Options
I am looking at a couple items on ebay from this seller neyronix
SUMORADA
Posts: 4,797 ✭
Is he/she a board member here?..........thanks!
edited for grammar......should it be Is or Are?
edited for grammar......should it be Is or Are?
0
Comments
Is.
And no idea.
-Paul
Is this the same seller in the thread by hiijacked earlier today regarding shill bidding?
bob
yes........ I do not know about what happened....do you have a link?
<< <i>Are you being serious??
Is this the same seller in the thread by hiijacked earlier today regarding shill bidding?
bob >>
Hmmm. I posted this earlier today that i suspect shill bidding and not one response. Now some started this new thread regarding this seller.
That is odd.
See here Link
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
Bought from him in the past though but I was the only bidder so I wasn't shilled, it was maybe a $600 coin.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
https://thepennylady.com/
<< <i>Thanks for reporting a potential shill bidding violation. We understand
your frustration and appreciate you taking the time to let us know.
We'll carefully review your report and take the appropriate action based
on our investigation. To protect the privacy of the member that you're
reporting, we can't tell you exactly what actions were taken.
Shill bidding is against our policy and we don't allow members to engage
in it.
For more information on our policy, visit:
http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/seller-shill-bidding.html
Sincerely,
eBay Customer Support
>>
I encourage everyone else who believes that this seller is shilling (pretty obvious if you look) to also report it so we can get this scammer removed. Unfortunately, I'm sure he'll just be back under another name anyways. What was he called before??? supercool I think???
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>Looks like some obvious shill bidding... reported!!
>>
Just remember, if you don't have absolute proof, and you get some guy's 700 or 800 auctions cancelled, with
a loss of $1/2 million in sales, ebay WILL release your report and your name and other info to the seller if they receive a subpoena.
It's been done before.
Why not let ebay do their own enforcement? They track IP addresses (often unfairly suspending people who are using their laptops
at a coin show with WiFi thus having the same IP address as far as anyone on the other side of the router sees)
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
Rampant currency debasement will be the most important investment trend of this decade, and it will devastate most people.
- Nick Giambruno Buy dollar insurance now, because the policy will cost more as the dollar becomes worth less.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Be careful when making allegations and accusations. Whether he has or is getting people to bid up
his items, I really don't know but I do know this was not the case regarding the item I won.
I will say like this though-I have bought from him and his shipping is fast and fully insured. Also if he has shilling going on he must have forgot on some of my wins as I got a couple of steals from him including my latest 1942 pcgs pr67 half that I got for $687!!!
But in looking at his recently completed auctions just now, I checked the bidders on 10 of the auctions and all 10 of them had at least one bidder who had 100% of their bids with this particular seller... there were 3 different apparent shill bidders who I saw that have 100% of their bids with neyronix. Of those 10 auctions, the apparent shillers won 2 of them.
Not saying there are not good deals to be had or great coins offered, but this is just too fishy for me and I think some caution should be exercised.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I also know that things are not always as they seem to the observer.
As a seller, in the past 6 yrs I've had several people that bid exclusively on my items!
In itself this proves Nothing though admittedly, very suspicious.
Rest assured, if this guy is shilling - he will get caught.
Bottom line - if uncomfortable with a merchant - STAY AWAY!
<< <i>
<< <i>Are you being serious??
Is this the same seller in the thread by hiijacked earlier today regarding shill bidding?
bob >>
Hmmm. I posted this earlier today that i suspect shill bidding and not one response. Now some started this new thread regarding this seller.
That is odd.
See here Link >>
Bidder i****a(1060):
30-Day Summary
Total bids: 271
Items bid on: 144
Bid activity (%) with this seller: 100%
Bid retractions: 1
Bid retractions (6 months): 2
<< <i>Frank, eBay is the one that does the investigation after a user like myself reports a shill. I don't have the power to end the auctions myself only eBay can after they do their investigation. I'm just reporting a potential violation, i don't need absolute proof to do that, I feel that I just need some probable cause to make the report. and I have no problem reporting a potential shill when I see a bidder who has well over 100 bids and 100% of all of their bids are with that single seller. if eBay agrees with that, i hope they end the auctions and ban the guy. >>
Sometimes ebay takes action based on complaints, when there is actually nothing wrong going on. If eBay acts on a false complaint YOU can still be held responsible....like what CAUSED ebay to cancel someone's account? Sort of like rear ending another car...because another car rear ended YOU...called "proximate cause" in lawsuits. Just not worth the risk of reporting auctions unless you feel that you personally suffered a financial loss. I am NOT discouraging people from reporting fakes or stolen picture auctions..but we have been the victim of false shill reports because in 1998 we started putting coins on ebay and had about 300 or 400 people from our mailing list sign up to ebay ONLY to bid on our auctions...we were constantly being accused of wrongdoing just because we had customers in the same city who bid only on our auctions...because they could come to our store and examine the items in person...
<< <i> If eBay acts on a false complaint YOU can still be held responsible....like what CAUSED ebay to cancel someone's account? >>
BS. It is eBay taking action. To think the one reporting a possible problem with an auction can be held responsible is very, very difficult to believe.
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like some obvious shill bidding... reported!!
>>
Just remember, if you don't have absolute proof, and you get some guy's 700 or 800 auctions cancelled, with
a loss of $1/2 million in sales, ebay WILL release your report and your name and other info to the seller if they receive a subpoena.
It's been done before.
Why not let ebay do their own enforcement? They track IP addresses (often unfairly suspending people who are using their laptops
at a coin show with WiFi thus having the same IP address as far as anyone on the other side of the router sees) >>
Ridiculous statement.
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
<< <i>As a seller, in the past 6 yrs I've had several people that bid exclusively on my items! >>
There was a period a few years back where someone was liquidating his collection, and all of it was right in my sweet spot - I wound up bidding on that seller's items exclusively for about 3 months, even won a few of them.
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
To those who think reporting a possible violation of ebay's terms to them in good faith will somehow get one in trouble - give me a break.
<< <i>To those who think reporting a possible violation of ebay's terms to them in good faith will somehow get one in trouble - give me a break. >>
If someone has the money to sue you in a civil trial, and a jury can be convinced that your action caused them harm (half the states allow for non-unanimous verdicts) you'll THINK "give me a break".
Our coin store was sued for letting a man pick up a $12,000 Hi relief $20 Saint from layaway...and somehow we "should have known" that he was gettng
divorced and "should have known" that half of the coin belonged to a wife that "we should have known" existed and that we "should have known" there was
a high likelihood that he would not have reported the coin to his wife's attorney. Judgement against us...$6000 plus $3000 for our attorney fees.
divorced and "should have known" that half of the coin belonged to a wife that "we should have known" existed and that we "should have known" there was
a high likelihood that he would not have reported the coin to his wife's attorney. Judgement against us...$6000 plus $3000 for our attorney fees. >>
Sounds like you needed a better lawyer...
<< <i>Pretty much today anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything. You may prevail if unjustly sued but can count on spending a boatload of money to clear your name. Ask McDonalds about the hot coffee? >>
You obviously don't know the facts of the Mcdonalds coffee case and that talk makes people think they can sue anyone for anything. Let's see, Mcdonalds had known for years that their coffee was not safe for human consumption, and there is a big difference between being Hot vs. Being scaulding hot. Why was their coffee so hot? Because their research showed they sold more and made more $money$ by "superheating" their coffee. They argued that they had no expectations that anyone would attempt to drink the coffee before arriving at their destination, thus, allowing adequate time to cool. Bottom line was this case was not about coffee being hot, everyone knows coffee is hot it's supposed to be hot, but superheated to the point of being unfit for consumption...for profit is another story. Ever spill your coffee and burn out your groin.....?
<< <i>
<< <i>Pretty much today anyone can sue anyone else for just about anything. You may prevail if unjustly sued but can count on spending a boatload of money to clear your name. Ask McDonalds about the hot coffee? >>
You obviously don't know the facts of the Mcdonalds coffee case and that talk makes people think they can sue anyone for anything. Let's see, Mcdonalds had known for years that their coffee was not safe for human consumption, and there is a big difference between being Hot vs. Being scaulding hot. Why was their coffee so hot? Because their research showed they sold more and made more $money$ by "superheating" their coffee. They argued that they had no expectations that anyone would attempt to drink the coffee before arriving at their destination, thus, allowing adequate time to cool. Bottom line was this case was not about coffee being hot, everyone knows coffee is hot it's supposed to be hot, but superheated to the point of being unfit for consumption...for profit is another story. Ever spill your coffee and burn out your groin.....? >>
??????
You are saying that their coffee was over 212 Degrees?
<< <i>I didn't see 212 in my post, is that some sort of important number, IIRC Mcdonalds coffee was at 185 +-5, run those numbers and report back. >>
What then is "Superheated" coffee. When I made instant coffee in college, as did my parents. We boiled water in a coffee pot and when it whistled at i assume close to 212 Degrees, I poured it into a cup and added a teaspoon or so of instant coffee which perhaps dropped it to 200 Degrees. It was quite hot and I waited a few minutes for it to cool before consumption. I have always assumed that coffee or tea served to me would be about 200 degrees and handled it with appropriate caution. I would assume that any reasonable adult would assume the same. Perhaps McDonalds should have refused to sell take out coffee to a senior citizen that might not have full command of his/her senses. Then you could really watch the lawsuits fly.
Today that we are a nation of wimps, I suppose that one should expect the coffee to be served at 99 degrees so that we do not burn our little tongues.
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-----
I grew up in a different era and am a bit slow in understanding our current needs. I am sorry.
<< <i>
<< <i>To those who think reporting a possible violation of ebay's terms to them in good faith will somehow get one in trouble - give me a break. >>
If someone has the money to sue you in a civil trial, and a jury can be convinced that your action caused them harm (half the states allow for non-unanimous verdicts) you'll THINK "give me a break".
Our coin store was sued for letting a man pick up a $12,000 Hi relief $20 Saint from layaway...and somehow we "should have known" that he was gettng
divorced and "should have known" that half of the coin belonged to a wife that "we should have known" existed and that we "should have known" there was
a high likelihood that he would not have reported the coin to his wife's attorney. Judgement against us...$6000 plus $3000 for our attorney fees. >>
Did your attorney move to dismiss the case, since you had no duty to the wife? I'm shocked that such a POS case could survive long enough to reach a jury.
<< <i>
Did your attorney move to dismiss the case, since you had no duty to the wife? I'm shocked that such a POS case could survive long enough to reach a jury. >>
The wife, who I never saw before in my life, claimed that on a specific day she came into my store and TOLD me not to release any coins he had on layaway. Since we had videotapes showing that she was not in the store that day..or plus or minus 45 days of her claimed date ($2000 in fees to have 90 days worth of videotapes scanned for facial recognition) our attorney figured we could prove it was false and get back our already substantial legal and investigatives costs by countersuing, and that she wlould not perjure herself on the witness stand. Well we get to trail she gets on the stand and then says "Oh, I made a mistake, I told Mr. Provasek that when I saw him in line at the post office..it wasn't at the coin store after all....but he PROMISED me that there was nothing that my husband had on layaway...he LIED (sob,sob) and then callled my husband to come get it (sob sob) knowing that he was CONSPIRING TO HIDE ASSETS (sob sob) and my CHILDREN had to go without....
The jury was 5 women and one man...they voted 5 to 6 that we were negligent...guess I don't have to tell you the only vote in our favor was from the man....
Still makes me mad...I am pounding my kkeyboard really hard right now....
<< <i>
<< <i>
Did your attorney move to dismiss the case, since you had no duty to the wife? I'm shocked that such a POS case could survive long enough to reach a jury. >>
The wife, who I never saw before in my life, claimed that on a specific day she came into my store and TOLD me not to release any coins he had on layaway. Since we had videotapes showing that she was not in the store that day..or plus or minus 45 days of her claimed date ($2000 in fees to have 90 days worth of videotapes scanned for facial recognition) our attorney figured we could prove it was false and get back our already substantial legal and investigatives costs by countersuing, and that she wlould not perjure herself on the witness stand. Well we get to trail she gets on the stand and then says "Oh, I made a mistake, I told Mr. Provasek that when I saw him in line at the post office..it wasn't at the coin store after all....but he PROMISED me that there was nothing that my husband had on layaway...he LIED (sob,sob) and then callled my husband to come get it (sob sob) knowing that he was CONSPIRING TO HIDE ASSETS (sob sob) and my CHILDREN had to go without....
The jury was 5 women and one man...they voted 5 to 6 that we were negligent...guess I don't have to tell you the only vote in our favor was from the man....
Still makes me mad...I am pounding my kkeyboard really hard right now.... >>
I'm guessing your attorney isn't the greatest strategist or cross examiner.
<< <i>Casman: You are correct. Today everyone needs to be coddled from cradle to grave. We need to wear a helmet when getting on a bicycle. If our children are acting like children in school they need to be drugged. Our food cannot be too hot or cold and soon, not too fat or caloric. Cigarettes must have a warning on them half the size of the package. Our doctors need to do an extra 10 tests on us just in case. We need food stamps and social security and universal heath care and free daycare and unemploynet benefits and family leave and OSHA and free college and government guaranteed mortgages.
I grew up in a different era and am a bit slow in understanding our current needs. I am sorry. >>
Whatever..., go make some coffee and don't spill it, it's hot....
<< <i>
<< <i>
Did your attorney move to dismiss the case, since you had no duty to the wife? I'm shocked that such a POS case could survive long enough to reach a jury. >>
The wife, who I never saw before in my life, claimed that on a specific day she came into my store and TOLD me not to release any coins he had on layaway. Since we had videotapes showing that she was not in the store that day..or plus or minus 45 days of her claimed date ($2000 in fees to have 90 days worth of videotapes scanned for facial recognition) our attorney figured we could prove it was false and get back our already substantial legal and investigatives costs by countersuing, and that she wlould not perjure herself on the witness stand. Well we get to trail she gets on the stand and then says "Oh, I made a mistake, I told Mr. Provasek that when I saw him in line at the post office..it wasn't at the coin store after all....but he PROMISED me that there was nothing that my husband had on layaway...he LIED (sob,sob) and then callled my husband to come get it (sob sob) knowing that he was CONSPIRING TO HIDE ASSETS (sob sob) and my CHILDREN had to go without....
The jury was 5 women and one man...they voted 5 to 6 that we were negligent...guess I don't have to tell you the only vote in our favor was from the man....
Still makes me mad...I am pounding my kkeyboard really hard right now.... >>
On layaway is like depositing money in a bank. That would be like the wife going into a bank and saying to the teller, "my husband and I are getting a divorce, don't allow him to withdraw any money". No bueno, you need a court order to make that effective. He can drain the account, and the bank has no liability.
Did you appeal?
Did you fire your attorney?
There seems to be alot of stuff in there that makes no sense...
<< <i>
<< <i>Casman: You are correct. Today everyone needs to be coddled from cradle to grave. We need to wear a helmet when getting on a bicycle. If our children are acting like children in school they need to be drugged. Our food cannot be too hot or cold and soon, not too fat or caloric. Cigarettes must have a warning on them half the size of the package. Our doctors need to do an extra 10 tests on us just in case. We need food stamps and social security and universal heath care and free daycare and unemploynet benefits and family leave and OSHA and free college and government guaranteed mortgages.
I grew up in a different era and am a bit slow in understanding our current needs. I am sorry. >>
Whatever..., go make some coffee and don't spill it, it's hot.... >>
Your arrogance is nauseating!
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.
After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.>>
<
I grew up in a different era and am a bit slow in understanding our current needs. I am sorry.
Casman: You are correct. Today everyone needs to be coddled from cradle to grave. We need to wear a helmet when getting on a bicycle. If our children are acting like children in school they need to be drugged. Our food cannot be too hot or cold and soon, not too fat or caloric. Cigarettes must have a warning on them half the size of the package. Our doctors need to do an extra 10 tests on us just in case. We need food stamps and social security and universal heath care and free daycare and unemploynet benefits and family leave and OSHA and free college and government guaranteed mortgages.
Whatever..., go make some coffee and don't spill it, it's hot....
Your arrogance is nauseating! >>
How does any of the highlighted have to do with being burned because of ignorance?
<< <i>
Did you appeal?
Did you fire your attorney?
There seems to be alot of stuff in there that makes no sense... >>
The appeal would have cost more than paying the $6000 judgement.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Did your attorney move to dismiss the case, since you had no duty to the wife? I'm shocked that such a POS case could survive long enough to reach a jury. >>
The wife, who I never saw before in my life, claimed that on a specific day she came into my store and TOLD me not to release any coins he had on layaway. Since we had videotapes showing that she was not in the store that day..or plus or minus 45 days of her claimed date ($2000 in fees to have 90 days worth of videotapes scanned for facial recognition) our attorney figured we could prove it was false and get back our already substantial legal and investigatives costs by countersuing, and that she wlould not perjure herself on the witness stand. Well we get to trail she gets on the stand and then says "Oh, I made a mistake, I told Mr. Provasek that when I saw him in line at the post office..it wasn't at the coin store after all....but he PROMISED me that there was nothing that my husband had on layaway...he LIED (sob,sob) and then callled my husband to come get it (sob sob) knowing that he was CONSPIRING TO HIDE ASSETS (sob sob) and my CHILDREN had to go without....
The jury was 5 women and one man...they voted 5 to 6 that we were negligent...guess I don't have to tell you the only vote in our favor was from the man....
Still makes me mad...I am pounding my kkeyboard really hard right now.... >>
And you wonder why people go cuckoo...........
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Casman: You are correct. Today everyone needs to be coddled from cradle to grave. We need to wear a helmet when getting on a bicycle. If our children are acting like children in school they need to be drugged. Our food cannot be too hot or cold and soon, not too fat or caloric. Cigarettes must have a warning on them half the size of the package. Our doctors need to do an extra 10 tests on us just in case. We need food stamps and social security and universal heath care and free daycare and unemploynet benefits and family leave and OSHA and free college and government guaranteed mortgages.
I grew up in a different era and am a bit slow in understanding our current needs. I am sorry. >>
Whatever..., go make some coffee and don't spill it, it's hot.... >>
Your arrogance is nauseating! >>
Oh, Ya, Well your ignorance is profound? I suppose you believe in UFO's too, Why? Because you read it somewhere....follow the crowd...Making statements while knowing nothing about the facts is nauseating, regardless of how old you are or what era you're from.