Lets take up a collection for MacNN & AI user's legal costs
Well, it seems a few MacNN and AI forum members are going to court. I don't know how well this was ever discussed over here, but basically when this thread, <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=003678;p=1"; target="_blank">Could be HOT DEAL on Apple computers Ti 667 for ~$1800</a> started over at MacNN's PowerBook forum late last year, people got all up in arms over JC Morris & Co. selling these Macs (PowerBooks mostly) at ridiculously low prices, and not coming through with the goods.
Well, Mr. Morris has decided to sue everyone there for libel. There's a list of defendants <a href="http://www.jcmorris.com/legal.htm"; target="_blank">here</a>. I recognize a dozen or so people off that list.
Read the last little bit of the main thread, and you'll see that these guys have had TONS of complaints made against them through the BBB, had complaints of fraud laid against them with various agencies, etc.
There was this little bit about them on Auctionbytes last month:
eBay PowerSeller Charged with Grand Larceny, Begins Making Restitution
By David Steiner - June 21, 2002
A New York City man, charged with one count of 2nd degree Grand Larceny and one count of 1st degree Scheme to Defraud, has reportedly begun sending refunds to buyers. Neil Bansal, aged 24, was arrested in his home on May 13th after 32 complaints, totaling more than $50,000, were lodged against him by customers who claimed they purchased Sony Vaio Laptops, Pioneer Plasma televisions and Bose Speakers from him on eBay between November 2001 and March 2002.
Victor Montanez, who purchased a Bose DVD-based home entertainment system from Bansal on eBay in February, told AuctionBytes that he received a check a week ago in the amount of $1844.99 that was sent by the New York DA's office and drawn on an account of Bansal's parents. Montanez said he has been in touch with other users who also report receiving refunds.
Bansal allegedly sold on eBay under the name shakes955, an ID that was registered on eBay on August 1998. Victor Montanez said he did his homework before bidding on Bansal's auction. "Shakes955" had 188 feedbacks and was an eBay PowerSeller. "I reviewed the feedback, and he seemed like a reputable dealer," Montanez said.
David Gordon, Bansal's attorney, maintains that his client is not guilty of the charges and has reimbursed most, if not all of the customers. "We're confident that when all the facts come out, it will be shown that Neil was the victim here and he did not attempt to defraud anybody."
Bansal bought his merchandise through J.C.Morris & Co in Atlanta, according to Gordon. Gordon said his records will prove that Bansal had ordered all of the items from J.C.Morris & Co. and has proof that his client had sent money to the distributor. "He [Bansal] paid the company for Sony laptops, Palmtops and Bose Sound systems," said Gordon. "Everything was fine until J.C.Morris stopped making deliveries." Gordon said his client had filed a complaint against J.C. Morris & Co. with the FBI, FTC and the Better Business Bureau of Atlanta on April 24.
A notice on the J.C. Morris & Co. Web site last month (http://www.jcmorris.com) stated that the company would be filing for bankruptcy on May 29th. The page has been updated to state that J.C. Morris will be reopening June 24th, 2002.
"I'm certainly delighted at receiving the refund," said Montanez. "However, I think that facts that come out at Bansal's trial will speak for themselves. The justice system will determine whether it was intentional deception on his part or not."
Silly boy counted on getting those products to re-sell them, and got burned it looks like. He's also on the list of defendants. These are the same guys that called me at my home and threatened me a while back...
Discuss.
[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]
[ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
Well, Mr. Morris has decided to sue everyone there for libel. There's a list of defendants <a href="http://www.jcmorris.com/legal.htm"; target="_blank">here</a>. I recognize a dozen or so people off that list.
Read the last little bit of the main thread, and you'll see that these guys have had TONS of complaints made against them through the BBB, had complaints of fraud laid against them with various agencies, etc.
There was this little bit about them on Auctionbytes last month:
eBay PowerSeller Charged with Grand Larceny, Begins Making Restitution
By David Steiner - June 21, 2002
A New York City man, charged with one count of 2nd degree Grand Larceny and one count of 1st degree Scheme to Defraud, has reportedly begun sending refunds to buyers. Neil Bansal, aged 24, was arrested in his home on May 13th after 32 complaints, totaling more than $50,000, were lodged against him by customers who claimed they purchased Sony Vaio Laptops, Pioneer Plasma televisions and Bose Speakers from him on eBay between November 2001 and March 2002.
Victor Montanez, who purchased a Bose DVD-based home entertainment system from Bansal on eBay in February, told AuctionBytes that he received a check a week ago in the amount of $1844.99 that was sent by the New York DA's office and drawn on an account of Bansal's parents. Montanez said he has been in touch with other users who also report receiving refunds.
Bansal allegedly sold on eBay under the name shakes955, an ID that was registered on eBay on August 1998. Victor Montanez said he did his homework before bidding on Bansal's auction. "Shakes955" had 188 feedbacks and was an eBay PowerSeller. "I reviewed the feedback, and he seemed like a reputable dealer," Montanez said.
David Gordon, Bansal's attorney, maintains that his client is not guilty of the charges and has reimbursed most, if not all of the customers. "We're confident that when all the facts come out, it will be shown that Neil was the victim here and he did not attempt to defraud anybody."
Bansal bought his merchandise through J.C.Morris & Co in Atlanta, according to Gordon. Gordon said his records will prove that Bansal had ordered all of the items from J.C.Morris & Co. and has proof that his client had sent money to the distributor. "He [Bansal] paid the company for Sony laptops, Palmtops and Bose Sound systems," said Gordon. "Everything was fine until J.C.Morris stopped making deliveries." Gordon said his client had filed a complaint against J.C. Morris & Co. with the FBI, FTC and the Better Business Bureau of Atlanta on April 24.
A notice on the J.C. Morris & Co. Web site last month (http://www.jcmorris.com) stated that the company would be filing for bankruptcy on May 29th. The page has been updated to state that J.C. Morris will be reopening June 24th, 2002.
"I'm certainly delighted at receiving the refund," said Montanez. "However, I think that facts that come out at Bansal's trial will speak for themselves. The justice system will determine whether it was intentional deception on his part or not."
Silly boy counted on getting those products to re-sell them, and got burned it looks like. He's also on the list of defendants. These are the same guys that called me at my home and threatened me a while back...
Discuss.
[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]
[ 07-14-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
Comments
That site makes it look like we contacted JCM and harassed them or something. "Please contact our lawyers?" Please, gimme a break.
I'm serious about the counter-suit though. You can't just bandie about "legal action" when people don't like you or what you stand for. If anything the reports on the net and from eBay are highly skeptical of entering into arrangements such as those offered by JCM.
MacNN should run a front page story and get the rest of the press involved. You're damned right I'd throw some money at MacNN/AI and their respective communities for some sort of legal action -- I can't stand legal bullying.
[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
I checked these guys' racket out a while back and smelled a rat. Too bad so many people got burned, and now these losers are suing posters at some discussion board?
It's a good reason to stick to hotmail addys and anonymous browsing....but then what you say carries much less weight. Well I'd send some money to a defense fund, I don't have much but $5 would be better than nothing.
Being sued for participating in a messageboard discussion....pu-leeeeze.
"Check back soon"
Right now it says "Please Check Back Shorty".
Spell checker must be down.
Seriously, people need to know about bad performance by a company. Consumer Reports (admittedly a big company) doesn't shy away from pointing out shoddy products, and sellers on eBay can leave bad marks against a bad seller/buyer.
Unless personal comments were issued in that messageboard I'd say that this was an easily defendable case.
Considering he was allegedly scamming people out of their money, what is he going to say? "Their comments made less people send money to me so I didn't scam as many people as I wanted to."
Warnings to a BB about a bad seller isn't slander, it's a public service announcement!
<strong>Funny part is the posting of those internet screennames lol</strong><hr></blockquote>
I thought the same thing when I originally saw it <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
, ANOTHERVICTIM, ..."
Now THAT would be funny.
Several years ago, I began the formation of several companies based in the United States that provided specific products or services. These products and services ranged from the distribution of durable medical equipment to web based Internet advertising and marketing.
This unique corporate structure permitted our customers the opportunity to purchase a limited number of products, often below cost, with the pre-disclosed agreement that upon acceptance they would receive solicitations from our company in the near future, promoting other products and services. Our unique marketing concept was developed to build a more successful and profitable customer base, while minimizing the traditional costs associated with television and print media advertising and marketing used by Fortune 500 companies to attract a diversity of international customers.
In order to achieve these goals, the employees were often centralized in one administrative location, sharing a wide range of administrative responsibilities. This also allowed employees to learn additional skills at an accelerated pace which was very cost effective.
Throughout the late 1990s, venture capitalists and banks poured money into companies old and new, as the Internet boom seemed to be gaining momentum and the future looked bright. However, in late 2000, the painful reality set in with the crash of the Internet economy. Funding dried up, and companies began going out of business in droves. My companies were also affected. However, we were diverse enough to attempt to focus on different sectors of the market and make a solid effort to prevent bankruptcy. We felt we had a higher rate of success since our employees had been cross-trained and we had other companies which we felt could be quickly explored and expanded upon.
The only scrutiny my companies ever received was by the North Carolina Attorney General?s Office a few years ago. I personally met with the AG and agreed to modify any policies at their recommendation or any other local, state, or federal regulatory agency. However, to date, no such recommendation or demand has been made, nor civil or criminal action taken.
Nonetheless, I did cut expenditures to a minimum and personally accepted responsibility for our company?s failure. I did not seek the protection of the bankruptcy court as recommended by some. I have not hid behind the Fifth Amendment, nor have anyone within my employment past or present. We have been open about our shortcomings, have cooperated, and will continue to cooperate, with local, state, federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies. I am not perfect, nor without faults, or mistakes in my past.
For the past several weeks, J.C. Morris & Company, our employees, associates, friends, and loved ones, including myself have refrained from making a public statement regarding J.C. Morris & Company and other misleading facts, which have been publicized.
Despite the efforts of certain individuals such as John Glass, Arthur Lum, Andrea Soong, Cerelia Abram, Benjamin Milliron, Shawn Maricle and Shaun Powell who have chosen to publish defamatory allegations regarding our company or make slanderous statement(s) to others, we do intend to exercise our right to challenge your actions as you have elected to do.
J.C. Morris & Company is not in a race to the courthouse in an effort to accommodate a few individuals who have repeatedly made accusations that our company has no intentions of filing bankruptcy or a federal lawsuit. On the contrary, J.C. Morris & Company has almost finalized our complaint, which is approximately 1,625 pages, including exhibits.
Our complaint outlines the legal structure and ownership of our companies, including our bylaws and minutes that formulate our operations and methodology. Our complaint also includes overwhelming and undisputable evidence J.C. Morris & Company has shipped hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of products within the last several months alone to customers around the world, as well as supporting data that we have made charitable contributions, which also includes providing free products to those less fortunate.
We fully support a person's constitutional right to free speech; however, there is a difference between constitutionally constructed free speech and defamation. Our Constitution does not guarantee or offer immunity to publish or utter untrue statements or comments, which are not true. Our Constitution protects us with the defense of truth. However, one must remember there are always two sides to every story, and when one?s actions are not supported by the whole truth, which were designed to cause harm, they can be held accountable.
A named defendant proposed a question to the public, because he questions why he has been named a defendant in our upcoming federal litigation. Therefore, we will respond as to our position in the matter. It is true that the named defendant placed an order in good faith with our company and in fact, the named defendant paid our company in good faith. It is also a fact that the named defendant has not received a product or refund to date that I am personally aware of at this time. We fully support the named defendant?s right to file a formal complaint against our company or anyone within, or take legal action, which is his constitutional right; the named defendant can also make a public statement regarding his opinion as to what may have occurred. However, in our opinion, where the named defendant crossed the line is he has tainted his opinion with innuendo and statements that a crime has been committed which is not supported by fact or material evidence, and that these statements where published to third parties as well as spoken to others. We are within our right to challenge the named defendant?s publications and uttered words in the court of law and he will be provided the opportunity to present his defense of the truth. The named defendant is not required to be represented by counsel and he may act on his own behalf. However, he will be required to answer our complaint as well as the other named Defendants will be required to do so as well.
The Internet is a breading group, in which individuals and companies can be attacked by their critics, who are afforded the opportunity often free of charge and make statements against those they dislike or feel they have been wronged by. However, when their options can be easily interpreted as fact, which is filled with innuendoes or criminal wronging they can also be held accountable, as well as the companies who allow such publication to be viewed by third parties, unless they are an Internet provider or information service provider.
Traditional news organizations such as The Asheville Citizen-Times, Washington Post and the BBS take precautions in validating facts prior to publication which they can be held accountable for, should the information turn out to be misleading or false. In general, most reporters, such as Paul Clark, take an unbiased approach in investigating all facts regarding whether an article may be more favorable to one side versus the other. This is true journalism.
J.C. Morris & Company will continue to cooperate with local, state, federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies and will do what is right for our customers who have not been party to the attack on our companies. We are making every effort to have both filings completed this week and we will continue to update our customers via our website.
We must also apologize to our customers for not addressing certain facts earlier, but we did not wish to compromise our own internal investigation, which has been underway for the past fourteen months and conducted in large by outside private investigative firms regarding the possibility of corporate sabotage, outlined in our federal complaint.
Finally, due to the controversy at hand, in the best interest of our customers and the public, I will voluntarily step down as CEO effective July 24, 2002 and allow new supervision to be temporarily appointed.
We would like to thank our customers who have been patient over the last few months and hope you will continue to do business with us in the future.
Sincerely,
Todd Short
<hr></blockquote>
From his site: <a href="http://www.jcmorris.com/news.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.jcmorris.com/news.htm</a>;
Didn't their web site, for the past month or so, say that they were filing Chapter 11?
Taken from <a href="http://www.jcmorris.com/contact.htm"; target="_blank">here</a>.
So they're not filing for bankruptcy, BUT, you may get notice that you are a creditor on their bankruptcy petition.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
As far as I know, if I give business "A" money for a product, and business "A" does not deliver, that is fraud. Which, last time I checked, was a crime.
<strong>"It is true that the named defendant placed an order in good faith with our company and in fact, the named defendant paid our company in good faith. It is also a fact that the named defendant has not received a product or refund to date that I am personally aware of at this time.[/b] We fully support the named defendant’s right to file a formal complaint against our company or anyone within, or take legal action, which is his constitutional right; the named defendant can also make a public statement regarding his opinion as to what may have occurred. However, in our opinion, where the named defendant crossed the line is he has tainted his opinion with innuendo and statements that a crime has been committed which is not supported by fact or material evidence"
As far as I know, if I give business "A" money for a product, and business "A" does not deliver, that is fraud. Which, last time I checked, was a crime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They can put your name on there too dude.
Anyway, having not read the threads at MacNN, I feel certain that you all are safe and sound. It don't suppose it will get summary judgment (it might not even get there).
libel/defamation is VERY hard to prove even when it doesn't involve a public figure. We see cases all the time get kicked out of court instantly of this very nature.
Hire a good attorney and you'll be out of there in no time.
Thoth, esq.
BTW: if he's in bankruptcy, I think the lawsuit is controlled by the trustee (who is usually court appointed) so you could just petition the trustee to drop the suit as a waste of the limited resources of the bankrupt. I'm an attorney, but not a bankruptcy expert.