing called freedom of speech but if your forcing people, companies and/or attorneys to come on the AVVO.com web site to defend, or claim your profile, it is like your being held hostage. No matter what you tell an AVVO.com Customer support rep, they will not delete any false information even if you prove to them their mistakes. This is why it is said that AVVO.com is a scam.

Avvo’s information is inaccurate on many counts. One problem is that attorneys who are primarily licensed in one state that Avvo doesn’t cover are depicted as having been licensed for many years less than they actually have been licensed - in some instances, decades less. If a lawyer moves from an uncovered state into a new state and has been licensed there for only a year, he is depicted to the public as a first year attorney. There is no attempt at accuracy and when requests for correction are sent in by attorneys they are ignored or declined. For this, and many other reasons, AVVO deceives consumers and is deceptive speech is not protected by the first amendment. Most lawyers are not public figures so in deciding to publish things about them that are not true, one is engaged in defamation and disparagement, and that is what AVVO has done to many.

I think that when avvo was being sued and then avvo won the case against them, a very fine detail had been over looked. Avvo.com had been allowed to run small business down with out any real proof of what they had been allowing on their web site. They allow first and last names, locations of these people and but not limited to falsehoods of those people even when they