Re: Fraudulent Members




in article qyb4g.4960$An2.4042@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, John at
johnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 4/27/06 3:26 PM:

"Edward A. Oates" <nowayedward.oates@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C0767B62.187F9%nowayedward.oates@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

in article NM84g.3703$DT5.2832@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, John at
johnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 4/27/06 12:17 PM:

"Jim McLaughlin" <jim.mclaughlin> wrote in message
news:j8idnfKW5ZXReM3ZRVn-qg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Charles Siegel" <trainman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FQ34g.4824$7c.581@xxxxxxxxxxx
I'd like to issue a warning on an individual who has stolen money from
us and others on choochooauctions.com. He is now using ebay. There is
more information at the following link:

http://www.choochooauctions.com/fraud.html

Wow. Now thats real responsiveness from an auction on a fraud issue.

E bay has a lot to learn from these folks.

I think choochooauctions needs to modify their Privacy Statement:

"We reserve the right to disregard federal and state libel laws,
as well as Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

I hope this couple has a good lawyer and sues choochooauctions
out of business.


What 5th amendment issue would that be?

The fact you even need to ask that question shows the level of
ignorance we're dealing with.

In the U.S. people are presumed innocent until they're proven
guilty in a court of law. You have the right to accuse someone
of fraud, you do NOT have the right to be your own judge and
jury and refer to that person's activity as "fraudulent", unless he
or she has been found guilty of the crime.


The chooch... Statement says they reserve the right to publish the info for
those "who engage in fraudulent activity..." The issue is with their
publishing names, etc. prior to establishing that such activity has
occurred, which is determined by a court of law, etc. So the statement does
not violate that right; premature publishing, though since chooch has not
convicted anyone or even filed a suit, the libel/slander rather than civil
rights violation would come into play.

In general, only governmental agencies (police departments, FBI, etc.) can
violate your constitutional rights. For example, you have the right to free
speech, but I can censure you on my private property, even with prior
restraint (say nasty words and I'll throw you off my land, for example).
Your constitutional rights have not been violated by me; if the gov. says
you can't say nasty words in a court house, you have a case of prior
restraint, and various court decisions apply.

Similar conditions may apply to a business contract such as chooch's. All
you are giving them is the right to publish your information if (and only
if) you engage in fraudulent activity.

In the instance under consideration, they appear to have violated their own
policy, since such engagement has not yet been proved, only surmised by a
one side.

They would be better off not doing such disclosures based on their whims; or
if they want to, to change the wording slightly: to some thing like,
"...individuals who are suspected of engaging in fraudulent activity," and
then state in the disclosure "suspected by us to have..." and having a
formal or informal way of contesting that information.

People sign, or otherwise waive their right to "due process of law" all the
time: for example, most amusement parks can throw you out for a variety of
offenses of which they are the sole determinant. Things which might not even
be illegal somewhere else. They deprive you of your admission ticket
(property) with no "due process." If you feel you've been wronged, you get
to sue. Good luck. Disney has won 100% of these types of exclusion cases,
last time I looked. And you don't even sign anything, you just buy a ticket
with the policy on the back.

Here's the 5th amendment, by the way:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
http://home.earthlink.net/~edward.oates (blog)
DCC wiring information is at http://www.wiringfordcc.com


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ten Questions to annoy candidates - and voters
    ... Do you support national socialism? ... delegation of authority to secure private property rights established ... Declaration of Independence is not law. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: My dream...
    ... Disclosing Company secrets is against the law. ... YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH! ... or even bring legal action if you violate a contract. ... Private Property on the other, coupled with the strong belief that we ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Close Guantanamo, End Torture, Oppose Pardons
    ... honorable and just under law. ... Regarding torture, this is a dark stain on American history, opposed ... every previous president until Bush has vehemently ... that violate American values and American history, ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: What are these system files ?
    ... The sites may violate the law by distributing them. ... | not violate the law simply by listening to them for his own pleasure: ... |>> You indicate that all free music downloads are illegal. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics)
  • Re: Criticism of philosophical materialism (and a comment on someone2)
    ... Thermodynamics because it would be something (whatever it ... law of energy conservation is violated, ... violate the First Law of Thermodynamics." ... subjective experience were a function of the normal physical ...
    (talk.origins)