Very Big Scam

Is it hearsay to have the missing half of a published photo? The item shown is unique and identifiable by its flaws – there is only one and I have the missing piece. Don't the police withhold information of a crime so that only a true witness – not a hearsay one – will know the details? How is this different?
Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
http://www.pandacollector.com/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Before he jumps all over you, it is hearsay when you say it. It is only evidence when aldergold presents what you say he has. Truthfully, it is a matter of semantics.

 

YEP! :dead-horse: Please read what hearsay :dead-horse: is or please read post #46 :dead-horse:. You have no idea who took it, when it was taken, who had permission to use it, etc. The only way you know anything about it is because Mr. aldergold told you. :dead-horse: That is why it is hearsay. :dead-horse: You HEAR it from someone else. HEARSAY. :dead-horse: You did not take it. Therefore it is HEARSAY :dead-horse:

 

Or, what I said in the previous post.
And, as a point of order, I downloaded the pics from Cheetah and from aldergold and sent the details to eBay (apparently before or very soon after you called them). His point on the pics is not hearsay. It can be proven from the pics themselves. Poor Mr. Cheetah wasn't bright enough to remove the copyrighting from the properties of the photo before he stole it. The one he used is in fact the exact same photo from aldergold. But, like you said, everything is else technically hearsay. I think the point you are missing that Panda was trying to make was that he has talked to aldergold and is assumming what aldergold has told him to be truth. Again, still hearsay. But, this isn't a court of law either, so your dead horse beating on the definition of hearsay is a bit irrelevant.

 

So does Mr. Cheetah have no requirements to establish his ownership of this coin in order to prove he has been unfairly characterized as not having it?
Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
http://www.pandacollector.com/

 

It is not just semantics. Hearsay is not admitted in court and not accepted by eBay (in general). If you see 2 listings that both have the same picture and the picture is waterstamped with a date and name of seller #1, eBay (nor any court will accept) you saying that seller #2 stole the picture with or without a notarized letter from seller #1. The only person in this world who can report that is seller #1.

I do not think I am mistaken when I say that the only people who can report any circumstance beyond what is specifically spelled out in the listing (not in any way implied) are eBay, the seller, the buyer, and only any other person who may be the owner of copyrighted material or similar stuff the may have been borrowed, stolen, or whatever for and in the listing.

 

NOPE! You have to prove him guilty and you have no way of doing so unless and until you are the buyer and nothing is received. He does not have to prove himself innocent. Please do not try to rewrite the constitution.

 

I thought he had to prove my guilt if he is bringing a complaint, which is the scenario you raised earlier. If I were the plaintiff than I would need to establish his guilt. Isn't that the way it works? The plaintiff has to establish he has been wronged, right?
Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
http://www.pandacollector.com/

 

sent the details to eBay - and eBay does nothing. Been there, done that , wearing the tee shirt. The only person who can report a stolen pic is the owner.
Anything you do with the pics is hearsay. :dead-horse: If you do not believe me, find a definition that says otherwise.
The one he used is in fact the exact same photo from aldergold. HEARSAY :dead-horse:
his isn't a court of law either - you are correct, but the idea was to get it off eBay. eBay uses logic and does not accept hearsay :dead-horse:

Find something to say I am wrong. Find something that says eBay will take such evidence. This is getting old.

 

Mr. Rim's:
Incidentally, your line of argument intrigued me so much that I found an article on hearsay called Hearsay and Its Exceptions by Prof. Miguel A. Méndez. Here is one quote: "Out of court statements that are not offered for the truth of the matters stated are not hearsay. If prior statements of witnesses are “not hearsay,” some might be misled into believing that they cannot be offered for the truth. California avoids these pitfalls by remaining faithful to the Common Law tradition. If an out of court statement is offered for the truth of the matter stated, then it is hearsay and is not admissible unless it falls within an exception... In this respect, the Code, like the Common Law, is declaration centered. The focus is on whether the out of court declaration is being offered for the truth." I believe that by this standard my communications with Mr. aldergold were not hearsay since he replied to me in regards to selling his coin, not to assert ownership of it. What say you?
Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
http://www.pandacollector.com/

 

Mr pindicollector,

You have so cut up the original reference that it almost makes no sense;

Out of court statements that are not offered for the truth of the matters stated are not hearsay. HUH? Does that say lies are not hearsay?

If an out of court statement is offered for the truth of the matter stated, then it is hearsay. Read my post #46. That sounds very familiar.

I believe that by this standard my communications with Mr. aldergold were not hearsay since he replied to me in regards to selling his coin. You HEARD what he SAID and he was not in court. Therefore it is HEARSAY. :dead-horse:

Try reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law. Here is an excerpt;

Until you find something wrong there , I am done.

 

Mr. Rim's,

Actually, I barely removed anything at all. Here is the complete statement and please observe this is California law not Oklahoma or anywhere else. The point of this study for the State was to highlight differences between the California and Federal Codes, Wikipedia notwithstanding:

"Out of court statements that are not offered for the truth of the matters stated are not hearsay. If prior statements of witnesses are “not hearsay,” some might be misled into believing that they cannot be offered for the truth. California avoids these pitfalls by remaining faithful to the Common Law tradition. If an out of court statement is offered for the truth of the matter stated, then it is hearsay and is not admissible unless it falls within an exception. It is immaterial that the testimonial source for the out of court statement might be the hearsay declarant for purposes of determining whether the statement is hearsay. In this respect, the Code, like the Common Law, is declaration centered.16 The focus is on whether the out of court declaration is being offered for the truth."

There is not a syllable missing. I'm delighted this line of legal discussion is closed, too. I thought it would never end. Thanks for your perspective.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
http://www.pandacollector.com/

Here is my source:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA LAW
REVISION COMMISSION
BACKGROUND STUDY
Comparison of Evidence Code with Federal Rules:
Part I. Hearsay and Its Exceptions
Professor Miguel A. Méndez
Stanford Law School

 

Umm... eBay removed the items. Someone is guilty of SOMETHING. eBay rules are not the same as LAW when finding someone's actions broke eBay's rules. Same as here on coin talk. Just my 2 pennies worth.

 

I will save you the trouble of looking it up. Try reading post #25.

 

I have been threatened with a lawsuit several times for something I have said. In the end, none of them took the time as, in the end, what I was saying was personal opinion. One simply wanted to make sure I as not a part of some larger conspiracy to besmirch their good name, and the others (businesses and sellers I called crooks) were all talk knowing it as probably more trouble than it was worth to sue a nobody spouting off personal opinions about their terrible business practices which personally affected me.

This conversation is all fine and good when it comes hypothetical situations regarding what may and may not be able to be admitted in a court of law and we all know that a crook will find someone to represent him if he has enough money, even if that lawyer knows the crook is indeed a crook he will try every trick. They may not even try to prove his client is not guilty but simply try to get it all dropped on some technical grounds. A crook will go free and he will get paid which is all that mattered to him.

If a person is a crook I will call them a crook, if a business is shifty I will call them shifty or if I get bad enough treatment from a business I will say so in a very public manner because I want them to deal with the consequences (loss of business). If an angry guy spouting off about his poor treatment in a public manner may harm their reputation and they choose to sue me for my honest personal opinions, I will make sure the whole process is made as public as possible so people can witness as they add injury to insult and I will simply tell the truth. This seller is probably a crook and regardless of what can be admitted in a court of law. Most people can see this.

All the original poster needed to say what that in his opinion, he thinks this guy is a scammer for the following reasons...if people accept this assessment, good. If people think differently, fine....what is acceptable in court at this time has no real relevance.

 

So true, nobody I know is having a jury trial!!

 

I really appreciate all of the info on bad-guys on E-Bay. I'm new to the hobby-not dumb... just new. And all of this is very helpful to me.
Thanks to all!
Aunt Penny

 

During this discussion one poster asserted that there aren't limits on eBay's Buyer protection. "eBay will cover your purchase price plus original shipping. Again, that is quoted straight from the listing you sited. There are no conditions on that. Read it!" I disagree. It's important for buyers to understand the time limit on eBay's Buyer Protection policy: "Also, items must be purchased on the U.S. eBay.com website to qualify for eBay Buyer Protection coverage, and are covered for 45 days from the date of payment."

The hitch in this policy for coin buyers is that it may not be possible to determine within 45 days of the payment date if a coin is genuine. In many instances the buyer does not have the expertise to recognize a fake. In fact, many buyers remain unaware of fakes in their collection for years. It also may not be possible to get a coin authenticated by a third party grading service in this amount of time. PCGS, in particular, rarely returns a coin (at least to me) in under 45 days. As a result, eBay Buyer Protection is frequently a hollow guarantee and buyers must fend for themselves. IMO, buyers need information at least as much as they need limited protection policies.

If anyone is particularly interested in the differences between real and fake Pandas I have a web page at http://www.pandacollector.com/rogue.html devoted to this specific topic. The best part is the emails I've gotten from collectors who say that this page has helped them avoid bad coins, or allowed them to return their purchases within the 45 day time frame that eBay sets.

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
http://www.pandacollector.com/

P.S. One last note on this thread. I hope it is clear that I consider alderwood to be a completely innocent victim of whatever Cheetah did that got his (Cheetah's) listings booted off eBay. All my communications with alderwood suggest he is a stand-up guy and the legitimate owner of a rare coin.

 

FWIW, Here is the latest seller with a comprehensive selection of photos of counterfeit Panda coins : http://coins.shop.ebay.com/Coins-Pa...g=&_ssn=shibukedang2010&_trksid=p3911.c0.m282. Incidentally, the seller sometimes mixes photos of genuine coins with pix of fakes. They are a bit on the expensive side, too.

Say, Mr. Rim's Cents, it's OK to call a photo of a fake coin a photo of a fake coin, isn't it?

Best wishes,
Peter Anthony
http://www.pandacollector.com/

 

Yeah that one is fairly obvious! Got any more?