Ebay Scammer gets her due!

[Bad Brains]

The hog also wrote derogitory comments on the plaintiffs page after the scam.

They didn't show what she actually wrote, probably because it wasn't suitable for TV.

I'm sure that plays into this as well.

 

[morf]

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).

The woman's on national TV! She went while KNOWING shes in the wrong! Of course shes gonna act the part. She wanted to be seen on TV, period. She's not gonna let some old lady wannabe judge get the best of her without a fight. Doesn't mean she can't take care of her kids, its ridiculous to assess that.

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".

She won't need to explain it since her kids are under 5. She'll just say "look mommy's on TV" and have a good laugh. However I'm pretty sure since she was on TV that the plaintiff will take this further, maybe to a real court this time, and if the scammer really gets a 5k fine, then she'll know better than to teach her kids to screw people over.

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.

That assumption is ridiculous. Some people make mistakes, get arrested once, and never do it again. I know plenty. We can ask cheeze about this too.

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.

I'm not judtifying anything. Her behavior was wrong, she should go to jail for it, thats my opinion, read my posts. What I'm against is judge judy's behavior, nothing more.

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 not for you to decide, and not for judge judy without further research into her situation. You just dont take kids away from their mother without knowing for sure.

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).

I never used the words 'abusive drunks'. You're putting words into my mouth to try to win an argument, good job. Very smart display of how serious you are about this topic.

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

The evidence pointing to her not being able to take care of her kid? I dont think so.

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

NOT if you're a JUDGE with LEGAL AUTHORITY. That goes against everything DEMOCRACY stands for. I'm an inch away from thinking you're a fascist.

 

[morf]

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

But not proof she wasnt taking care of her children correctly. Again, read the whoel thread before replying to posts you dont understand.

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

Ok then. Next time I see someone smoking pot I'll call the police to warn them about how unfit the parent is.

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.

She's on national TV, shes acting her part. If she came of course she wasnt gonna say "Oh I'm sorry I'll pay you back". I can tell you that after that show was done she probably had PLENTY of remorse, though shes probably too stubborn to admit it. You just cant make assumptions and make legal decisions without PROOF.

People, the law says a man is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Period.

 

[Komakino]

But not proof she wasnt taking care of her children correctly. Again, read the whoel thread before replying to posts you dont understand.



Ok then. Next time I see someone smoking pot I'll call the police to warn them about how unfit the parent is.



She's on national TV, shes acting her part. If she came of course she wasnt gonna say "Oh I'm sorry I'll pay you back". I can tell you that after that show was done she probably had PLENTY of remorse, though shes probably too stubborn to admit it. You just cant make assumptions and make legal decisions without PROOF.

People, the law says a man is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Period.

You're the one making stupid assumptions now: you're assuming she's acting the part (what's to say she's not just stupid and genuinely believes that a contract, no matter how unfair, is binding just because someone 'signed' it? Look how many times she says "It's not my fault she can't read" at the end); you're assuming that after the show she had remorse (I sincerely doubt it - if she is AT ALL remorseful it's only that she got caught, not that she did it in the first place).

How is that your assumption are OK, but for the rest of us we need proof? Double standards, Morf?

 

[morf]

Dont patronize me.

My assumptions arent assumptions in the first place. They're "could have beens", nothing more. I dont KNOW what happened i'm not in her head and i cant say for sure what her behavior was, and NEITHER CAN YOU. That's the whole point.

Dont act high and mighty when you have trouble understanding a simple sentence.

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

The woman's on national TV! She went while KNOWING shes in the wrong! Of course shes gonna act the part.

On what, exactly are you basing this assumption?

She wanted to be seen on TV, period. She's not gonna let some old lady wannabe judge get the best of her without a fight.

You language indicates that you are projecting. Again, what do you base this assumption on?

Doesn't mean she can't take care of her kids, its ridiculous to assess that.

If by "taking care" of her kids you mean feed and clothe them I agree. However, this woman clearly has little idea how to raise them.

However I'm pretty sure since she was on TV that the plaintiff will take this further, maybe to a real court this time,

Shows like this are arbitrations not real legal proceedings (as I pointed out earlier). The judge acts as an arbiter and the parties involved have signed an agreement to be bound by the decisions of the judge. But this is off-topic for the purposes of our discussion.

That assumption is ridiculous. Some people make mistakes, get arrested once, and never do it again. I know plenty.

How is it ridiculous? How often is driving drunk fine? Until someone gets caught? What about people who are habitually arrested for DUI. Only the times they get arrested count? (In terms of being indicators of character).

We can ask cheeze about this too.

Anecdotal evidence does not make a fact.

I'm not judtifying anything. Her behavior was wrong, she should go to jail for it, thats my opinion, read my posts. What I'm against is judge judy's behavior, nothing more.

And you are incorrect. Judge Judy (as has been pointed out now several times) is retired. This is NOT a criminal proceeding, and she has every right to express her opinions on the matter.

Thats not for you to decide, and not for judge judy without further research into her situation. You just dont take kids away from their mother without knowing for sure.

Again, your faulty assumption is that our actions legal/illegal, moral/immoral occur in a vacuum. This is the "crux of the biscuit". And you have offered NOTHING to back that claim up.

I never used the words 'abusive drunks'. You're putting words into my mouth to try to win an argument, good job.

No, sir, I used the term Abusive Drunk to clarify my point. I'm sorry that your position is so untenable as to make you grasp at straws.

Very smart display of how serious you are about this topic.

Haa haaa! Rolleyes! You ARE the debate master, aren't you?

The evidence pointing to her not being able to take care of her kid? I dont think so.

That was an incomplete thought on my part. The "evidence" I was referring to was regarding the fraud. Sorry for the confusion.

NOT if you're a JUDGE with LEGAL AUTHORITY. That goes against everything DEMOCRACY stands for.

For the last time, it's a SHOW. It's NOT court. It's arbitration.

I'm an inch away from thinking you're a fascist.

By the content of your posts you likely already do. That's the last act of a desperate man, you know. I'll be waiting for your "Hitler HURR HURR' response with baited breath.

 

[bigfatbass]

Wow, 144+ posts! Only a petty flame war over semantics remains....

You guys need judge judy.

And I'm not going to read 144 posts to be sure if this was mentioned, but they said the AG already has 8 other cases pending against the scammer. If any of those involved a state line and a postal money order tubby can (and should) be charged with a felony for mail fraud. I have asked the lawyer in residence and she says tubby can easily be charged/convicted EVEN IF the ad said for pictures only buried in the fine print. If the clear intent of the auction was to defraud she is still screwed. Period. Ebay is also very active and interested in pursuing cases against people like tubby, and the national press and viral video coverage this has gotten will definitely make life tough for tubby in the coming weeks.

And regarding the child endangerment issue: If she is knowingly committing felony fraud from the home she can, and most likely will, have a case file opened on her by child services.

 

[Komakino]

Dont patronize me.

My assumptions arent assumptions in the first place. They're "could have beens", nothing more. I dont KNOW what happened i'm not in her head and i cant say for sure what her behavior was, and NEITHER CAN YOU. That's the whole point.

Dont act high and mighty when you have trouble understanding a simple sentence.

Ah get down from your pedestal, I'm not patronising you nor acting high and mighty, all I've said throughout this is that there is probably some aspect of US law that says if a crime is possibly being commited from a family situation then she has to be investigated by social services or whatever its US equivalent is. Right at the start you said something about it being despicable (or words to that effect) that that sort of investigation should take place for this sort of crime, I've only said that there is possibly a legal reason that we don't know about that this should be the case, and the post above this one seems to back that up.

No, I can't say for sure what her behaviour was and nor have I tried to, which is why in my post I put that I "sincerely doubted" she showed remorse after the case - nothing too black or white but the most likely emotion for a repeated scammer (if she's remorseful why do the same thing again and again?). You seem to think that she is plenty remorseful DESPITE her committing the same crime over and over again.

What is it they say - that the simplest explanation is usually correct?

 

[morf]

On what, exactly are you basing this assumption?

How does common sense sound?

You language indicates that you are projecting. Again, what do you base this assumption on?

Read above

If by "taking care" of her kids you mean feed and clothe them I agree. However, this woman clearly has little idea how to raise them.

And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Shows like this are arbitrations not real legal proceedings (as I pointed out earlier). The judge acts as an arbiter and the parties involved have signed an agreement to be bound by the decisions of the judge. But this is off-topic for the purposes of our discussion.

The judge is still a retired judge and should act the part, she does not.

How is it ridiculous? How often is driving drunk fine? Until someone gets caught? What about people who are habitually arrested for DUI. Only the times they get arrested count? (In terms of being indicators of character).

Its ridiculous because everybody makes mistakes at some point, you probably have as well, does that mean you cant raise your child???

Anecdotal evidence does not make a fact.

Indeed so, take back all your arguments then.

And you are incorrect. Judge Judy (as has been pointed out now several times) is retired. This is NOT a criminal proceeding, and she has every right to express her opinions on the matter.

Retired or not, she represents to law for many people, and if not the law, she represents FAIRNESS. Opinions are NOT welcome.

Again, your faulty assumption is that our actions legal/illegal, moral/immoral occur in a vacuum. This is the "crux of the biscuit". And you have offered NOTHING to back that claim up.

Your actions? Get off your high horse here. This is about Judge Judy, nothing or noone else.

No, sir, I used the term Abusive Drunk to clarify my point. I'm sorry that your position is so untenable as to make you grasp at straws.

Now thats funny.

Haa haaa! Rolleyes! You ARE the debate master, aren't you?

Thank you, I try

That was an incomplete thought on my part. The "evidence" I was referring to was regarding the fraud. Sorry for the confusion.

Dully noted

For the last time, it's a SHOW. It's NOT court. It's arbitration.

Same thing when its a retired judge making the calls. What people believe is fair = justice, no matter the form.

By the content of your posts you likely already do. That's the last act of a desperate man, you know. I'll be waiting for your "Hitler HURR HURR' response with baited breath.

I do believe you have no clue what democracy means yes. As for calling you Hitler, there are better disqualifications to use.

 

[morf]

Ah get down from your pedestal, I'm not patronising you nor acting high and mighty, all I've said throughout this is that there is probably some aspect of US law that says if a crime is possibly being commited from a family situation then she has to be investigated by social services or whatever its US equivalent is. Right at the start you said something about it being despicable (or words to that effect) that that sort of investigation should take place for this sort of crime, I've only said that there is possibly a legal reason that we don't know about that this should be the case, and the post above this one seems to back that up.

I thought this wasnt the law but a TV show? I thought you said this judge had no legal power? If so its out of place to make such comment.

No, I can't say for sure what her behaviour was and nor have I tried to, which is why in my post I put that I "sincerely doubted" she showed remorse after the case - nothing too black or white but the most likely emotion for a repeated scammer (if she's remorseful why do the same thing again and again?). You seem to think that she is plenty remorseful DESPITE her committing the same crime over and over again.

She's certainly remorseful after seeing a retired judge tell her shes in the wrong, yes, thats what I think.

What is it they say - that the simplest explanation is usually correct?

Emphasize on "usually". Generalisations dont come in handy when you're about to lose your kids.

 

[Joey3313]

What kind of an idiot buys a picture of a phone, or more importantly buys something on eBay without actually reading the add...


Also, what kind of an idiot attempts to sell a picture of a cell phone?




Still, I kinda was hoping the scammer would get away, I love to see stupid people duping other stupid people.

 

[BassyBill]

Wow, 144+ posts! Only a petty flame war over semantics remains....

You guys need judge judy.

And I'm not going to read 144 posts to be sure if this was mentioned, but they said the AG already has 8 other cases pending against the scammer. If any of those involved a state line and a postal money order tubby can (and should) be charged with a felony for mail fraud. I have asked the lawyer in residence and she says tubby can easily be charged/convicted EVEN IF the ad said for pictures only buried in the fine print. If the clear intent of the auction was to defraud she is still screwed. Period. Ebay is also very active and interested in pursuing cases against people like tubby, and the national press and viral video coverage this has gotten will definitely make life tough for tubby in the coming weeks.

And regarding the child endangerment issue: If she is knowingly committing felony fraud from the home she can, and most likely will, have a case file opened on her by child services.

Great post, thanks. Let's hope she cops what's coming big time. When so many pieces of walking misery get to ruin the world for the rest of us, it's very satisfying to see even just one of them get thoroughly pwned.

Seems a shame to let mere facts get in the way of such a great argument, though.

 

[Komakino]

I thought this wasnt the law but a TV show? I thought you said this judge had no legal power? If so its out of place to make such comment.

Then you might want to check again - I've said no such thing.

She's certainly remorseful after seeing a retired judge tell her shes in the wrong, yes, thats what I think.

You think? You have a strange grasp of reading emotions, she didn't look in the slightest bit remorseful to me, in fact at the end she kept saying "It's not my fault she can't read". That's not the sound of remorse, and I don't think you'll get another person here to say that they genuinely thought she looked remorseful either. You're really clutching at straws.

Emphasize on "usually". Generalisations dont come in handy when you're about to lose your kids.

She's not "about to lose her kids"! Were you watching a different clip?! She's told that she 'might' have an investigation into her home situation...that's a LONG way from "about to lose her kids"!

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

How does common sense sound?/quote]

Sounds good. When will you be applying it to this discussion?

The judge is still a retired judge and should act the part, she does not.

You seem to think that people should act a certain way... except if they're parents..

Its ridiculous because everybody makes mistakes at some point, you probably have as well, does that mean you cant raise your child???

Okay, it's clear that you cannot discriminate between making a mistake and habitual behavior.

Indeed so, take back all your arguments then.

Retired or not, she represents to law for many people, and if not the law, she represents FAIRNESS. Opinions are NOT welcome.

Opinions you find disagreeable are as valid as ones you support.

Your actions? Get off your high horse here. This is about Judge Judy, nothing or noone else.

Please, at some point, demonstrate that our actions occur in a vacuum. You can continue your point-by-point responses until the stars fall but you cannot keep saying "I know you are but what am I". It's tiresome. I've addressed your issues, you've address none of mine.

This is neither productive nor constructive.

Now thats funny.

If by "funny" you mean that you continue to blather but have offered no evidence to support your position, you are correct. In stead of providing evidence you state: "Well this is what I believe" and offer nothing else but "common sense".

You're young, you passionately believe what you believe but can offer nothing but opinion and hackneyed attempts at insulting me.

What people believe is fair = justice, no matter the form.

Is it fair that some people are born into money? Is it fair that some kids get a Lexus as their first car and others get a Honda? Fair does not equal justice. In any case that statement has ZERO bearing on this discussion.

I do believe you have no clue what democracy means yes.

Once again, you demonstrate how little a grasp on reality you have. We are not discussing democracy. We are discussing when opinions are appropriate and (tangentially) we are discussing the arbitration process.

I'm done with you now. Unless you can demonstrate the ability to stay on topic and not resort to personal attacks, neither one of us nor the forum in general will gain anything from this.

For what it's worth I've acknowledged that you're entitled to your opinion (something YOU'VE not allowed either myself nor the judge in question). I've only challenged you to support them with facts. You've failed, miserably, at that. The good news is that you're basically a child. You'll grow up, God willing, and then you'll be forced to deal with reality.

 

[Bryan316]

I'm suprised I didn't see this thread before.

Very interesting video.


And regardless of whether or not she put in the ebay auction "This is for a photo only" (which I'm sure was in the smallest font, probably grey or light grey in an inconspicuous corner) her sole intent was to defraud the auction winner. SHE INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE AUCTION WAS WORDED.

I've been lucky on eBay. I haven't gotten screwed. I haven't been too naive. But I guarantee you, if I ever got screwed like that, I would make sure the law was nowhere near part of the affair, so they never find the body of the person who screwed me.

 

[morf]

Then you might want to check again - I've said no such thing.

Wether you said so or not, those are the facts buddy. End of story.

You think? You have a strange grasp of reading emotions, she didn't look in the slightest bit remorseful to me, in fact at the end she kept saying "It's not my fault she can't read". That's not the sound of remorse, and I don't think you'll get another person here to say that they genuinely thought she looked remorseful either. You're really clutching at straws.

Reading emotions on national TV? Thats a good one. Lets applause this guy.

She's not "about to lose her kids"! Were you watching a different clip?! She's told that she 'might' have an investigation into her home situation...that's a LONG way from "about to lose her kids"!

And she shouldn't have been told such a thing! First of all, certainly not by someone who isnt a REAL judge and on national TV, second of all not by a real judge if thats not what she's being JUDGED for. Its a matter of ethics, period.

 

[morf]

Sounds good. When will you be applying it to this discussion?

Been there done that. Your turn.

You seem to think that people should act a certain way... except if they're parents..

Not at all, you obviously have trouble understanding my posts, though I've explained them repeatedly. Try again.

Okay, it's clear that you cannot discriminate between making a mistake and habitual behavior.

LOL.

Opinions you find disagreeable are as valid as ones you support.

Indeed so. And its freedom of speech to say you're full of crap if I think you are

Please, at some point, demonstrate that our actions occur in a vacuum. You can continue your point-by-point responses until the stars fall but you cannot keep saying "I know you are but what am I". It's tiresome. I've addressed your issues, you've address none of mine.

This is neither productive nor constructive.

I've addressed every single one of your issues. If theres something specific you'd like to discuss and feel I havent replied to it, feel free to post your question again or point it out to me.

If by "funny" you mean that you continue to blather but have offered no evidence to support your position, you are correct. In stead of providing evidence you state: "Well this is what I believe" and offer nothing else but "common sense".

No by funny I mean controversial. Everything you say goes against the principles of democracy yet you're offended when I say they are. That's funny to me.

You're young, you passionately believe what you believe but can offer nothing but opinion and hackneyed attempts at insulting me.

And you're old and old people have no clue how today's world works. If you still want to play the age card I've got alot more where that comes from. I dont NEED to insult you you do a fine job of that yourself.

Is it fair that some people are born into money? Is it fair that some kids get a Lexus as their first car and others get a Honda? Fair does not equal justice. In any case that statement has ZERO bearing on this discussion.

Yes, its fair. People work for things. If you're born into money its because you rich parents who worked to get money wanted a child, you have no say in this, and its plenty fair. Do you spit on rich people who were born into money?? I pity them. They take everything for granted and never learn anything about life for the most part.

Once again, you demonstrate how little a grasp on reality you have. We are not discussing democracy. We are discussing when opinions are appropriate and (tangentially) we are discussing the arbitration process.

Justice is democracy. If you dont understand that, YOU my friend have little grasp on reality.

I'm done with you now. Unless you can demonstrate the ability to stay on topic and not resort to personal attacks, neither one of us nor the forum in general will gain anything from this.

You've been done 2 pages ago, you're the only one who didnt realize it yet. I reply to stay polite and not ignore you repeating yourself

For what it's worth I've acknowledged that you're entitled to your opinion (something YOU'VE not allowed either myself nor the judge in question). I've only challenged you to support them with facts. You've failed, miserably, at that. The good news is that you're basically a child. You'll grow up, God willing, and then you'll be forced to deal with reality.

Of course you're entitled to YOUR opinion. Judge Judy, being a retired judge on national TV, who is believed by alot of people (obviously) to be fair and represent democracy, justice and the law, HAS NO RIGHT TO MAKE HER OPINION PUBLIC. She should, IMHO, remain impartial to her opinion and judge based entirely and ONLY on the FACTS, and nothing else. Not the way she thinks the woman treats her kids, not because the plaintiffs look hot, NOTHING ELSE PERIOD.

I may have outgrown you already.

 

[morf]

Not to mention you resort to the "oh you're a kid, you'll grow up and see reality for what it really is" argument as a response to mine, when you directly accuse me of doing the same by using the "you sound like a fascist" argument for you.

You sir, are full of it

 

[Komakino]

Wether you said so or not, those are the facts buddy. End of story.

Uhhhh....what? You disagree with something I (didn't) say, then when I tell you I didn't say it you say what I didn't say, that you disagreed with, is a fact?? You're tying yourself up in knots. Oh, and a wether is a castrated goat

Reading emotions on national TV? Thats a good one. Lets applause this guy.

Yep, people do it every day. Plus it doesn't take much reading to see that she's not terribly remorseful...watch it again, perhaps it just takes you longer than the rest of us. Perhaps that's why your so far off base with all your 'arguments' (which seem to have dropped to just mocking everybody else's rebuttals of what you said earlier).

And she shouldn't have been told such a thing! First of all, certainly not by someone who isnt a REAL judge and on national TV, second of all not by a real judge if thats not what she's being JUDGED for. Its a matter of ethics, period.

Jesus christ! She didn't tell her they would!! She told her that she might be investigated! What part of that is so hard for you to grasp?

 

[bigfatbass]

J. Judy's OPINION was that a case might be opened, not that she might lose her kids. She had every right to say a caseworker would be interested in tubby's situation. Not just because it is absolutely true, but because it's a STINKING TV SHOW NOT A REAL COURT. Judy can say/decide whatever the hell she wants, and base it on exactly ZERO legal precedent if she so choses.


When you guys realize how much energy/typing/quoting you've wasted on this nonsense you will be embarrassed.


If not, you should be.


For those defending the scammer, you are missing the single glaring legal point at stake here.

If the intent was to defraud, then it IS fraud. The attorney general has 8 other cases pending because:

INTENDING TO DEFRAUD IS STILL FRAUD EVEN IF YOU WORD IT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY WELL TO FOOL PEOPLE.

Why is that so hard to grasp?

caveat emptor is NOT a legal protection brainiac.