Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Let's put it this way, I'm not 100% but if I had been a consignor, my knee-jerk reaction, I would've wanted my stuff back, but I could've been talked out of that if presented with a compelling argument.

I think he meant if you were a consigner of one of the stolen items.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think he meant if you were a consigner of one of the stolen items.

Is this a typo? How on earth would you get them back?

Also, I believe just because they were stolen/missing, they are still "property " of the auction house. If they found them the day the auction closed or are recovered now, the auction house still has ownership.

[Johnny630]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;2434504]Who knew about it before the closing and where did you read that?[/QU

A couple dealers who were set up at the Strongsville show knew of the theft and advised me so...they were told several larger consignments where stolen from the show in their current auction. They did not advise which cards specifically were stolen... they knew stuff was stolen but they were not told which exact cards so it leads one to wonder.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Is this a typo? How on earth would you get them back?

Also, I believe just because they were stolen/missing, they are still "property " of the auction house. If they found them the day the auction closed or are recovered now, the auction house still has ownership.

The question is what would you want to have happen with the auction if your item in it was stolen prior to close.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Carter08

The question is what would you want to have happen with the auction if your item in it was stolen prior to close.

I would want to have been told asap of it, and at the very least my stolen lots pulled immediately from the auction

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Is this a typo? How on earth would you get them back?

Also, I believe just because they were stolen/missing, they are still "property " of the auction house. If they found them the day the auction closed or are recovered now, the auction house still has ownership.

Auction companies never have ownership of a consignor's items (unless they reserve the right to bid in their own auction and actually purchase them)

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think he meant if you were a consigner of one of the stolen items.

If that's what he meant, I'd probably be all for keeping the auction running. Of course telling the consignors of stolen items invites all sorts of possible shenanigans with bidding to run up the settlement.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Auction companies never have ownership of a consignor's items (unless they reserve the right to bid in their own auction and actually purchase them)

Hi Scott! I'm just playing devils advocate, obviously it totally sucks for both consignor and buyer. Some of the cards are basically irreplaceable, but at least there is some sort of hare brained value placed on them. As Ryan mentioned, overall was about what he expected. Imagine if insurance looked up last sales....yikes!


I'd have to check my Memory Lane consignment agreement for actual terms, but I'm assume ML DOES own rights ( to sell, possibly mentiined as dispose, at a minimum) to be able to sell the card, at their discretion, as long as the consignor is paid. Otherwise, if the sales were weak, the consignor could just "demand their property back". So I am finding flaw in your logic that the auction houses never have "ownership" of their consignments.

If the cards appear, can the consignor demand them back, or is ML legally bound to sell to the highest bidder? They would be returned to the "owner" or posessor? Strange situation


Possession is 9/10ths of the law 🙄

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Hi Scott! I'm just playing devils advocate, obviously it totally sucks for both consignor and buyer. Some of the cards are basically irreplaceable, but at least there is some sort of hare brained value placed on them. As Ryan mentioned, overall was about what he expected. Imagine if insurance looked up last sales....yikes!


I'd have to check my Memory Lane consignment agreement for actual terms, but I'm assume ML DOES own rights ( to sell, possibly mentiined as dispose, at a minimum) to be able to sell the card, at their discretion, as long as the consignor is paid. Otherwise, if the sales were weak, the consignor could just "demand their property back". So I am finding flaw in your logic that the auction houses never have "ownership" of their consignments.

If the cards appear, can the consignor demand them back, or is ML legally bound to sell to the highest bidder? They would be returned to the "owner" or posessor? Strange situation


Possession is 9/10ths of the law 🙄

Well a contract to sell gives the right to sell to the auction but they're still not technically ever the owner.

It's probably unnecessary but we have language in our contract that says the consignor agrees that to pull an item we must be in agreement, so people can't just flake out and change their mind late in the auction if they're unhappy.

7. This contract is to remain in full force and cannot be canceled without the agreement of both parties

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Well a contract to sell gives the right to sell to the auction but they're still not technically ever the owner.

It's probably unnecessary but we have language in our contract that says the consignor agrees that to pull an item we must be in agreement, so people can't just flake out and change their mind late in the auction if they're unhappy.

7. This contract is to remain in full force and cannot be canceled without the agreement of both parties

That is some refreshing transparency

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Auction companies never have ownership of a consignor's items (unless they reserve the right to bid in their own auction and actually purchase them)

It is my understanding that generally, a consignor retains title (ownership) to his consigned items until they are sold and paid for. Of course, any specific consignment arrangement can be different in this regard. My REA consignment agreement states that if a winning bidder does not pay within a reasonable time, REA has the option of paying the consignor, in which event REA will then have title to the consigned items.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

It is my understanding that generally, a consignor retains title (ownership) to his consigned items until they are sold and paid for. Of course, any specific consignment arrangement can be different in this regard. My REA consignment agreement states that if a winning bidder does not pay within a reasonable time, REA has the option of paying the consignor, in which event REA will then have title to the consigned items.

we have a similar clause with options in case of non-payment.

[parkplace33]

It’s been just over 30 days from the theft. Anyone heard any update from the parties?

[Peter_Spaeth]

There was a funny post on Blowout.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...8&postcount=98

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There was a funny post on Blowout.
https://www.blowoutforums.com/showpo...8&postcount=98

Is that a real story about the arrest? I searched on nbcnews.com and I also did a Google search, and I am not finding anything about an arrest.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Is that a real story about the arrest? I searched on nbcnews.com and I also did a Google search, and I am not finding anything about an arrest.

It’s a joke.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s a joke.

That's what I was guessing after not finding anything myself, but it looks very realistic.

[FrankWakefield]

Scott / Aquarian...

I don't see how that clause 7 of your contract can be stretched to say that unless buyer and seller agree to pull a lot from the auction, then it cannot be done and you must continue with a lot's auction when you no longer have the item; and that as a seller you are authorized to defraud bidders and an eventual winner by accepting bids when you well know that you don't have the item.

Regardless of clause 7, you know that's not right.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I agree with Frank that the result is not mandated by the contract. That said, under the unique circumstances of this case, I don't see how anyone was "defrauded" by continuing the auction. No good choices here.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree with Frank that the result is not mandated by the contract. That said, under the unique circumstances of this case, I don't see how anyone was "defrauded" by continuing the auction. No good choices here.

Thank you counselor. Now, for the prosecution. What are your said damages for bidders who won lots which are not recovered?

.....



.....

[G1911]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

you know that's not right.

Hobbyists will defend almost anything, as long as its to the gains they desire, and will say anything to make said defense, regardless of how blatantly absurd the claim might be or how reasonable it might be.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Hobbyists will defend almost anything, as long as its to the gains they desire, and will say anything to make said defense, regardless of how blatantly absurd the claim might be or how reasonable it might be.

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

You must be replying to the wrong post. When did I say Memory Lane took payment for their fraudulent auction from the fake winners? I have no idea how we could possibly discern a specific value on how consigners who may have lost bids because bidders focused their dollars on lots that did not actually exist may or may not have lost.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

You must be replying to the wrong post. When did I say Memory Lane took payment for their fraudulent auction from the fake winners? I have no idea how we could possibly discern a specific value on how consigners who may have lost bids because bidders focused their dollars on lots that did not actually exist may or may not have lost.

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." They were defrauded into bidding on lots ML no longer possessed. But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

This was obviously an effort to mitigate a no win situation. One could argue it was not the best solution and I get that, but to call it fraud is in my view unjustified.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." They bid on lots ML no longer possessed. But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

Ask a smartass question about something I never said or implied, get a smartass answer pointing out I never said or implied what you want to argue against.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I asked a simple question, no need for a smart ass reply. As I understand the theory you and others are advancing, it is BIDDERS who were "defrauded." But you don't claim they were damaged, nor of course could you. At least in a civil lawsuit, damage is an element of fraud.

Never argue with an idiot, they will make you stoop to their level, then beat you with experience.

This whole thread offers a multitude of opinions
great, everyone is is entitled to theirs, and it's okay.
However, when people start throwing out legal terms, that are not fact, it's plain wrong.

Nothing was fraudulent and there are no damages for any plaintiffs. IF Mile High let it run on advice from legal/insurance.

Can you fault them for that? It might not feel right, but surely the loss of millions probably weighs mpre heavily over your feelings.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Ask a smartass question about something I never said or implied, get a smartass answer pointing out I never said or implied what you want to argue against.

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're very defensive obviously. It was not at all a smart ass question, it was intended to set up a point. And it implied nothing at all about what you said. Deep breath.

Yes, deep breath to use the same verbiage you did . If you would like to argue something completely different than anything I said, there is no reason to quote my unrelated statement. Have at with whoevers point you are trying to counter here or whatever new point you want to make that has nothing to do with what I said.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Never argue with an idiot, they will make you stoop to their level, then beat you with experience.

This whole thread offers a multitude of opinions
great, everyone is is entitled to theirs, and it's okay.
However, when people start throwing out legal terms, that are not fact, it's plain wrong.

Nothing was fraudulent and there are no damages for any plaintiffs. IF Mile High let it run on advice from legal/insurance.

Can you fault them for that? It might not feel right, but surely the loss of millions probably weighs mpre heavily over your feelings.

I'm glad you now acknowledge people you believe to be poorer than yourself can have an opinion too. That's progress. Dictionary is in #555.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm glad you now acknowledge people you believe to be poorer than yourself can have an opinion too. That's progress. Dictionary is in #555.

Their opinions surrounding facts still don't matter, when they are clearly pedestrian, not to mention wrong. Sorry if your parents told you we are all equal, it doesn't mean your opinions should be weighted the same regardless of class, creed, religion or FCF.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, deep breath to use the same verbiage you did . If you would like to argue something completely different than anything I said, there is no reason to quote my unrelated statement. Have at with whoevers point you are trying to counter here or whatever new point you want to make that has nothing to do with what I said.

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Their opinions surrounding facts still don't matter, when they are clearly pedestrian, not to mention wrong. Sorry if your parents told you we are all equal, it doesn't mean your opinions should be weighted the same regardless of class, creed, religion or FCF.

Which religions and creeds do you also believe should not be able to have an opinion considered like your special one? Your prejudices are the best part of this thread

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

It's in 555. Can anyone explain to me how hosting a fake auction does not meet those terms?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's do a reset. Do you believe ML committed fraud? If so, why?

He has an opinion!!! Let's all gather round and sing Kumbaya and he can tell us how great and important is voice is to be heard.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

He has an opinion!!! Let's all gather round and sing Kumbaya and he can tell us how great and important is voice is to be heard.

I cannot possibly follow your policy that anybody who does not share your amount of $'s, religious faith, and creed should not speak until you define these rules for all the disgusting poors and sinners.

How much money must one have to express an opinion in a place you are? Is that in raw cash on hand or net work?

What religious view must I have to have an opinion worthy of expression?

What creed(s) must I follow for your approval?

Enquiring minds want to know

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's in 555. Can anyone explain to me how hosting a fake auction does not meet those terms?

Because (1) there is no intent to deceive and (2) there is no damage to anyone to whom any implicit misrepresentation was made. Law is also flexible in situations where applying standards literally would yield an unjustified result.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Because (1) there is no intent to deceive and (2) there is no damage to anyone to whom any implicit misrepresentation was made. Law is also flexible in situations where applying standards literally would yield to an unjustified result.

1 is completely untrue. There was an intent to deceive bidders, which was the entire point of doing this to set values. Pretending that they have the items and it's a real auction is very intentionally deceiving the bidders that are being lied to. It was not an unintended oversight. This claim is obviously untrue. Back to what I said about people saying anything to justify what they want - this is blatantly false and it is obvious that it is false.

Again, I have made no comment on 2 nor does this have anything to do with the definition. The bidders did not pay and thus do not have provable damages. This may have something to do with why I am not arguing whether or not they should be taken to civil court for fraud.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

1 is completely untrue. There was an intent to deceive bidders, which was the entire point of doing this to set values. Pretending that they have the items and it's a real auction is very intentionally deceiving the bidders that are being lied to. It was not an unintended oversight. This claim is obviously untrue. Back to what I said about people saying anything to justify what they want - this is blatantly false and it is obvious that it is false.

.

But they did have the items, they were, just and still, are missing. The didn't steal scans from the registry or cards they weren't entrusted to sell. So it isn't really that obvious, blatent, or cut and dry... You know, your opinion is one thing, facts are another!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

But they did have the items, they were, just and still, are missing. The didn't steal scans from the registry or cards they weren't entrusted to sell. So it isn't really that obvious, blatent, or cut and dry... You know, your opinion is one thing, facts are another!

You cannot deliver a product that you no longer have any power over . They covered up the actual facts to host an auction they knew they could not actually provide the product of.

There must be a way to defend this without denying easily ascertainable provable facts and insisting on fake insurance policies that do not exist

Oops, I forgot to check if my religion and net worth matches the Republican guy's before posting again. Darn it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Intent to deceive, as I think of it, means intending to induce the other party to take an action that is to their detriment. Literally, yes, you could say in a vacuum that ML wanted bidders to keep bidding, but then you're divorcing the exercise from the whole point of fraud law.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Intent to deceive, as I think of it, means intending to induce the other party to take an action that is to their detriment. Literally, yes, you could say in a vacuum that ML wanted bidders to keep bidding, but then you're divorcing the exercise from the whole point of fraud law.

Again, just as with "fraud" and "fraudulent", I am going to use the definable meaning of the word in the language and not my custom interpretation or how I would like to think of things. Primary definition 1, as well as 3A, 3B. Memory Lane inarguably intended to deceive bidders as the entire point of this farce. This debate was more sincere when we were debating whether it was acceptable to do this than now where we are pretending they did not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't want any result here, and you can keep saying it until you're blue in the face but it ain't so. I am simply stating my opinion on whether there was fraud, which happens to be informed by decades of experience which I am sure you will disregard as some sort of "appeal to authority" which it is not.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't want any result here. I am simply stating my opinion, which happens to be informed by decades of experience which I am sure you will disregard as some sort of "appeal to authority" which it is not.

I am using the dictionary definition of words. You are using your experience to define what a word means instead, rejecting dictionaries. Yes, I am sure it is my route that is fallacious







If the defense of Memory Lane relies on

1) Rejecting the dictionary

or

2) Following Republican Clown's religious values and/or having a flex off with him over who has more money

or

3) an unseen insurance policy/choice/decision with no precedent in all of human history and that is obviously fiction

One might start to conclude that the difficulty in finding a reasonable argument is an indicator that something doesn't make sense here.

Can anyone put forth an argument for Memory Lane that, while it will surely differ with other posters over the values placed on honesty, disclosure and forthrightness in that the argument will have to reject them implicitly, is at least a serious argument that does not rely on absurdities that absolutely nobody here would accept if it didn't benefit what they want to benefit? None of the defenses would be accepted if it was me doing the fake auction and I made them, and we surely all know that on some level. Surely a better case can be made.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am using the dictionary definition of words. You are using your experience to define what a word means instead, rejecting dictionaries. Yes, I am sure it is my route that is fallacious







If the defense of Memory Lane relies on

1) Rejecting the dictionary

or

2) Following Republican Clown's religious values and/or having a flex off with him over who has more money

or

3) an unseen insurance policy/choice/decision with no precedent in all of human history and that is obviously fiction

One might start to conclude that the difficulty in finding a reasonable argument is an indicator that something doesn't make sense here.

Can anyone put forth an argument for Memory Lane that, while it will surely differ with other posters over the values placed on honesty, disclosure and forthrightness in that the argument will have to reject them implicitly, is at least a serious argument that does not rely on absurdities that absolutely nobody here would accept if it didn't benefit what they want to benefit? None of the defenses would be accepted if it was me doing the fake auction and I made them, and we surely all know that on some level. Surely a better case can be made.

Your arrogance does not serve you well here nor does your mocking, faux incredulous tone. I would take my decades of experience in the real legal world over the dictionary all day every day. As I've stated I'm no fan of ML and have no agenda here. But I don't see this as fraud.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your arrogance does not serve you well here nor does your mocking, faux incredulous tone. I would take my decades of experience in the real legal world over the dictionary all day every day.

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous. When your argument hinges on rejecting the dictionary so you can pretend that lying to thousands of bidders is not deceiving them… what am I supposed to say? That’s comically ridiculous and we would all know that if it wasn’t someone we didn’t like doing the deceiving. I am actually somewhat incredulous this is the path you want to take to justify this farce. You don’t usually embrace completely fictions in these debates and reject the dictionary. You surely actually know that lying to people is deceitful. Your arrogance in putting yourself over the dictionary and pretending lying is not deceitful does not serve you well.


I have no doubt you and many others would and do take what they like over objectivity and appeal to themselves. Appealing to oneself only really works to oneself though.

[Lorewalker]

Don't we need to know what the exact reasoning was behind ML's decision to move forward with the auction without pulling the 54 lots as to whether it was fraud or not? Was that decision they made on their own or was it required or requested of them?

I am not sure they could use as a defense or explanation that they had to let the auction run to establish values on those 54 lots. My reasoning is that prior to the sale their number 1 consignor and a valued representative of ML established values on each item he consigned. If I am not mistaken most, if not all, of the cards stolen belonged to that consignor.

Anyway, below is Ryan's post below from the morning after the auction and clearly before he knew the cards had been stolen because of the "tongue in cheek comment that someone stole a card in referencing the CJ Jax.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

As many of you know, I consigned a large portion of the prewar items that sold last night. I am very content with the results, although they were all over the place.

Last night's auction contained about 75% of my total consignment, with other items to sell in the Summer and Winter auctions. When I first consigned, Joe and I (Joe is with Memory Lane) sat down and we estimated a low, likely, and high value for every card. Last night, the total aggregate sales price of my consignments, with the Buyer's Premium, was about 3% above the total likely-value we placed on the items. Thus, last night's entire consignment ended, in the aggregate, almost exactly where we estimated it would. That said, many individual items went for very different amounts that expected (both good and bad).

The D304s went crazy. Literally, nonsensical; but I wont complain! The Wagner, Matty, Lajoie, Collins, and many commons went for multiples over prior highs.

My T206 set and 1914 CJ set both did better, in aggregate, than I expected. The 1914 CJ Jackson was the bad egg of the entire auction -- someone stole that card. But most other items, including commons, did very well. Same with the T206 set; the Green Cobb did not do well at all, but that was offset substantially by the other Cobbs and many PSA 7s+ and strong results for commons.

The W600 Matty went through the roof, as it should have, considering it was produced in his rookie year (albeit not the first issue of his rookie year). The Tip Top Wagner did great, and my Planks all finished very strong. Almost every Ruth finished on the lighter side of what I expected, and a few crapped the bed. Wagners and Cobbs are definitely 10%-20% off their highs, but still strong.

Put it this way, it was a very large and diverse consignment and it ended at 102%+ (including BP) of where we estimated the likely value total to be. I am happy with the results, and now I need sleep!

And lastly, would it change anyone's opinion as to whether it was fraud or not if there were people outside of ML who knew a theft had happened or were vaguely aware of it because they either spoke with ML reps or because they saw ML reps with police at the hotel?

[swarmee]

Originally Posted by G1911

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous.

Then walk away knowing that you won.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

To be fair, I can’t think of a way to not sound mocking when the ideas are this ridiculous. When your argument hinges on rejecting the dictionary so you can pretend that lying to thousands of bidders is not deceiving them… what am I supposed to say? That’s comically ridiculous and we would all know that if it wasn’t someone we didn’t like doing the deceiving. I am actually somewhat incredulous this is the path you want to take to justify this farce. You don’t usually embrace completely fictions in these debates and reject the dictionary. You surely actually know that lying to people is deceitful. Your arrogance in putting yourself over the dictionary and pretending lying is not deceitful does not serve you well.


I have no doubt you and many others would and do take what they like over objectivity and appeal to themselves. Appealing to oneself only really works to oneself though.

Hmmmm. Well, a lot of people in this thread seem to agree with me that this was not fraud, but doubtless you dismiss them too as self-serving or self-deluded or whatever. And just to correct something I am not putting myself over anything, I am analyzing a case based on my experience. To have faith in one's judgment based on experience is not arrogance.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hmmmm. Well, a lot of people in this thread seem to agree with me that this was not fraud, but doubtless you dismiss them too as self-serving or self-deluded or whatever. And just to correct something I am not putting myself over anything, I am analyzing a case based on my experience. To have faith in one's judgment based on experience is not arrogance.

You also know an appeal to popularity is not logical, and you would not accept that as reasonable if you had a minority opinion. A thing is not right or wrong because 51% think so (or 51% who clear a certain wealth threshold). If I thought that Memory Lane’s fraudulent action is just fine because a majority here may support it, I would have to endorse a whole bunch of horrible things.

Surely there is an actual argument here instead of pretending the dictionary is wrong and lying is not deceitful and your experience is paramount to the language. If I made an argument hinging on how my experience overcomes the dictionary, you’d know I was being a fool and wrong. Can we just have a point made that is not palpably absurd? As I’ve said before the ‘maybe the cops told them too’ is a much better defense, because the vast majority of the actual arguments made in this thread cannot be defended without blatant falsehoods and rejections of the dictionary of the last two pages. It is not that hard to make logically consistent arguments in favor of unethical things.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

You also know an appeal to popularity is not logical, and you would not accept that as reasonable if you had a minority opinion. A thing is not right or wrong because 51% think so (or 51% who clear a certain wealth threshold). If I thought that Memory Lane’s fraudulent action is just fine because a majority here may support it, I would have to endorse a whole bunch of horrible things.

Surely there is an actual argument here instead of pretending the dictionary is wrong and lying is not deceitful and your experience is paramount to the language. If I made an argument hinging on how my experience overcomes the dictionary, you’d know I was being a fool and wrong. Can we just have a point made that is not palpably absurd? As I’ve said before the ‘maybe the cops told them too’ is a much better defense, because the vast majority of the actual arguments made in this thread cannot be defended without blatant falsehoods and rejections of the dictionary of the last two pages. It is not that hard to make logically consistent arguments in favor of unethical things.

To me, you're being overly literal and pedantic rather than focused on the realities of the situation including that ML had no intent to injure anyone and did not injure anyone. When next you see a fraud case where the dictionary prevailed over those two factors, do tell me.