pwcc (part two)

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.

You said he was guilty of fraud and ought to be prosecuted. If you are correct on all accounts, he will be convicted. Everything else you write is bullshit.

I'll be watching... gooooooooood luck!

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems to be non sequitur night.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems to be non sequitur night.

Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bone.parth is exhibit A.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bon..eparth is exhibit A.

Jeff,

With all due respect, accusing Jamie of being a fraudster may possibly be outside of your purview. There may be members of Net54 who take exception to his methods of communicating; however, being confrontational does not make one a fraud.

Sincerely,

Eric

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Jeff,

With all due respect, accusing Jamie of being a fraudster may possibly be outside of your purview. There may be members of Net54 who take exception to his methods of communicating; however, being confrontational does not make one a fraud.

Sincerely,

Eric

I read that post by Jeff to mean that fraud runs rampant in the hobby because there are so many ignorant people who, because of their ignorance, set themselves up to be victims. But Jeff certainly can speak for himself.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Jeff,

With all due respect, accusing Jamie of being a fraudster may possibly be outside of your purview. There may be members of Net54 who take exception to his methods of communicating; however, being confrontational does not make one a fraud.

Sincerely,

Eric

I didn't say he was a fraudster. I was clearly implying when hobbyists do all that they can to make excuses for fraud, falsely deny that fraud occurred or do anything they can to stop discussions about fraud we have a problem. Purview. LOL

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

You said he was guilty of fraud and ought to be prosecuted. If you are correct on all accounts, he will be indicted. Everything else you write is bullshit.

I'll be watching... gooooooooood luck!

You said that unless he is indicted then he's not guilty of fraud -- that was wrong.

I said fraud occurred in his auctions and that whether or not he's indicted, fraud still occurred in his auctions -- that is correct. PS -- he can also be found liable for civil fraud.

As I'm not a prosecutor I don't control who gets indicted -- that is correct.

I understand these concepts are difficult for you because you're a clueless moron with no experience in these issues -- again, correct.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

You said that unless he is indicted then he's not guilty of fraud -- that was wrong.

I said fraud occurred in his auctions and that whether or not he's indicted, fraud still occurred in his auctions -- that is correct. PS -- he can also be found liable for civil fraud.

As I'm not a prosecutor I don't control who gets indicted -- that is correct.

I understand these concepts are difficult for you because you're a clueless moron with no experience in these issues -- again, correct.

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

Not a single thing you wrote above is correct. LOL

[Peter_Spaeth]

Law enforcement has the means to investigate a small fraction of the frauds that occur in the hobby and elsewhere. Therefore, the notion that if someone is not the subject of a criminal proceeding they did not commit fraud is demonstrably false and patently absurd.

Conversely, the mere fact that someone is investigated or even indicted does not mean they committed fraud. An indictment is an allegation, nothing more.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Not a single thing you wrote above is correct. LOL

Not a single thing about who you are as a human being is at all decent. Your attitude and manner are disgusting. And in fact you are wrong. You have said yourself that Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, so go and do it. Otherwise, shut up about it already. Because anything other than getting it done is just blowing smoke up people's ass. It is all talk and no walk. If you think Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, then either go find a way to put him behind bars, or just shut up already.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

Jeez, I'm not a lawyer and even I know that one can't be found "innocent" in a court of law. Just "not guilty". There's a difference. Look it up.

[bobbyw8469]

Long story short, PWCC gets UNREAL prices for his items, which attracts consignors, which attracts sales. Just check out completed listings for a 1956 Mantle #135 PSA 6 to see what I am talking about. Typically, a $800 card, his sells for over $2,000. My mind is blown everytime I see the prices his cards gets. Someone could make a decent living just buying my stuff and consigning it with Brent!!