Situation rectified by Tony.

So file a complaint with your local police, his police dept and the us postal service. If he's already got a record they will probably listen and not blow you off. It's larceny and mail fraud.

Of course he may have intended to send it, but was locked up in jail and unable to at the time, and may still be locked up.

in that case he may be sitting in jail...maybe why hes not answering pms and phone calls

deleted

oh wow...good point...in that case...id follow thru with law enforcement

I hate a fugg'n thief! Art, you listening?..

Wow! Sorry to hear that. I used to see him on HPA alot. Never knew he was a crook.

If he has a fire arm and a felony record, those two don't mix legally. I'd definate file a complaint with all agencies involved. Thanks for the heads up.

I know tony personally......I know he was having some problems, he is not a thief. If he does not make it right with you soon shoot me a pm and I will try to straten it out for you. If you want to talk callme at 6073460744 tomorrow. Lenny

I hate to hear stories like this. I track down people for a living. I would be knocking on his door and talking to all his neighbors

WRONG. It is called "misdemeanor embezzlement" and neither the "your local police, his police dept and the us postal service" will do [bleep]. The USPS will, however, tell you when and where the money order was cashed. Please don't post BULLSHIT. Thanks.

Wow sounds like 303savage is a stand up guy that might be able to help you

He did my granite countertop, I have bought 12 rifles from him, and he has bought 4 or 5 from me. I sold him a car at my dealership......tony is not a crook he will make it right with you.

I lost moey to a guy named claydirt in ky and the post office gave me the middle finger.They are lazy and useless.Now the police may be different.

deleted

Ok 1st here are your tracking numbers.....03112550000244263916....You only posted your side. You didnt post the email from my daughter stating my wife had a heart attack. I have been spending my time in a cancer center with her. I thought my daughter had mailed it when I asked her to. Yes my bad for not following up to make sure it was done.....I am not a thief!!! I didnt avoid you....I dont bring my phone into the hospital due to being on the ICU ward. My wife is the 3rd cancer patient in the family with in a year. I lost my mother at 61 years old in October and My mother in law and my wife now. Yes my email gets checked....by my daughter trying to hold up a business! I traveled back when she read the email from you and I found out it wasnt mailed yet! As far as the felony yes It happened....due to me not being able the commitment because of my family issue....the charges have been dropped. They were repaid and my son in law is installing a countertop free of charge to make things right! I am not a kind of person that deals well when people are mad at me. I have done several camp kitchens free of charge by persons on this board and HPA. And i am asked back to camps every year since then. ....Everone can believe what they want......I would as the moderators to please delete my name and address from the post. I dont care about the call name.

I think I'll side with Tony on this one. Things happen every day in everyone's life. Unless you're perfect, I wouldn't cast stones....
P.S. Newspapers are famous for onesided stories. I'll venture a guess they will never print the outcome unless you take out an ad yourself.

I've got Tony's back on this one......he is a straight up guy that is not a thief. End of story.

Hmmmm, always interesting to get the other side of the story.

When 303savage stood up for him, I had a feeling there was more to this than initially portrayed.

Tony, Prayers sent for your wife!!!

Roy

It's quite clear from this thread that things happen in life that far outweigh a factory takeoff stock. IMO an apology is in order, and yes, the seller's address should be removed asap. This is a public forum, after all.

Interesting how things turn in situations like these. I too regret the illness that has consumed your family Tony. I hope things turn for the better.
I can't place any blame on Ghostman for wanting a deal completed though and definitely don't see an apology needed from his end. Its unfortunate it had to come out on an open forum to illicit a response.

deleted

This could have been handled better by the seller, but here is hoping all is made right. Sounds like it is on the right track to be resolved. Best wishes and prayers for your family Tony.

Mike ya know what....I am sorry that the situation occurred. You say there is more there isnt. If you would like to see $800k in medical bills I will be glad to show you. Could I have handled it different yes....not ask a second party to do something I should have. Lesson learned on my part also......At the time I didnt have a problem with getting the stock out. I wont be doing transactions thru the mail unless Im buying........with all that said please remove my address and name from the post.....You wouldn't want your info on a public forum......

See ya!

Tony
I just want to say that I am sorry for your loses and the troubles that you are having to go deal with at this time. I will keep you and your family in my prayers

Ghostman
I certainly hope you are not grouping all of the folks @ the campfire in to the same group just because of this one incident.

Thanks Oklahoma.....I hope he doesnt also....I will not apologize for my wifes illness but I do want to make a public apology to Mike for letting this lapse so long.....It was my fault.

Since this has been resolved and apologies have crossed terminals, I think the honorable thing would be to remove the personal information in the OP....

Remove his address from the first post -

Tony

I've edited my initial post to delete all personal info and will ask Rick to remove the post since the stock has been shipped.

+1 for Ghostman!!!!!

If anyone knows Tony personally he was supposed to come up to my house on a few different occations lastly being August 29th but he never showed. We tried calling, and texting but no answer. Also private messaged on a few different sites. He has my number, please have him call or text me ASAP.

(Jon & Amy in Beaver Dams)

Thanks.

Has the stock showed up yet ?

Character is molded during the hard times..

About sick of people jumping to conclusions and bad mouthing some one .What a [bleep]!!!!

.

Well your WRONG there Bricktop!

I know of many many cases where Police just going to the persons house woke the guy up and he straightened out real quick.

I also know of cases where people were arrested, prosecuted, and even went to jail.

I've got over 25 years of law enforcement experience. And I do mean carrying a gun and a badge as a street cop. Not as some mickey mouse PI or some such nonsense.
How much do you have? Zero ?????

Yet you want to talk chit and claim it as fact.

The post office can't even find their own mail. Nor can they even figure out how to pay someone for a rightful claim when the USPS loses or ruins a package and it is insured.
But you tell us that they are going to fix this kind of a thing?
When the police can't and won't?
In what world do you live?

As to it not being a larceny or mail fraud. Your wrong on that as well. That is exactly what it is. I have applied for and received arrest warrants for many people in same or similar circumstances and they were arrested and charged.
Please see below.

Embezzlement versus larceny

Embezzlement differs from larceny in two ways. First, in embezzlement, an actual conversion must occur; second, the original taking must not be trespassory.[6] To say that the taking was not trespassory is to say that the person(s) performing the embezzlement had the right to possess, use, and/or access the assets in question, and that such person(s) subsequently secreted and converted the assets for an unintended and/or unsanctioned use. Conversion requires that the secretion interferes with the property, rather than just relocate it. As in larceny, the measure is not the gain to the embezzler, but the loss to the asset stakeholders. An example of conversion is when a person logs checks in a check register or transaction log as being used for one specific purpose and then explicitly uses the funds from the checking account for another and completely different purpose.

It is important to make clear that embezzlement is not always a form of theft or an act of stealing, since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrator(s). Instead, embezzlement is, more generically, an act of deceitfully secreting assets by one or more persons that have been entrusted with such assets. The person(s) entrusted with such assets may or may not have an ownership stake in such assets.

In the case where it is a form of theft, distinguishing between embezzlement and larceny can be tricky.[7] Making the distinction is particularly difficult when dealing with misappropriations of property by employees. To prove embezzlement, the state must show that the employee had possession of the goods "by virtue of his or her employment"; that is, that the employee had formally delegated authority to exercise substantial control over the goods. Typically, in determining whether the employee had sufficient control the courts will look at factors such as the job title, job description and the particular operational practices of the firm or organization. For example, the manager of a shoe department at a Department Store store would likely have sufficient control over the store's inventory (as head of the shoe department) of shoes; that if he or she converted the goods to his or her own use he or she would be guilty of embezzlement. On the other hand, if the same employee were to steal cosmetics from the cosmetics department of the store, the crime would not be embezzlement but larceny. For a case that exemplifies the difficulty of distinguishing larceny and embezzlement see State v. Weaver, 359 N.C. 246; 607 S.E.2d 599 (2005).

North Carolina appellate courts have compounded this confusion by misinterpreting a statute based on an act passed by Parliament in 1528. The North Carolina courts interpreted this statute as creating an offense called "larceny by employee"; an offense that was separate and distinct from common law larceny.[8][9] However, as Perkins notes, the purpose of the statute was not to create a new offense but was merely to confirm that the acts described in the statute met the elements of common law larceny.[10]

The statute served the purpose of the then North Carolina colony as an indentured servant and slave based political economy. It ensured that an indentured servant (or anyone bound to service of labor to a master, e.g., a slave), would owe to their master their labor; and, if they left their indentured service or bound labor unlawfully, the labor they produced, either for themselves (i.e., self employed), or for anyone else, would be the converted goods that they unlawfully took, from the rightful owner, their master.

Crucially (and this can be seen as the purpose of the statute), any subsequent employer of such an indentured servant or slave, who was in fact bound to service of labor to a pre-existing master, would be chargeable with misprision-of-a-felony (if it was proved in they knew that the employee was still indentured to a master, or owned as a slave); and chargeable as an accessory-after-the-fact, in the felony, with the servant or slave; in helping them, by employing them, in the unlawfully taking that which was lawfully bound (through the master servant relationship) in exclusive right, to the master of the indentured servant or slave.



Also, in your own words: "Please don't post BULLSHIT. Thanks."

Ah, this might get good.

Tony -
I'm very sorry to see that you have had to endure all this.
And especially on top of what you were already forced to bear.
I sure hope that everything works out for you and your wife, as well as the rest of your family. My prayers are with you and yours.

Nope, not wrong. Cite a specific case with case number, names, etc.

If all it takes is filing a simple police report to resolve, then why do these things keep happening? The "authorities" are obviously not a deterrent nor are they your personal debt collection service.

Nope, I haven't posted bullshit. There are plenty of other people ready, willing, and able to do that.

Chew on this for a while; an ACTUAL case of -- WAIT -- misdemeanor EMBEZZLEMENT over the sale of an arc welder via eBay. No jail time, no money awarded, no nothing. READ IT AND WEEP.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/os...&casemasterID=189201&db=Canadian

Bricktop - I have sometimes disagreed with you - but always believed that you were a smart and educated man. You are certainly not showing me that now!

I am certain that you can find all sorts of snippets and videos of cops not doing their jobs. And plenty of same of people getting away with crimes. Does that mean that police never do their jobs? Or that all criminals go free. That crime is rampant in the street with no recourse. OF COURSE NOT!!! WTF boy.
And I won't even waste my time looking at whatever foolishness link you posted. As explained below.

It is a crime - Larceny - to willfully deprive someone of their property - money or product - by theft, or deceit, (or...... etc).
The proper person to go see is who ?
Your telling me to go the the F'n mailman?
And your telling me that's not Bullchit? Get a grip and a clue!

See a cop! Sure, some are a-holes. Just like in any job.
And some are lazy and won't do their job. I can't help that. This is not a perfect world.

But if someone steals from you; you go see a cop. Not a mailman. WTF. What skols goes you?

Larceny by mail can be prosecuted on either end, or even by Fed's. Someone steals from me; if he lives in the same town, next town, or another state, I see a cop. Simple enough.

Allow me to ask you yet again, can you provide a specific citation of a court case that supports your claim? Yes or no?

I have.

Yeah - right. I'm going to provide you with copies of police reports.
Because those are things we generally post all up and down the web on a regular basis. Please. Get real.

You want a court case? Go into any criminal court and ask for the public records of any larceny case. There are trillions of them. I would have thought you might have heard about arrests, arraignments, trials, sentences, prison, and such. But you must have been living on another planet. Most people know this stuff I believe. Pretty common knowledge.

Or how about just reading a newspaper? Come to think of it, I can quite ever remember reading about a mailman solving any crimes, or coming to someones rescue. But if you have tons of stories like that; by all means let me know. I'd love to see them. LOL

Look dude. If you want to go on believing your delusional thoughts that's OK with me.

And when you run into problems with someone assaulting you, stealing from you, or worse....... if you want to call a postman instead of a cop. By all means do that. Good choice!

This is just too stupid to even continue with anymore.

I'm out of this foolishness.

So. Does this mean a case, number or name isn't forthcoming? Should we call the mailman and tell him we're taking our ball and going home? Or just cry to a cop? I'm cornfused....

I asked YOU to cite a court case. Can you or can't you? Yes or no? These are matters of public record. You've stated that you have a great deal of knowledge regarding the pursuit, apprehension, and prosecution of this alleged band of thugs who've committed all of this "internet fraud," therefore you should have no problem citing a specific court case.

I provided one. Why can't you? Dude.

Focus on that for a little while. Dude.

It means he's employing his best "fight or flight" technique. He can't provide information that doesn't exist and he's painted himself in a corner. His response is thus to "shout me down." That doesn't work. Neither virtually nor literally.

I find it rather puzzling that he's all about filing a complaint to the USPS and then he follows that with a mini rant about the USPS not even being able to find their own mail. He's smart guy.

This guy has been arrested again. For the same thing, and his wife is NOT dead.

A quick google search will show that people DO get arrested for internet fraud (despite what certain know it all's who shall remain nameless will claim). These are a few examples from just the FIRST page of search results.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-250310.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078461...n-arrested-huge-ebay-fraud/#.UM9VIKwuh8E

http://www.zdnet.com/sydney-man-arrested-for-ebay-fraud-1339290454/

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=6101890

I'm sure a certain know-it-all who shall again remain nameless would tell you to quit posting b-llsh-t and clearly and loudly inform you what a sh-tbird you are too. What would we do w/o this level of enlightenment at the fire? Probly just post b-llsh-t and get along well while doing it. Ignorant and blissful.

Nice try, [bleep]. No, by and large these cases do NOT get prosecuted. And when they do, what do you get in return? Do you get your money or goods returned? NOPE. Here's the point where you need to pull your head out of your ass. Your ears are very certain to pop when they do.

Take a look at the bullshit you posted: no case numbers, no ultimate dispositions provided. Jesus Christ, one was in f*cking Australia. What in the f*ck bearing does that have here, dumbass?

Odd that you keep asking for case numbers, facts, etc...when you offer none of your own. Just your usual ranting and raving, [bleep] this, bullsh!t that, blah blah blah.

As I so obviously mentioned, this was just the FIRST page of Google results. I'm guessing there are probably a few more. And one could, most likely, relatively easily follow up to find more information as to how the court proceedings may have played out. You're welcome to do so if you wish. I don't have the time nor inclination.

The point isn't whether someone got their stuff back or money refunded. That would be nice, of course. It would also be nice to get these people off the street, and make them pay somewhat for their crimes. If your wife got murdered (if someone would actually marry your intolerable @ss), would it be inconsequential that they were arrested and prosecuted even though it wouldn't bring her back? Of course not.

Just how f*cking naive are you? Do you really think people are arrested for this bullshit because the "cops" have some kind of duty to police the goings on of the Internet? They either go after the people because they already have them on more serious charges (your Israeli subject was wanted primarily for money laundering in a drug case) or they're after bigger fish. Here's what they were after on one case you cited:

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/press-releases/2002/lochmillerIndict.htm

The authorities were ultimately after an identification counterfeiter who was providing documents to convicted felons, among others.

I'm going to ask you and the other [bleep] AGAIN, if all it takes is a simple telephone call to resolve these things, then why does it happen in the first place? By your "logic" there is no fraud, because a simple call to Barney Fife solves everything. Don't waste my time with this silly-ass BULLSHIT.

I didn't say it took one phone call. I said people DO get arrested. And clearly they do. End of story. So, people can either just do what you would do, nothing. Or they can try to make something happen. Maybe they'll be successful. Maybe they won't.

But you still haven't backed any of your claims up with facts. Show us all something from a government agency that proves that these people WON'T be prosecuted. Please. No more bloated commentary with random cursing. Just facts.

I haven't backed up my claims with facts? What in the f*ck are you smoking, [bleep]? I posted what REALLY happened on one of the cases you cited: THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WANTED A GUY CONNECTED TO THE EBAY SCAMMER. Dumb f*ck. No, that couldn't have been why he was arrested, he couldn't have been busted because the authorities wanted him to testify against a counterfeiter. They just want people to behave themselves on the Internet.

Then there was the guy in Utah you cited who was -- among other things -- wanted for income tax evasion. They didn't really want to get him for that, they just want him to start acting honest.

Let me see if I can decipher some more of your "logic." You want me to prove that the authorities aren't doing something based on "proof" of a lack of proof. I guess the lack of proof is all the proof you need. You're one sharp cookie.

You're really one stupid [bleep]*cker if you believe that the authorities are actively pursuing these cases. Clearly they DON'T. End of story. And game over, little man. Don't waste my time with this [bleep]. You've already been proven wrong. BIG F*CKING TIME.

Bricktop

I have read many of your posted replies for quite some time now and it always seems that you make it a point to ridicule people on the forum. I must admit that a lot of the times I found you amusing because of your precisely chosen rude and crude words. But things get old after a while��..
I can certainly tell that you are a well educated guy with above average intelligence. But you choose to use your intellectual abilities to belittle people that may not have all their facts straight some or most of the time.
I could be wrong, but I think that one of the purposes of this forum is to share information and bounce ideas off other people to gain education in topics that they may be having trouble or struggling with. What possible satisfaction can you be gaining by your continuous mockery of all those members that have a different point of view from yours? Do you want to go down in life as the smartass who was there to castrate everyone that did not meet up to your intellectual expectation or did not agree with every word that you say? Have you ever thought of what the legacy you want to leave behind here and with your own life? Is this your soul purpose in life? Certainly you must have a higher purpose than waste your talent in such childish behavior. If you think it�s not then I am cant help but feel sorry for you. I truly wish better for you.

If God has blessed you with intelligence, please consider using it for good and help out your fellow members. Learn to agree to disagree. I implore you to change your ways and become a mentor to people in the forum and abstain from your current ways. I know that your immediate impulse will be to ridicule me and my post as well, but take some time and ponder on what is it in fact that you are doing.

It appears you've answered your questions without my help. Though I find it difficult to mock anyone who has already mocked themselves through blatant stupidity and subscription to fantasy. They put bags of dogshit on their own front porches. I just happened to be available to light them on fire.

Let me know if that's clear.

Still no facts. All you've shown (or claimed to, as I don't have time to look up your allegations) is that a few of the people who were arrested were also wanted for something else. I don't see how that's proof that the authorities won't act on other cases. In fact, I think it's more than likely that most of these scammers ARE in fact wanted for other crimes and as more cases are mounted against them, the more likely they are to be arrested. Either way, your method (not doing anything) is GUARANTEED to not get any results.

Bottom line...you continue to loudly voice your opinions as if they were facts. Clearly they are not.

By the way, next time throw in a few more bad words, insults, etc in your response. Not only does it make you seem really intelligent, but it also clearly helps you avoid backing up your claims with anything substantial.

I understand what you mean, but there are nicer ways to light up what you call �dogshit�.
You are the one whose chooses how to light it up.

Let me know if I am clear as well.

Bricktop .....U mad bro?

Nope, beaucoup facts. Police agencies aren't actively pursuing internet transactions on behalf of aggrieved parties. That's been proved in spades on here, dumb f*ck. I even provided followup to one of the cases you cited stating that the actual target of your claim didn't have a f*cking thing to do with "internet fraud," but it had a whole lot to do with counterfeiting documents.

I've even provided in previous postings a case of which I have personal knowledge where the person was prosecuted under the charge of misdemeanor embezzlement over a Lincoln arc welder "sold" over eBay. Of course this person was also prosecuted for meth. And manufacturing false driver's licenses. And stealing electricity. And stolen cars. And stealing everything else he could tow or carry away. But you don't think that had anything to do with his being prosecuted for a bad Internet transaction, do you? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO, people just need to straighten up and fly right on the internet.

Can you show where I've advocated doing nothing, [bleep]? Nope. That's your dumb f*cking imagination. Just like that bullshit you posted as your "proof," which also included an Australian court case.

Again, you're wasting my time. Your attempts at "proving" your point keeps falling flatter than an old woman's ass.

Guys I started this thread and after we got things straight and I received the stock I asked Doug to delete this thread which apparently he did not.

Please use another thread to argue about mail fraud and let this one die.

can't do that man....its way too late. it has already been swallowed by that stink black hole called "The Bricktop Show"

BOW777... You may be entirely too gracious with your impression that BT is "well educated with above average intelligence".The usual profane and vulgar rants that he spews on a regular basis denote one of poor communication skills and of low mental capacity.The lesson of the sign: "Profanity is an ignorant mind trying to express itself", that I posted on another thread for BT`s edification has obviously been ignored.He continues to display his ignorance for everyone to see. You can lead a horse to water but you can`t make him drink.
Joe

"A case of which I have previous knowledge"? Oh, now I totally believe you. I wasn't aware that you had "previous knowledge". Why didn't you say so? Ha...What does that even mean?

The cases cited, again...just from the first page of a google search that took all of 30 seconds, ALL had to do with internet fraud. Perhaps there was more to it as well, but that doesn't mean that the internet fraud portion was completely discarded. Obviously, the authorities used that info to help make an arrest. Isn't that the goal? To arrest the bad guys? Clearly, you are a master of picking and choosing the portions of cases/claims/stories/etc that back up your argument while discarding the rest and hoping that a bunch of insults (much like those that one would likely hear during 4th grade recess) will mask your oversights.

yes yes yes freaking...yes

First and only post, 13 minutes after registering?

And after three months of inactivity on the thread?

So, what's your connection to the case?

Care to add more substance than one generic sentence?

Uh, no, dumb f*ck, the cases you cited weren't prosecuted solely due to "internet fraud," that's your f*cking horseshit imagination once again. One was prosecuted due to money laundering for drug dealers, another was prosecuted due to income tax evasion, and another was prosecuted as part of a counterfeiting case. And another didn't even happen on this continent. You are without a doubt a STUPID [bleep]*CKER and you can't make a f*cking point let alone read what in the f*ck you keep posting.

Yes or no, can you provide a case that was prosecuted SOLELY over an allegation of not satisfactorily completing an internet transaction? Yes or no?

I'll just copy and paste my last post since you obviously didn't read it:

"The cases cited, again...just from the first page of a google search that took all of 30 seconds, ALL had to do with internet fraud. Perhaps there was more to it as well, but that doesn't mean that the internet fraud portion was completely discarded. Obviously, the authorities used that info to help make an arrest. Isn't that the goal? To arrest the bad guys? Clearly, you are a master of picking and choosing the portions of cases/claims/stories/etc that back up your argument while discarding the rest and hoping that a bunch of insults (much like those that one would likely hear during 4th grade recess) will mask your oversights."

Pretty sure I didn't even marginally claim that the cases were based solely on the internet fraud portion. But CLEARLY, the internet fraud portion was of enough consequence to authorities that they arrested or indicted them as a result. Why does it matter that a case is prosecuted SOLELY on the internet fraud charge? Isn't partially good enough? Isn't the result the same...bad guy in jail? Who cares that it was one of many charges (although in at least a one of the links I provided it doesn't seem that there were other charges at all)? Oh that's right, Bricktop cares because it would totally discredit nearly everything he's been ranting about for the past couple weeks (or perhaps longer as I've only recently had the pleasure of stumbling upon your worthless diatribes).

So, NO, YOU CANNOT PROVIDE A SINGLE CASE IN WHICH A PERSON WAS ARRESTED SOLELY FOR AN INTERNET TRANSACTION.

And, yeah, it kind of does make a difference. If it wasn't for the other crimes these in which these individuals were involved, they wouldn't have been arrested or prosecuted for a f*cking thing. Period.

I'm still waiting for your bitch-ass to explain the relevance of the Australian case.

The relevance is that I copied the first four links of a google search. If you'd like to ignore it you're welcome to do so.

Without digging, it looks like these people (in the first link I posted) were arrested solely for internet transactions.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1017-250310.html

And NO, it doesn't make a difference. If the internet fraud only helped make an arrest and they ended up in jail, well, that's the same result. Kind of like how they arrest mobsters on tax evasion charges.

blah blah blah, [bleep]*cker, dumbsh&t, I'm really smart, f-ing dumbf%ck, show me a case, find me the detective, [bleep].

There Bricktop, now you don't even have to respond. I already did it for you.

Uh, yeah, it kind of does make a difference, little man. It shows a distinct pattern of not prosecuting anyone for any internet transaction unless there are some kind of ulterior motives. Period. Every f*cking thing you've cited as your "proof" of these "successful" prosecutions has had an ulterior motive as a common denominator. You're too damned stupid to clue in on that.

I still want to know how an Australian court case has any bearing whatsoever.

How socially inept are you that you feel the need to inform me of that? Huh? Has anyone ever quantified that for you? F*cking candyass.

Trying to figure out how to put someone on the ignore list. How do you do it?

Maybe I'm missing something. Please tell me what you are getting from the cnet link I posted. What exactly were they arrested for if not internet fraud?

That's actually funny.

Your second day here, and you use your fifth post to announce that you're putting somebody on Ignore already.

You better grow a thicker skin if you expect to make it a week here.

Don't worry, my skin is plenty tough. I asked a question and an educated answer is what I expected. The last time I checked, this was still a free country. If I choose to ignore someone, that's what I shall do.

I'd say you're missing quite a lot, dumbass. Like the latest little link you posted cites cases that were pushed forward after a large lawsuit was filed against eBay. Just more proof that no one gets prosecuted unless there are ulterior motives. You seem to hang on to some kind of fantasy regarding this [bleep].

You started out by citing four cases:

• One was for someone already facing charges for money laundering.
• Another was for someone already facing charges of income tax evasion.
• Another was used to leverage a case against a document counterfeiter.
• The fourth didn't involve anyone or anything on this continent.

Your latest load of BULLSHIT -- and it is most assuredly BULLSHIT of the greatest magnitude -- involves a case that resulted after a multimillion dollar lawsuit against eBay.

You harbor some kind of unrealistic fantasy and belief that any aggrieved party can simply file a report and make a few telephone calls and the cops will run right out, haul the offender up by the back of the neck and shout in his face "PAY UP [bleep]*CKER!!!!!" and life is grand. You are without a doubt one stupid [bleep]*cker.

Still wanting to know what an Australian court case has to do with anything. When are you going to explain that, [bleep]?

What the dumbf@#k doesn't seem to understand is that sometimes cases evolve from a simple fraud case to tax evasion or money laundering because they uncover this as part of the investigation and it carries harsher penalties and fines. There are some charter boat captains here in VA that have gotten themselves in deepchit by harvesting fish in the EEZ (3-200 mile offshore). The Feds didn't charge them with that, which led to the investigation but charged them with tax evasion, attempted destruction of evidence and other things. The poaching would have only brought $150-$500 fines per fish what they have been charged with they can face up to $250K fine per charge jail time and forfeiture of all items used in operation of the criminal enterprise ie. loose their boats gear and who knows what else. And Chittop if you want the case information look it up yourself

it is easy...when ever you see the username of the person that you wish to ignore you just scroll right on past his post until you get to the next post..

If this is so easy to prove, Miss Edwina, then you'll have no problem posting up proof of such. Go right ahead.

Allow me to offer you some reality. Every time one of these incidents pop up on here the same stupid f*cks -- not unlike you -- come out of the woodwork and offer the same [bleep] advice. And you know what happens? NOTHING. You would think applying the same methods over and over and over again and receiving the same results would lead you to the obvious conclusion. Dumbass.

Funny stuff

BT they can't help themselves-such good little helpers

Tru dat.

Oh, so it doesn't count if the site used to perpetrate the scam was once sued. I see. Of course, I should have known.

http://hawaii.gov/dcca/ocp/internet-scams/internet-scam-leads-to-arrest-of-puna-man-police.html

I thought I found something useful there, but then I realized that it was Hawaii and you're obviously only talking continental US. Clearly.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/waw/press/2007/may/dias.html

Hmmm...sounds like he had a pretty sophisticated scheme going here (multiple bank accounts, credit cards, email accounts, etc) so he probably doesn't count under the "Bricktop Rules".

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=11412863

I'm sure this one doesn't count for some reason too, right Bricktop? I'm not sure why, but I'm sure you'll tell me.

We could go on and on finding people who've been arrested for selling goods and not delivering them. But, there's a Bricktop loophole in every single one of them. We just never know what it is until he points it out to us. Looking forward to more enlightening words and engaging conversation.

You keep avoiding my questions, [bleep]. Would the previous case that you keep avoiding answering have been pursued if eBay had not been sued for $10 million? Yes or no, f*ckass?

Please explain how an Australian court case is still relevant. You keep avoiding that, [bleep].

There are ulterior motives for pursuing each of those cases, not loopholes. You're so f*cking obsessed with me you can't grasp that. That's how the world works. Criminal cases over Internet transactions are pursued for benefit other than just policing the Internet.