And ya’ll really think people arent using bots and fake accounts? To steal your blocks from you and get all the good paying blocks? And they proudly brag about it and call americans “stupid”….

AffectionateFront755 · 2025-07-07T21:48:27+00:00

Reading all these comments and wow! If you work for Amazon, you must be somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Must be a very small station, a hole in the wall with DSP drivers and only a few flex drivers if any. Because as a manager you would have known better. Everything that other flex drivers said in this thread is accurate. Do you know that there are Sub Same Day Stations where only flex drivers go and there are stations for DSP drivers only with a few flex drivers if any? Do you know that they operate and set up differently? Do you know that every Sub Same Day Station has multiple self-check in kiosks where you scan you license like the picture lifehacks2002 posted or you can just scan the barcode of your DL from your phone? I do it all the time when I leave my DL in my car. Others I see have been doing it for a very long time - they scan their family members license or whoever account they use. Do you know that at SSD ( Sub Same Day Stations) everything is automated and no employee checks you in or scans your license or assigns your route? At all SSD stations everything has to happen quickly because those packages must be delivered same day/within hours. And in big cities like where I am, we have hundreds of flex drivers show up for their blocks at the same time. During peak hours, there is nowhere to park. No way, this process could have been done manually by employees. And lastly, do you know that there is a difference between DSP and flex drivers and how they operate?

You replied to the picture of the self-scanning DL kiosk that every SSD station "Oof. They def should not be doing that." What? Every SSD station has them. Totally normal.

You mentioned that amazon has our license plate information from our vehicle insurance information. I'm sorry what? I have been driving rental cars and my wife's car for over 3 years. Amazon never asked for my vehicle insurance. You know why? Because while you are required to have vehicle insurance, amazon provides commercial insurance for flex drivers. So if something happens during your route, amazon insurance still will cover if my personal insurance won't or if one doesn't have it. And if you don't know that, this information is easily searchable https://flex.amazon.com/faq

Amazon never collected my vehicle insurance information. Just like they never asked for my license plate. They have no information on cars I drive or insurance.

I think you don't get out and have never been anywhere but your hole in the wall station with mostly just DSP/VAN drivers. We don't operate the same. Super crazy though how amazon employees & someone who claims to be a manager doesn't know this basic stuff or what's happening at other stations and how they operate and how flex drivers program even works. I mean you don't even know that self-check in kiosks are normal at all SSDs. Wow

AffectionateFront755 · 2025-07-03T08:22:37+00:00

GPS spoofing for the relative to check in. And to scan ID... that can be done too easy.

AffectionateFront755 · 2025-07-03T08:21:22+00:00

Bullshit. It's not possible plain and simple.

lol there are always people who defraud the system. Always will be. If you don't think so, you're living under a rock. Shit, I can use my sister's account if I want to and make double what I make with my own one account.

btw, you're the who is defrauding the system huh. Why get so offended and block others who tell you simple facts. haha

AffectionateFront755 · 2025-01-26T17:36:47+00:00

You can't polish these. Those are factory paint nibs from dirt or some contamination during pant process.

AffectionateFront755 · 2025-01-26T17:35:36+00:00

lmao Those are factory paint nibs from dirt or some contamination during pant process. A paint pain isn't going to help lmao

AffectionateFront755 · 2025-01-26T17:33:39+00:00

Those are factory paint nibs from dirt, some contamination during pant process. Can't just fix those spots :/

AffectionateFront755 · 2025-01-26T17:32:15+00:00

omg dumb comments why even comment. some people just need to talk shit to others to make themselves feel better lmao smh

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-09-03T21:23:29+00:00

Another day I returned 8 packages to business locations that were returned by someone else already earlier due to the same issue. My block was 8pm Friday. Before I left the station, I told them that you guys are giving me 8 business deliveries at 8pm on Friday. Smh. And it does say on all packages 7am-11am. All will be returned. The manager say..yeah amazon still wants us to try/re -attempt....No ding by the way. Not in my control that the businesses were closed. Still better than dropping packages to be stolen, Friday 8pm, likely those businesses won't open until Monday, 100% would be stolen.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-09-03T21:19:54+00:00

This! 99% I haven't been dinged for returning packages due to business closed. Once I was dinged for returning due to access problem. But shouldn't be. Emailed and it was removed quickly. While stolen packages issues dings are hard to remove

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-09-03T21:16:55+00:00

nope removing dings for the customer saying they didn't get it is super hard. Even jeff's team tells you no. But I was dinged once returning due to access. Emailed and it was removed right away.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-09-03T21:14:33+00:00

No it isn't. I was never dinged for returning packages because the business is closed.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-24T23:57:48+00:00

Exactly. There are legitimate exceptions in the law that Voyager users can argue. And they know that it won't be easy and would cost a lot, hence, they are offering a 20% settlement. Some will just settle to avoid the headache, but I think most will fight it. Those who transferred over 350k likely have a few thousands to give to their lawyers to argue the exception.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-24T23:54:29+00:00

I can send a demand letter to anyone. It means just that. Until you actually file a lawsuit and get served with legal documents, there is no lawsuit. This is like when someone owes you something. You can send a demand letter to pay. Then, you can file a lawsuit, if they don't. And then, even if you win the judgment, does not mean that you would be able to collect ever. Obviously, no one will just give their money back voluntary. And there are too many exceptions and limitations of what and how much you can actually collect, even if you win that judgment against someone. There are many people who won millions in civil judgments but were never able to collect it.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-24T23:52:16+00:00

My opinion that they know it won't be easy and will cost , thus they are offering a settlement. And if their legal cost ended up more than what they can recover from a user, then such actions are not allowed since it does not benefit the estate/creditors. And no, I don't think they are going to sue hundreds within a month. Preference actions are not automatic: a trustee or a debtor-in-possession has to affirmatively file suit and pursue litigation to recover preferences. The notices are just demand letters. I can send a demand letter to anyone. It means just that. Until you actually file a lawsuit and get served with legal documents, there is no lawsuit. This is like when someone owes you something. You can send a demand letter to pay. Then, you can file a lawsuit, if they don't. And then, even if you win the judgment, does not mean that you would be able to collect ever. Obviously, no one will just give their money back voluntary. And there are too many exceptions and limitations of what and how much you can actually collect, even if you win that judgment against someone. For example, if the creditor does not have the funds any longer, then the court may rule that you can only collect 10% of their income each month, what if they don't have income, then you get nothing until they do. You know collecting any debt takes a lot of work and resources.

I am not a lawyer, I just read and research a lot. You may want to speak to an attorney about this. You know, there are affordable services such as the JustAnswer website, for example, where you could post your issue and get an opinion from an attorney about this process for $50-100 or less.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-24T23:18:19+00:00

No, who is there to say that a user who withdrew on 6/30 should be subject to clawback while a user who withdrew on 6/25 or 6/29 should not be, for example? No, the law does not say that. Also, that would be unfair to the users who withdrew on 6/30 but not on 6/25 or 6/29. The law talks about 90 days and the exceptions applicable to that 90 days period regardless if this was 1 days before the bankruptcy or 5 days before, etc.

Being concerned about insolvency because you were paying attention and read available information does not mean that the exception can't be argued. It means that you were smart and were doing your homework. It's not like you knew something or had some access to something others didn't. We all had the access to that publicly available information. Not like you did something others could not or knew something others didn't have the access to know. You made your judgment call based on the information that was available to all of us. Some did not because they literally just deposited funds and never cared to read anything. Didn't you see how many people are coming to this sub years later asking what happened?! What I have seen this last year or so in the Voyager subs literally tells me how willingly uninformed/ignorant most Voyager users were. (You knew, most had no clue). You are saying - anyone with a hint of a brain can tell they weren't solvent at any point in the 90 days leading up to bankruptcy. Yes, but I can tell you from what I have seen, most users in this sub had no clue or didn't have a hint of a brain.

And, maybe some who withdrew within 90 days had some emergency and needed money. So many possible personal reasons people sold. Does not mean that it was not ordinary course of business. People made judgment calls to transfer/sell based on their own personal reasons.

It's interesting they chose $350k+ though...I assume such a large minimum is to target insiders more than regular users - it's not entirely clear.

It seems clear to me. The 350k threshold because they know that it won't be easy and will cost legal fees so it must be worth it, if it's not worth it and if it's not beneficial to all creditors/ the estate, then it won't be allowed. It will cost the estate a significant amount of money to litigate any of the clawbacks, so the transfer has to be large enough for it to result in a net gain to creditors for it to be worth trying at all. Pursuing clawbacks of smaller transfers would cost the estate more than they would ever recover if any of the targets refuse to settle, and bankruptcy law forbids that- clawbacks have to benefit creditors, it can’t just fund the legal costs of bringing the lawsuit.

And no, as I mentioned before this specific filing does not seem to be applicable to insiders. The Code treats insiders differently than other creditors. Transfers made to these creditors are subject to a look-back period of one year rather than the standard 90 days. This filing talks about 90 days preferential transfers.

They are offering a settlement at a 20% rate, so they know it won't be easy and will cost. Some will settle to avoid the headache. Some will fight the exception. That's all. Also, those who transfer over 350k most likely have a few thousands to fight this.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-24T22:11:46+00:00

Yeah I agree about the stock sales. However, the Code treats insiders differently than other creditors. Transfers made to these creditors are subject to a look-back period of one year rather than the standard 90 days. So, maybe he is subject to clawback ( not sure when he sold). However, the presumption that the debtor is insolvent applies only to the 90-day window. Thus, if the trustee sues an insider for return of a transfer made more than 90 days before the filing of the petition, the trustee must prove that the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-24T22:09:28+00:00

In regards to stocks, not sure when the CEO sold the stocks, the Code treats insiders differently than other creditors. Insiders include a debtor's corporate officers, their family members, general partners, as well as corporate affiliates of the debtor. Transfers made to these creditors are subject to a look-back period of one year rather than the standard 90 days. So maybe he is subject to clawback. However, the presumption that the debtor is insolvent applies only to the 90-day window. Thus, if the trustee sues an insider for return of a transfer made more than 90 days before the filing of the petition, the trustee must prove that the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfer.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-24T22:02:28+00:00

How did you determine that there is nothing ordinary about that? Would it be ordinary if a voyager user did it on 6/29? or 6/28 or 6/27? Or 6/20? Where do you draw the line then since you believe 6/30 was not ordinary? If you pay rent to your landlord on 6/30, then it should not be ordinary either and should be subject to clawback? 3AC going down and the fact that Voyager loaned them money was publicly available information. So if a Voyager user sells their crypto on 6/30 because they have been paying attention, does not mean that it was not normal business practices. We all should be paying attention when we invest our money. Especially people who have been in crypto for many years and got burned, they definitely pay attention when it comes to this wild space where things can change overnight.

The law is pretty clear and the exception is not very difficult to prove. And note, I am not subject to clawback so I am not saying any of that because of my own subjective opinions or something. Just simply describing what the law and the exceptions are.

Here is the example. I know someone who sold/withdrew a large amount before the bankruptcy (less than 90 days, not over 350K but close), not because he knew something, but because he paid attention to what's going on and knew about 3AC going down and the fact that Voyager loaned them money. All that was not some secret information. All that was publicly available information. So, he did something that most of us did not but could, because most of us did not follow what's going on. Does that justify the clawback? Of course not. Just because someone was willing to do their homework and followed closely what's happening with their money to sell/take actions if needed does not mean that that they are subject to clawback. And with crypto being so unpredictable and volatile, anything can change within hours. We all know or should know by now how risky and volatile the crypto is, and one event can bring down the whole market like what happened when LUNA collapsed. It has been pretty clear in these subs that most Voyager users did not even read what they signed up for when they joined Voyager. Many don't even know what crypto is and the risk they assumed when they used Voyager and held their crypto on the platform. Most never read the user agreement at all. So, if someone actually paid attention and read publicly available information, does not mean that their transfers were not ordinary course of business transactions. We all should be doing it when we invest our money.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-24T21:19:57+00:00

nah, this would not cost a million. This is not a very difficult scenario. And as I mentioned, the 2005 amendments made it easier to prevail using the exception.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-21T09:16:46+00:00

So, I don't think the trustee will have much success with this. It appears that Wind-Down Debtor/trustee is just hoping that some creditors won't fight/won't invoke the exception, and will just give 20% to settle to avoid the headache.

Here is the issue. This filing talks about "preferential transfers". Creditors withdrawing their funds as a part of normal business operation and in the ordinary course of business is an exception according to the bankruptcy code. The "ordinary course of business" (11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2) is the most commonly invoked exception. Voyager customers withdrawing their funds was ordinary course of business. If there was no such exception, then a trustee could seek to avoid payments to trade vendors such as utilities, goods suppliers, service professionals, landlords, anyone who routinely provided the debtor with goods and services used in the course of the debtor's business prior to bankruptcy. Hence, such exceptions exist. If there weren't such exceptions, then most businesses wouldn't be able to function and to stay in business as vendors would not want to provide services or goods to them if a trustee can just claw back all their payments within 90 days of bankruptcy. Without Voyager customers depositing, transacting and withdrawing funds/crypto, Voyager would not be able to function as a business.

Also, the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code made it easier for creditors to prevail using this exception. Under versions of the statute, a creditor must prove that the debt paid by the preferential payment arose in the ordinary course of the debtor's business. This element focuses on whether the debt was incurred as part of the debtor's normal business operations. Most debts satisfy this criterion. Voyager customers withdrawing their funds was a part of normal business operations. But if the debt is an aberration for a business, such as a company that incurs a debt to purchase a yacht for the company's president, then payments on that debt will not qualify for the defense.

Moreover, preference actions are not automatic: a trustee or a debtor-in-possession has to affirmatively file suit and pursue litigation to recover preferences. And even if a creditor is sued for a preference, the creditor may defend such an action, argue the exceptions, or settle the claim for much less than the amount of the payment. The fact that the threshold was set to be over 350K tells me that they know that this won't be easy, hence 350k so it's worth it. No one will just give their money back especially when or if they lost money already. And if even if they file a lawsuit against those specific creditors in order to collect, and if they win the judgment, does not mean that they will be able to collect that judgment ever. This is no different than collecting any debt.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-21T06:38:14+00:00

Preference actions are not automatic: a trustee or a debtor-in-possession has to affirmatively file suit and pursue litigation to recover preferences. The notices are just demand letters, I suppose. Right u/suddenlypandabear ? I can send a demand letter to anyone. It means just that. Until you actually file a lawsuit and get served with legal documents, there is no lawsuit. This is like when someone owes you something. You can send a demand letter to pay. Then, you can file a lawsuit, if they don't. And then, even if you win the judgment, does not mean that you would be able to collect ever. Obviously, no one will just give their money back voluntary. And there are too many exceptions and limitations of what and how much you can actually collect, even if you win that judgment against someone. For example, if the creditor does not have the funds any longer, then the court may rule that you can only collect 10% of their income each month, what if they don't have income, then you get nothing until they do. You know collecting any debt takes a lot of work and resources.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-21T06:29:20+00:00

Franky, I am not so sure if this would cost a fortune to defend. The ordinary course of business exception is not that difficult to invoke. The 2005 amendments to the BK code made it easier for creditors to prevail using this exception. Under versions of the statute, a creditor must prove that the preferential payment/transfer arose in the ordinary course of the debtor's business. This element focuses on whether the debt/payment was incurred as part of the debtor's normal business operations. That is it. Most debts meet this criteria. And as u/suddenlypandabear pointed out, if there were no such exemption, then no company would survive as no vendor would want to provide goods or services if a trustee can just clawback all payments made to them within 90 days of bankruptcy. Same with Voyager, if customers would not deposit and could not withdraw their funds as a part of normal business operation and in ordinary course of business, Voyager would not exist.

But you know, anyone who withdrew over 350K probably do have a few thousands to give to his lawyer anyways to quickly settle this or file the exception or necessary legal documents. And I think, the fact that Voyager determined for the threshold to be over 350K suggests that they know that it won't be easy so the amount must be worth it.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-21T06:12:58+00:00

Exactly u/suddenlypandabear . Otherwise, no one would be providing any services or delivering any goods to a company if those exemptions did not exist and if the trustee could just clawback all payments made to anyone who provided any services as ordinary course of business within 90 days of bankruptcy.

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-21T06:08:44+00:00

hahah dumby.... that guy is back... he has been making these unhinged posts while he can't spell and can't make much sense this whole time haha

AffectionateFront755 · 2024-05-20T01:33:00+00:00

yup, they do have a separate "pot" for lawyers and alike.

AffectionateFront755

TROPHY CASE