Ebay Scammer gets her due!

[mayhem]

Ok, gimme a min till I read all this...

 

[BassyBill]

Ok, gimme a min till I read all this...

(snigger)

 

[morf]

morf, you're not wrong there

Glad to see we agree on something

 

[mayhem]

Ok read the whole thing. The way I see it, 'Technically' it was ok, 'Morally', not. The judge was out of place to comment on her children the way she did. The $5000 fine 'Was' just, because morally, it was wrong, and time, money and effort is wasted on people like that, and trying to prevent them. I'd rule it in favour of the buyer, as scamming is just ridiculous and pathetic. She knew what she was doing, and it was clear for all to see.

Still missing something?

 

[BassyBill]

Ok read the whole thing. The way I see it, 'Technically' it was ok, 'Morally', not. The judge was out of place to comment on her children the way she did. The $5000 fine 'Was' just, because morally, it was wrong, and time, money and effort is wasted on people like that, and trying to prevent them. I'd rule it in favour of the buyer, as scamming is just ridiculous and pathetic. She knew what she was doing, and it was clear for all to see.

Still missing something?

Exactly.

So you've moved from the position of calling somebody dumb for not reading something thoroughly, to realising that maybe you were perhaps being over critical. And the reason for that is YOU'VE READ THOROUGHLY to inform your view. In other words, you're no longer guilty yourself of what you were calling ridiculous in others. Ironic, but good to see you're getting the picture. Well done.

 

[mayhem]

In a technical sense, my view hasn't changed, which is what I said/meant anyway. No matter what, technically, it was not illegal.

 

[RWP]

In a technical sense, my view hasn't changed, which is what I said/meant anyway. No matter what, technically, it was not illegal.

Ok, if it wasn't technically illegal then why did the judge rule in favor of the complainant. Isn't the job of the courts to uphold the letter of the law? I guess I am being redundant.

 

[mayhem]

As I said, it's a ratings game.

Don't know who said it, but someone did say this show is nothing like the U.S. Judicial system, I agree with them.

 

[RWP]

As I posted earlier this is TV. In reality there are appellate courts where bad rulings are straightened out. Judge Judy ruled with her emotion, good for TV bad for law. I am not saying this lady was not a very bad person, but may have been acting within the law.

 

[mayhem]

As I posted earlier this is TV. In reality there are appellate courts where bad rulings are straightened out. Judge Judy ruled with her emotion, good for TV bad for law. I am not saying this lady was not a very bad person, but may have been acting within the law.

Depends how you look at it really, everyone would act differently in JJ's position.

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

So you're telling me you can judge that girl from the 8 minutes you just saw? You can come to the conclusion that she evades taxes and taxes bad care of her kids? And I'm the terrible judge of character? Please.

Yes. Yes, I am. I never said she evades taxes you've got me confused with someone else. I merely pointed out that the total lack of remorse displayed along with the smug grinning at being caught in a lie/fraud reveals the depth of her character (zero).

She attempts to justify the fraud - the end justifies the means - this is the hallmark of a good parent? I think not. Actions have their consequences, she is getting hers now. How is she going to explain this to her kids? "Mommy took advantage of stupid people, and that's okay".

First of all, you dont know she was going to scam anyone else, although it is indeed a fair assumption. Then again, maybe her husband's the bad influence here, you simply dont know.

She's supposed to be an adult. Most people have out-grown the whole "peer-pressure" thing after they graduate High School. In any case, criminal/immoral behavior does not occur in a vacuum. Ask any Judge or police officer if a "first offense" means that it was the first time a criminal committed that behavior or was just the first time they got caught.

Second of all, her children as she said, which you clearly didnt care to hear, are all under 5. I doubt they'll be influenced to scam people at that age, I even doubt they knew about it.

Again, you are assuming this occurred in a vacuum. What I cannot understand is your attempt to justify her behavior. That statement reads, to me, as if just getting caught is the problem.

The problem is the lack or character/morals this woman displays is astounding! The fact that her husband sent HER into court only further reflects on not only her lack of character but her inability to pick men.

Thats preposterous. Not all drunks getting in a fight lose their kids because of that.[/quote

That's not what I said. But if you truly believe that people are not considered unfit parent for being abusive drunks, you're completely detached from reality. The central issue here is character (or lack thereof).

You cant judge a man guilty without evidence,

As far as I could see the evidence was printed out and reviewed in open "court".

you can make assumptions just like that and pass judgement according to what your impression of someone is. What world do YOU live in?

Of course you can. And we all do it every day.

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

Don't know who said it, but someone did say this show is nothing like the U.S. Judicial system, I agree with them.

Oh, for the Judge Judy show has NOTHING to do with the American Judicial system. It's a ... ready for this... "SHOW". Like "the People's Court" this is a retired judge. The litigants agree to dismiss small claims and abide by her decisions.

Please do not make the GRAVE error of thinking this show in any way is representative of our court system.

 

[RWP]

Depends how you look at it really, everyone would act differently in JJ's position.

There is no question that different judges interpret the law in different ways. But, JJ's TV show is just that, a TV show. I would like to see how this case would have turned out in a real world court. Similar cases must show up all over the country. I would also like to see that listing for myself.

 

[JansenW]

I don't think the plaintif got anything near a fair value for her money.

The defendant should have listed her item under art/photographic images and not cell phones.

 

[soulgeezer]

I think what's being missed here is that, all pretense to show biz aside, Judge Judy's verdict would likely be upheld by an appellate court. She based her decision, if you watch the video closely, on the premise that the defendent had included a fraudulent item description in her auction. This was the reference to "4.9 ounces" that she made more than once.

Take a look at this auction (which was posted earlier in this thread):

http://cgi.ebay.com/Microsoft-Zune-MSZune30gb-gmail-com_W0QQitemZ270059201031QQihZ017QQcategoryZ147175QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

In inch-high letters, it says,

"[email protected]/Very simple and professional email address./Great for stores or Techs."

Now, clearly this is an auction for an E-mail address, right? But the item description states:

"Microsoft Zune™ 30 GB Digital Media Player
Item Specifics - MP3 Players
Brand: Microsoft
Digital Storage Type: Hard Drive
Product Line: Zune™
Storage Capacity: 20-39 GB
Model: Zune™
Color: --
Condition: --"

That's the item description, surrounded by pictures of Microsoft Zune media players, clearly indicating that the item for sale in the auction is a Microsoft Zune MP3 player with a 30Gb HDD.

So, which is wrong? The description or the headline? It's impossible to tell. So, I guess the only option at this point is to E-mail the seller.

Of course, the seller, being an honest and forthright individual, is going to tell the truth, right? WRONG! Being a scam artist, they are going to lie to try to reel the buyer in.

Take another look at the above auction. 55 bidders! Do you really think none of these people E-mailed the seller? Highly unlikely!

So, unless that E-mail address comes with a 30Gb HDD, the ad is fraudulent and the seller is guilty of fraud. Creating such confusion intentionally is a legally defined form of fraud. And, the scammer deserves what he or she gets.

Again, Judge Judy IS TV. But, Judge Judy herself is a retired judge and the cases on the show are decided under the laws of California. She may be putting on a show, but that doesn't mean her legal reasoning is incorrect.

In this case, she got it right. And, the scammer got what she deserved.

Just my two cents, of course...

 

[Hambone]

If it sheds any light on the basis of the judges decision, the actual contract between show and the "contestants" could be all the justification needed for Judge Judy to do that. The old "People's Court" used a pool of $5000 (coincidentally the limit of small claims courts) to pay the judgment and then split the remainder between the two contestants. So a dog bite judgment for $2000 would net the plaintiff $3500 and the defendant $1500. The $5000 was a direct contribution by sponsors of the show keeping the costs down for the production company. If that's the case for the JJ show, all Judge Judy did was divvy up someone else's money to two contestants based on a simple black/white judgment call without any involvement by the law.

All perfectly "legal" in TV Land.

 

[Fire-Starter]

The seller was wrong, she knows and so does everyone else, that NO ONE is going to pay 400 bucks for two sheets of paper with pics of sell phones. If some one here pulled that..say they show a pic of a Sadowsky for sale for 2000 bucks, and then you pay, and they send you a PICTURE of the Sadowsky????? Tell me he would not deserve to have his behind kicked. I do think Judge Judy was out of line, but as far as the seller goes, give me a break.

 

[Bad Brains]

I'd take her kids off her tomorrow. Give 'em a chance to grow up anywhere away from that lying, stupid smug cow would be my choice. Hell, why not?

I agree with this. That fat slob shouldn't be allowed to have children.

Why do some people breed?

 

[Bad Brains]

I think so too. But I only THINK so, I dont KNOW so, and without EVIDENCE, its RIDICULOUS for a JUDGE with LEGAL AUTHORITY to make such assumption and judgement, period.

There was evidence. The plaintiff had the adds printed off, and the two photos the hog sent her. There was proof she was scammed.

With any kind of illegal/fradulant activity going on around children, is reason enough for investigation, no matter what their ages are.

And yes, from that 8 minuts of television, you can definitly tell what kind of person the hog was. She had no remorse for what she did. We all know damn well she posted those adds of E-bay for the sole purpose of scamming someone out of money.

 

[canopener]

Right on, BB. I think Judge Judy was also probably SPOT ON with her assessment of the hog's husband.