Breaking news!! Singer drops his escrow demand!

so far, the number of posts in this thread

slapinfunk..... 9

alanleroy...... 23

moneyla...... too many to count
Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
so far, the number of posts in this thread

slapinfunk..... 9

alanleroy...... 23

moneyla...... too many to count

Right...But I'm not the one suggesting LVA ban all Singer Talk. So is this considered actual participation or are you still defending your reputation?

Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA Marcus: No one commits a crime by promoting a system for legal gambling. Even a system that you consider to be worthless is not a criminal enterprise.
My, God, you are an idiot. You should just wear a sign that says "I won't let the facts get in the way of my opinions." My entire point is that you are getting involved in a game YOU CANNOT WIN. Kneeland and "Dancer" have the GOOD SENSE to not get involved.

Here is a discussion of the relevant crime, from
https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/scheme-or-artifice-to-defraud/

"A scheme or artifice to defraud is not capable of precise definition, but generally is a plan or trick to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services or obtain, by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money or property from someone. It is the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching. The concept of 'fraud' includes the act of embezzlement, which is the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's own care by another. A ‘scheme to defraud’ connotes some form of planning or pattern.

In the context of mail fraud, a "scheme or artifice to defraud," as used in the forner mail fraud statute, was "limited in scope to the protection of property rights" and the courts found the statute did not prohibit schemes to deprive people of the intangible right to good government and honest services. In response, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 (1994), which states that "[f]or the purposes of this chapter, the term`scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."


And now it's time for Slapinfunk to chime in about something off topic and completely irrelevant:

Quote

Originally posted by: mrmarcus12LVA
Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA Marcus: No one commits a crime by promoting a system for legal gambling. Even a system that you consider to be worthless is not a criminal enterprise.


My, God, you are an idiot. You should just wear a sign that says "I won't let the facts get in the way of my opinions." My entire point is that you are getting involved in a game you can't win.

Here is a discussion of the relevant crime, from
https://definitions.uslegal.com/s/scheme-or-artifice-to-defraud/
"A scheme or artifice to defraud is not capable of precise definition, but generally is a plan or trick to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services or obtain, by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money or property from someone. It is the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching. The concept of 'fraud' includes the act of embezzlement, which is the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's own care by another. A ‘scheme to defraud’ connotes some form of planning or pattern.

In the context of mail fraud, a "scheme or artifice to defraud," as used in the forner mail fraud statute, was "limited in scope to the protection of property rights" and the courts found the statute did not prohibit schemes to deprive people of the intangible right to good government and honest services. In response, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. Section 1346 (1994), which states that "[f]or the purposes of this chapter, the term`scheme or artifice to defraud' includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."


And now it's time for Slapinfunk to chime in about something off topic and completely irrelevant:


Singer's book

Better alert Amazon to this fraud. LOL.

What Amazon is doing is OBVIOUSLY NOT fraud and is protected by the Constitution. OK??? Now, can we return from another diversion into the irrelevant?
Quote

Originally posted by: mrmarcus12LVA
What Amazon is doing is OBVIOUSLY NOT fraud and is protected by the Constitution. OK??? Now, can we return from another diversion into the irrelevant?


Money has done nothing wrong, he has not endorsed Singer's product as a "best value". He has done nothing but investigate objectively. Either get over it, or I suggest you purchase Singer's system, lose some money, and then try to sue MoneyLA. Good luck with that.
Quote

Originally posted by: mrmarcus12LVA
What Amazon is doing is OBVIOUSLY NOT fraud and is protected by the Constitution. OK??? Now, can we return from another diversion into the irrelevant?


You make no sense. Why is Amazon making money off Singer's book ok but Money reporting about Singer is some sort of problem. As you say, use some logic.
Quote

Originally posted by: FrankieRizzo


There shouldn't be any need to call anyone who plays differently an addict, or insult their wives, or threaten their jobs.









If you kiss his ass, then its ok to kill your, sickly girl friend off slowly, by taking her to the Silverton casino every other month for weeks at a time despite all of her health issues. Health so bad that she didn't even want to come out of the room for the majority of the trip




--Rizzo


I guess girlfriends don't count, do they Frankie? Your avatar fits you well.
Originally posted by: mrmarcus12LVA
What Amazon is doing is OBVIOUSLY NOT fraud and is protected by the Constitution. OK??? Now, can we return from another diversion into the irrelevant?

My question to marcus: Why isn't what I am doing protected by the Constitution?? (Hint: it is.)

And marcus, please look at the definition of law that you posted above: How am I trying to get your money? I don't even charge for anyone to look at my website. (That also means I don't have a "paid side." LOL) And I don't see Singer escorting you to your ATM suggesting that if you withdraw a thousand dollars and pay him $500 of it, he will take you to a VP machine and will turn your remaining $500 into ten thousand.
Quote

Originally posted by: MoneyLA
Originally posted by: mrmarcus12LVA
What Amazon is doing is OBVIOUSLY NOT fraud and is protected by the Constitution. OK??? Now, can we return from another diversion into the irrelevant?

My question to marcus: Why isn't what I am doing protected by the Constitution?? (Hint: it is.)

And marcus, please look at the definition of law that you posted above: How am I trying to get your money? I don't even charge for anyone to look at my website. (That also means I don't have a "paid side." LOL) And I don't see Singer escorting you to your ATM suggesting that if you withdraw a thousand dollars and pay him $500 of it, he will take you to a VP machine and will turn your remaining $500 into ten thousand.


Good points MoneyLA, keep doing what you are doing. You bring interest and spirited debate to this forum.
Without your threads and posts this would be just another bland white bread forum.
I for one, salute you Sir.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now