pwcc (part two)

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

There's not an auction house law enforcement hotline to call.

You were the one who wrote that we should complain to law enforcement.

Originally Posted by calvindog

If you're a victim I'd advise you to make yourself known on this page.

I'm not a victim.

Otherwise, Jeff, here's a little piece of advice. Grow up and stop hurling insults. Now, I know that the only reason you're insulting me is because you've gotten your butt kicked in this argument. And if law enforcement is reading this, then terrific. But if they are, then you really ought to think about how you conduct yourself. Even if they weren't, it's something you ought to consider.

And frankly, I don't think Brent ought to be prosecuted. I've written that before, and I'll say it again now. I just wanted to see what you really had, and so far the answer seems to be nothing. And if you can get law enforcement to prosecute Brent over $110.27 of fraud, more power to you. But I'll have to see it to believe it.

Good night, sir.

[calvindog]

First off, if you think I've gotten my butt kicked in this argument you're more delusional than you appear.

Second, it's obvious that you don't think Brent should be held accountable for the fraud which has been revealed on Net 54. It's very clear that you're doing all that you can to protect him. Why, I have no idea and don't care.

Lastly, now you're dispensing professional advice? Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck!

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

That's why we have a judicial system, right?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

That's why we have a judicial system, right?

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

[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.