pwcc (part two)

[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

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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

Yeah, me and the 99.99999999% of the earth's population who don't give a shit about this red dot are all frauds. Only you and your small group of sycophants are the real people. Btw, congrats on surviving the Waco massacre.

[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 Peter_Spaeth

the notion that if someone is not the subject of a criminal proceeding they did not commit fraud is demonstrably false and patently absurd.

Never wrote that.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

I confused the words indictment and conviction. Meant to say convicted.

Jeff says he is guilty and ought to be prosecuted. I never said Brent was innocent, just that he shouldn't be prosecuted. If law enforcement chooses not to prosecute Brent, then obviously they agree with me and disagree with Jeff. If Brent is prosecuted and found innocent, then he still shouldn't have been prosecuted as he will have been exonerated. So for Jeff to be correct, Brent needs to be both prosecuted and convicted.

[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.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

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.

It's rare to find someone who is so proud to be an ignorant jackass. You now have multiple lawyers on this thread pointing out how the educational system has failed you -- or perhaps you were just too busy braying like the jackass that you are and weren't listening in class that day or month. Your understanding of the legal system would appear as if you learned it all from watching the Flintstones.

One of the purposes of this board is to point out fraud. And fraud exists in PWCC auctions with the scans and the shill bidding. When the fraud stops, the comments about the fraud will stop, not just because a low grade moron like you wants it to stop. Just as I wasn't cowed by other jackasses years ago when I pointed out the Mastro fraud and they tried to change the subject, I won't be deterred by a simpleton like you. By screaming that if Brent isn't 'locked up behind bars' by sundown today then we should stop talking about it isn't going to work if you haven't noticed. But let's keep this issue going, the more we talk about it on here the more people are coming out with examples of fraud in his auctions. You're doing a great job of keeping the spotlight on the fraud in PWCC auctions.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Not a single thing about who you are as a human being is at all decent. Your attitude and manner are disgusting.

Jamie, it's one thing to be argumentative and confrontational, which is something I totally get, as I'm right there with you, but when someone who knows an area much better than you tells you that you are blowing hot air, why can't you just say thanks for the education and go from there? If you did that, you wouldn't get forced into a corner where all you can do is hurl insults.

The last thing I would do is try to force my lawn-chair thoughts on law, on Jeff or any of the other lawyers on this forum. Use them as a resource when you want to LEARN about law, and I'm sure they'll use you as a resource when they want to know about whatever it is you're good at.

[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!!