eBay Fraud Caught

[Backtothemac]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EBAY APPLE FRUAD

Originally posted by BenderBot1138

As for me and my house... we believe in Law Enforment Officials and I emphatically debunk the premise that legal officials turn down any criminal complaint based on the monetary stakes involved, that's a very grim view of how the law works.

😎

Um, you live in a very clouded view of the US justice system, if you believe otherwise.

Ask mcrain, he can, as an attorney explain that to you.

 

[mcrain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EBAY APPLE FRUAD

Originally posted by BenderBot1138


Wasn't financially worth doing?

You say "an individual, within the confines of the law" but you make a rather large assumption in that don't you think? What's your evidence that this was within the confines of the law sir, other than heresay?

As for me and my house... we believe in Law Enforment Officials and I emphatically debunk the premise that legal officials turn down any criminal complaint based on the monetary stakes involved, that's a very grim view of how the law works.

😎

Clearly I am relying to some extent on hearsay, however, the hearsay I am relying upon is newsources which are in turn taking advantage of a liability exception for reporting the activities of law enforcement.

So, if we can assume that the papers aren't making this stuff up, they, in order to avoid legal sanctions, have to accurately report the activities of the law enforcement officials. As such, we can put a pretty good amount of factual weight on the story regarding the arrest of the suspect. BUT, we can also see that the individual who set the trap hasn't been arrested.

Furthermore, from what he has posted on his website, and what has been reported, I haven't seen anything that he has done that would warrant arrest. Maybe he did something illegal, but I don't see any evidence along those lines.

Sorry, you can debunk whatever you want to in your house, but I've practiced law now for a while, come from a family with several lawyers including former state's attorneys, and one of my best friends is a current state's attorney. I also know several public defenders and criminal defense lawyers. From that base of knowledge, I can say very confidently that not only do civil attorneys turn clients away based on various reasons including money, but so do state's attorneys. It's called prosecutorial discretion.

 

[BenderBot1138]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
See this thread. https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=15793

I am sure you will love that Bender.

yeah... I've got these tickets for this ship, it's supposed to be unsinkable... would you like them?

Can't you and your company wait till the judge rules? What's gonna happen when General Cybernetics looks like a chump for buying a computer for a real fraud artist? If the accused is found innoncent... then you'll look the chump, and so will GC.

😎

 

[BenderBot1138]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EBAY APPLE FRUAD

Originally posted by mcrain


Clearly I am relying to some extent on hearsay, however, the hearsay I am relying upon is newsources which are in turn taking advantage of a liability exception for reporting the activities of law enforcement.

So, if we can assume that the papers aren't making this stuff up, they, in order to avoid legal sanctions, have to accurately report the activities of the law enforcement officials. As such, we can put a pretty good amount of factual weight on the story regarding the arrest of the suspect. BUT, we can also see that the individual who set the trap hasn't been arrested.

Furthermore, from what he has posted on his website, and what has been reported, I haven't seen anything that he has done that would warrant arrest. Maybe he did something illegal, but I don't see any evidence along those lines.

Sorry, you can debunk whatever you want to in your house, but I've practiced law now for a while, come from a family with several lawyers including former state's attorneys, and one of my best friends is a current state's attorney. I also know several public defenders and criminal defense lawyers. From that base of knowledge, I can say very confidently that not only do civil attorneys turn clients away based on various reasons including money, but so do state's attorneys. It's called prosecutorial discretion.

Ahhh ... when it mcrains it mcpours... good points ... score one for mcrain *ting*

😎

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by BenderBot1138


yeah... I've got these tickets for this ship, it's supposed to be unsinkable... would you like them?

Can't you and your company wait till the judge rules? What's gonna happen when General Cybernetics looks like a chump for buying a computer for a real fraud artist? If the accused is found innoncent... then you'll look the chump, and so will GC.

😎

Because I have personally talked to the officer that arrested the guy. The young man did not do anything wrong, and is short what he needs. We have it, and are providing it to him because it is the right thing to do. He is legit Bender. Call the Markham police department and speak to office Knapp if you must. Or call Christine at the Chicago Tribune. Seriously man, some things are obvious. If you walk up to some one and see them kill someone, do you need to wait for a trial to judge that persons guilt!

 

[BenderBot1138]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EBAY APPLE FRUAD

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Um, you live in a very clouded view of the US justice system, if you believe otherwise.

Ask mcrain, he can, as an attorney explain that to you.

Are you kidding me... mcrain isn't a lawyer... I got a burger from him at rotten ronnies the other day.

😎

 

[mcrain]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Because I have personally talked to the officer that arrested the guy. The young man did not do anything wrong, and is short what he needs. We have it, and are providing it to him because it is the right thing to do. He is legit Bender. Call the Markham police department and speak to office Knapp if you must. Or call Christine at the Chicago Tribune. Seriously man, some things are obvious. If you walk up to some one and see them kill someone, do you need to wait for a trial to judge that persons guilt!

Actually, if you see someone commit a crime, they may still be found innocent, or the prosecutor may choose not to prosecute. That doesn't change the fact that there was a victim (unless it is a victimless crime) and that the victim suffered some injury to person or property.

Should a doctor wait to help someone in the emergency room because he doesn't know if the person who injured them will be found guilty? What if the doctor realizes that the insurance will only pay if the perp. is found guilty? Should the dr. wait?

 

[BenderBot1138]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


Because I have personally talked to the officer that arrested the guy. The young man did not do anything wrong, and is short what he needs. We have it, and are providing it to him because it is the right thing to do. He is legit Bender. Call the Markham police department and speak to office Knapp if you must. Or call Christine at the Chicago Tribune. Seriously man, some things are obvious. If you walk up to some one and see them kill someone, do you need to wait for a trial to judge that persons guilt!

Look at OJ. You'd think a glove was evidence enough... but wait a minute... there is that little thing called a court of law... mcrain can tell you as an attorney that judge wopner doesn't always rule in the people's favor in peoples court.

Generally I think people should accept proof in the proper place for proof to be presented. Since I trust your word BTTM ... I've got to admit I'm more than a little swayed. mcrain and Nipsy made some devastating points and solvs also brings an interesting look to the table.

It's hard not to be swayed by public opinion. I would like to ultimately see justice done, whether that means convicting a thief, or exposing a person who is wrongly on a vendetta against an innocent man. The impact on the innocent party's life here must be impressive. I'd say if the innocent party is the accused... we've all got some crow to eat, most of all me for being swayed by public opinion.

😎

 

[mcrain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: EBAY APPLE FRUAD

Originally posted by BenderBot1138
Are you kidding me... mcrain isn't a lawyer... I got a burger from him at rotten ronnies the other day.

😎

Oh, you're on a roll! Man, I can't compete with this sort of intellectual discussion. You're just too good for me, not to mention the rest of these people.

You're just smarter than me, I give up. 🙄

 

[mcrain]

Originally posted by BenderBot1138
Look at OJ. You'd think a glove was evidence enough... but wait a minute... there is that little thing called a court of law... mcrain can tell you as an attorney that judge wopner doesn't always rule in the people's favor in peoples court.

😎

True, OJ was found innocent in criminal court, then later guilty in civil court. Neither of which changes the fact that Nicole is DEAD! Here, the kid has lost his computer (which he can prove he did have, did mail, and doesn't have anymore). Sure, he could be committing a fraud on the rest of the world, but it's pretty elaborate and he's gotten the assistance of the media and the police. Unlikely.

 

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by BenderBot1138


Look at OJ. You'd think a glove was evidence enough... but wait a minute... there is that little thing called a court of law... mcrain can tell you as an attorney that judge wopner doesn't always rule in the people's favor in peoples court.

😎

OJ, was guilty as the day is long. everyone with half a brain got that part. Too bad that the jury did not. I don't care if the person if found guilty. Fact is it happened, as he told it on his website. So, we did what we felt was the best thing to do for someone, especially during this time of year.

 

[BenderBot1138]

Originally posted by Backtothemac


OJ, was guilty as the day is long.

OJ was actually innocent. That's the State's Legal and Official Opinion. The Civil case was to determine if he was guilty not of killing her, but of being responsible for her death (which can mean by failing to take proper care of a tot for example).

I say OJ is criminally innocent because that is the fact. The State has ruled it to be so. To say otherwise is to deny the legal fact that he is criminally innocent of Killing anyone. Not Guilty. That is the legal truth.

I may believe he did it, but the truth is the State tells me he did not. The Civil case does not say he did it either, only that he was civilly responsible for her death, the Civil court would know better than to say he actually killed her, because the ruling was that he did not.

😎

 

[mcrain]

Originally posted by BenderBot1138
OJ was actually innocent. That's the State's Legal and Official Opinion. The Civil case was to determine if he was guilty not of killing her, but of being responsible for her death (which can mean by failing to take proper care of a tot for example).

I say OJ is criminally innocent because that is the fact. The State has ruled it to be so. To say otherwise is to deny the legal fact that he is criminally innocent of Killing anyone. Not Guilty. That is the legal truth.

I may believe he did it, but the truth is the State tells me he did not. The Civil case does not say he did it either, only that he was civilly responsible for her death, the Civil court would know better than to say he actually killed her, because the ruling was that he did not.

😎

Wrong. The civil case did say that he killed her. "Armchair Attorneys... 🙄 "

 

[BenderBot1138]

Originally posted by mcrain


Wrong. The civil case did say that he killed her. "Armchair Attorneys... 🙄 "

It's not possible for a civil case to make that determination... murder is a criminal code offence and can only be prosecuted under criminal statutes in a criminal court. Correct me if I'm wrong there?

Basic point being with OJ and Eric the Read... is that before we start breaking out the tar and feathers or calling our fellow townsfolk to bring their pitchforks to town, let's make sure Dr Jeckyl is in fact Mr. Hyde.

😎

 

[Backtothemac]

I understand your opinion, but just because the State says anything does it mean that it is true. Sure, The state says OJ is innocent. but I have the ability as a human being to develop a resonable opinion of guilt. And, he was guilty as crap, but the jury was convinced otherwise, sadly.

Oh, and you are wrong. He was found guilty of her death in a civil court. Difference is instead of paying with his life, he paid with his wallet.

 

[BenderBot1138]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I understand your opinion, but just because the State says anything does it mean that it is true. Sure, The state says OJ is innocent. but I have the ability as a human being to develop a resonable opinion of guilt. And, he was guilty as crap, but the jury was convinced otherwise, sadly.

Oh, and you are wrong. He was found guilty of her death in a civil court. Difference is instead of paying with his life, he paid with his wallet.

I agree... I think everyone does have an opinion on it... and it can tend to run contrary to the State's official legal ruling.

This has been a very interesting and serious thread... here's a little Intermission/relief. And don't forget to smile... there's a world of good intentions contained within these wonderful pages.

😎

 

[iJon]

Hey guys, his story made cnn news. go the web and check it out.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/12/15/computer.crimestoppers.ap/

 

[medea]

its in the actual news....

Just to let you know, in the Nationwide section of various news articles in our Sunday paper here this was a featured article, I currently am lacking a scanner so I will retype the article:
Illinois- Relentless search nabs thief:
MARKHAM - A student's dogged pursuit of a bogus-check writer who cheated him out of a computer was credited with helping police make a forgery arrest.
Eric Smtih, a University of New Orleans student, initially had few clues to find the person who bought his Apple laptop on Ebay with a bogus check. He had an e-mail address, cell phone number and the Chicago address - actually a mail drop - where he shipped the laptop.
But by posting the scant details on message boards and chat rooms, Smith got responses from more than a hundred Macintosh users. They found the registration of the phone number and provided evidence that a Los Angeles resident had been similary cheated out of two computers.
Melvin Christmas, 38, was arrested Thursday and charged with two counts of forgery. His teleohone number is unlisted and he could not be reached for coment.

So to those doubters and nay-sayers, this man did a good deed and should not be called "the worst type" of person, I said it before and I'll repeat it again, way to go Eric and the whole mac community that aided him (which included me.)

 

[BenderBot1138]

Reeeeallly... Is there any word on who first suggested he should try to sell another computer to the guy... I think someone said it was in the second reply of a poster (dukestreet) here at MacRumors.

Truth or MacRumor... you be the judge.

PS: Why didn't CNN mention MacRumor? 😉

😎

 

[Geetar]

Originally posted by BenderBot1138


OJ was actually innocent. That's the State's Legal and Official Opinion. The Civil case was to determine if he was guilty not of killing her, but of being responsible for her death

Pure sophistry. I believe you have access to a dictionary. Use it.

 

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by mcrain

True, OJ was found innocent in criminal court, then later guilty in civil court. Neither of which changes the fact that Nicole is DEAD! Here, the kid has lost his computer (which he can prove he did have, did mail, and doesn't have anymore). Sure, he could be committing a fraud on the rest of the world, but it's pretty elaborate and he's gotten the assistance of the media and the police. Unlikely.

Wait a minute. I thought double jeopardy prevented one from being tried twice for the same crime. Or does that apply to same type of justice (i.e. criminal justice, civil justice, etc.)?

 

[solvs]

You are right about one thing. He hasn't been proven guilty in a court of law. But, he won't be, because the bad guy confessed. That's where I got the guilty part from. Maybe he was beaten into a confession, and was the victim of a conspiricy - like OJ (yeah right). But the sentencing will begin, and he is, legaly, considered guilty.

I still see your point, as I remember saying how I wished Tonya Harding was innocent just to shut the media up. We all remember Richard Jewel, don't we? And that one "Simpsons" cartoon where Homer was accused of sexual harrassment. Public opinion isn't always right.

But as I saw on a rerun of "Third Rock From the Sun" (you can tell I've been watching to much TV), "it isn't reasonable doubt if you're just making stuff up".

Thank you, and good night. It's been fun.

 

[mcrain]

Originally posted by MacCoaster
Wait a minute. I thought double jeopardy prevented one from being tried twice for the same crime. Or does that apply to same type of justice (i.e. criminal justice, civil justice, etc.)?

The short answer is that in a criminal context, you can't be tried, found innocent, and then tried for the same crime again.

The movie of that name, by the way, was totally wrong.

There is a way where you can be tried in a criminal context, and then retried, but that involves a mistrial or a conviction followed by post-conviction relief.

In a civil context, if you run into a car with 4 people in it, you can be sued 4 times (or more) for the same incident. In addition, you can be sued in civil court by one person more than one time for the same incident (although, any attorney who allows his client to get into that situation is an idiot).

 

[zuffen]

No one said the legislative, criminal and civil law was governed by common sense.

The law and the process is a doubled edged sword. Anything that man has a process in will have flaws.

Emotional content can sway the enforcement of the law, interpretation of the law and final outcome of the law.

Look how Senator Lott has ruined his career, but segration was a fact in the 50's and did anyone ever consider that maybe society wasn't fully ready for desegregation at that time. History shows the struggles and lives lost, yes the gains were worth the sacrifice, but imagine if the goverment had waited another half decade or full decade, what would the outcome have been?

But I'm not Senator Lott and we will never know what he ment by his comments, as the press lynching and the public lynching has emotionally overshadowed the intent of his statement

Emotions govern our lives.

Most of this discussion is based on emotions and not fact. How the facts were presented and interpreted is what is important.

The facts as presented on this case,

a kid sold a computer on ebay, delivered as agreed and payment was not rendered. After private investigation it appears this is not an isolated incident with the buyer. the seller felt that crimes were commited and through the correct process tried to involve law enforcement (you can see where that got him). Eventually he found support and the authorities looked into his claim and found reason to move forward on a law enforcement action. The buyer was arrested. Does anyone think that the police would arrest someone on the word of one person?

The "kid" could have went straight to a civil process and involved civil law. His civil case(should he pursue) now has much more weight as it appears that actual crimes have been committed.

But more than likely he won't ever regain what he has lost, the only compensation is satisfaction of knowing that he has stopped a criminal from victimizing other Ebay sellers.

I'm stepping off the soapbox.

 

[keltorsori]

Jeez, I'm happy I've been busy with other things the last week or else I might have spent all this time replying in this forum. Bender, I get your point, but maybe you should expand your consider quoting other philosopher/thinkers as well as those you have already. Kafka and Orwell had great points, but the rest of the twentieth century did as well. One point that Orwell was making in 1984 which I think you are glossing over is that you can't give absolute power to the state. The Party. I did not take the law into my own hands, I aided law enforcement agencies too over worked/underfunded to pursue my case. I asked for and received help from the community. 1984 is a community of people without trust. The community here trusted me, offered me their assistance. Winston Smith lived in the kind of world you are advocating, where there is no trust, only the official word of The Party. I prefer to live in this world, where I can count on my community to come to my aid and assistance.

I agree with your general sentiment, that the government should be the ultimate arbiter in the pursuit of justice. But the sad fact is that, (whether you wish to believe it or not), law enforcement really does choose not to pursue cases like mine. The FBI has published guidelines for every field office regarding minimums for cases that they will and will not accept. Ditto for the Secret Service. I'm one of over a dozen (that I know of) victims over the last 1.5 years of Mr. Christmas, and the Chicago PD has complaints filed in all of them. Not a single of the cases has been pursued. Period.

The Chicago PD finally called me today. The detective suggested I setup a controlled delivery like the guy he read about in the Tribune over the weekend did (I kid you not). I almost fell out of my chair. He didn't even know that the person he was talking to was the person he had read about! My name was printed in the paper and at the top of my filed complaint. When I did tell him that we were one in the same, he asked me if my computer had been recovered and then wished me good luck. I tried to tell him that there were 12 other cases that I actually had Chicago case numbers for that he could also close or at least inform the detectives in charge that the perp had been caught. He declined. I have faith in the system, but I think that faith is placed in some future revision of the system, not this one.

While skepticism is always appreciated (somebody's got to look out for the rest of us sheep), I think you should avoid an argument of semantics and stick to the reality of situations. Sorry if my statement came off as offensive, I honestly mean no offense. As I said, I generally agree with what you had to say. I only believe that in general, there comes a point where you should concede that the other side might be right... 🙂

Eric Smith

[edited out a possibly malicious comment (not meant as such, but could be read as such)]

P.S. Thank you everyone (Bender included) for your support and help. This would not have been possible without at least the supportive comments I received from this trusting community. I, like the other victims, might have simply chalked this up to experience and not pursued it any further. You all deserve a hearty pat on the back and cold beverage of your choice.
Bender, if you're ever in New Orleans, look me up, I'm in the book, I'd love to buy you a beer or two (or coffee or whatever) and talk philosophy.