Home Forums Gear Free Classifieds BEWARE of SCAMMER patonyk

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.