CAVEAT EMPTOR, a strong new warning for internet buyers!

The American "democracy" legal system requires absolutely
no-doubt proof of knowing and aforethought, thus "benefit of doubt" must be given to prove guilt.

Your naivety wouldn't normally accomplish success in court.

As Captain of several winning debate teams, that isn't something my opponents would suggest I possess.

In the main building halls of the 80,000 employee International facilities Company for which I last worked, there are plaques, singularly awarded annually by the CEO to the voted top engineering company-wide contributor.

My name is the recipient upon one of them. Your suggestion is Ludicrous!

I would singularly challenge all others to try matching my achievements.

JMHO

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just one more reason to have nothing to do with eBay. I won't have anything to do with it because its sniping policy. Life is too short to be made unhappy 90% of the time because a bad website that treats all of its customers, buyer and sellers, like crap. I work with the people and companies I know over the Internet 95% of the time. The other 5% is limited to small purchases that are nowhere near 5 figures.

 

I'm in court a few times per year and have several lawyer friends. None of us have to use a bunch of fancy words to win our cases.
I talk like a country hick but have only lost one case in my life.
This thread is a great example of folks not understanding what the OP is saying.

 

Reads like a bill written by Congress.

 

So given the fact that you did NOT present the factual evidence as you eluded to above, it should be very clear to someone of 'extraordinary intelligence', that the masses here would have no clue as to what you're babbling about.

Thank you for proving and concurring with our collective argument.

 

If the OP, you, is the only one who understands himself, and the folks reading all you've written can't follow along, the problem with the communication is not everyone else's problem, it's yours.

 

It a common practice for a lawyer to anticipate answers. So they ask a series of questions leading the defendant down a path and culminate in a gotcha question/statement. If he did not receive the item from the seller going outside the normal ebay/PayPal system, but did receive his refund through the system, then the ebay/PayPal system appears to have worked. Unfortunately, the scammer used the ole PayPal froze my funds so I cant send you the item, let's take this transaction private scam. Now that he paid a second time and hasn't received his item, his recourse is through the courts. This going around Ebay/PayPal may have worked in the past, but seems to be problematic on this 5 figure sum transaction...at least this is what I can figure out as a layman. Sometimes the most intellectual folks fall for the scams. The problem is finding the scammer, getting a judgement against, but most importantly getting paid.

 

I stated that my treatise-like response was complete enough with adequate evidence for a seated Jurist to convict a seller of multiple Federal violations.

You are correct that the masses don't understand and respond with unknowledgable STATEMENTS, as yours.

One participant here understood and cited proper legal language/laws which would be applicable in a legal brief.

His post was very important to show proper facets required for case filing, and an understanding by a reader.

My demeanor here is because of a prior action on this site where an individual exacted virtually the same conditions on BST, where I purchased/paid for a 4 digit value coin which was never delivered.

I was ready to file a small claims action, and confronted the seller who admitted fault in writing.

He asked for a distinct period of time to refund, which I found reasonable/accepted.

Within that period he was banished and my records were deleted.

I could have supeonad/summoned the responsible individual, and records to court.

I didn't want to disturb trust in the site, and eventually a proper warning was posted, but I relinquished my funds/coin.

I now believe when individuals mis-STATE, it is our duty to correctly state our believed FACTS.

I never know when I'm stupid/uninformed, so I appreciate an Objective "challenge".

Dumb/stubborn don't generally respond to logic, but may think/question before STATING OPINION as FACT.

JMHO

 

J. Noble Daggett, Esq.

Don't boink me.....

 

JMHO[/QUOTE]

More to not be understood by the "masses".

Thank you for your correct prior post which included the references/statutes required in a "Brief document".

That will really confuse when I explain the 6 "elements" required in a "BRIEF SUMMARY".

LOL JMHO

 

More to not be understood by the "masses".

Thank you for your correct prior post which included the references/statutes required in a "Brief document".

That will really confuse when I explain the 6 "elements" required in a "BRIEF SUMMARY".

LOL JMHO

 

What's been presented here ruffly constitutes a "Legal Brief Summary" without the hard evidence of a contract constituted by ebay-seller/paypal TOS, recordings of phone calls, copies of e-mails/police-a.g.-c.c.-reports/statutes/locations/etc..

The court really doesn't want to see/read the evidence.

They just want their relevant questions answered expediently.

They know that you've sworn to present the "whole truth", or have your case/future "dismissed".

The entirety of evidence are not of layman understanding, nor to be disclosed in detail outside of the "trial/court".

A "slip of the lip" can completely reverse trial-outcome.

I believe you would have loved reading what was discussed by Millionaire Hugh.

Hugh sold me a significant portion of his precious collection.

I believe his disclosures cost him the remainder.

For Lay-people who want complicated matters to be simple, I try to accommodate by using the KISS approach.

It has worked with my adult education students, who I hear rave about.

One thought/sentence with capability to get that sentence expanded if necessary by notes in the between spaces.

I'm sorry it hasn't worked for you as it has for my extremely intelligent dementiated alzheimer's partner of 30+ years.

We never argue, as when she has an "exception", she will turn and politely say "do you think?" before her question.

SHE IS VIRTUALLY NEVER WRONG, AND I LEARN MUCH.

I wish others would learn to communicate in that fashion, rather than making false STATEMENTS.

 

Oh
My
God

 

Not a damn thing false about you, Rich........I prod and poke through much of your discourse, but I always come out understanding.

That's the 'lay man' in me......

 

It's people like you, Doug, and many others that make me want to return.

Humor and knowledge, with occasional insight!

What more can a human want?

JMHO

 

Oh really! I am duly impressed that in a thread about an eBay negative experience, you turn it into a bragging session about your standardized tests, and “abnormal IQ.”

 

Not to mention the fact that the guy received a refund after not receiving the coin. And then proceeds to send the funds to the same seller outside eBay, and shockingly doesn't receive the coin. The true definition of genius.

 

That's why I said he's an ingenuous genius.

 

Please, if you're going to post a response to a question that was a precursor to an insult, also post the questioning, thus:
↑
Who talks like that in normal conversation? (question)

One with highest State S.A.T. score, with abnormal I.Q.,
who anticipates the next question and supplies an answer that would meet court requirements. (response)

I would recommend your posting of the FOLLOW-UP simplistic statement/question placed by the same believed retarded poster.

I completely answered with a believed accurate legal statement/opinion?

My answer drew others into posting believed would be adjudged as STUPID statements.

I apologize if you find my believed mature accurate responses offensive.

My goal is to properly answer within posted guide-lines without offense to objective viewers.

Duh! I Failed! My Bad! Sorry!! JMHO!!!