Topics

$7 fig trees for spring/summer delivery, around 150+ varieties

Quote:
Originally Posted by nunuorig
I urge you all to file a report and stop this madness: https://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx File a complaint online at this web address. At minimum you should have: Victim's name, address, telephone, and email Financial transaction information (e.g., receipt from paypal, account information, transaction date and amount, who received the money) Subject's name, address, telephone, email, website, and IP address (Address above) Specific details on how you were victimized Email header(s) Any other relevant information you believe is necessary to support your complaint It would also be helpful to have: 1. any logs or emails of communication attempts with James 2. Timelines in which events have occurred 3. The main website you used to make the purchase When legitimate complaints get filed, I'm told they will be then reviewed to determine if the local Sheriff's office will investigate, or the FBI will directly investigate. I urge you to file a complaint yourself directly. https://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx


Seems like you would like other people to take the risk of being prosecuted for filing false claims. You don't just give information to support your claim, you give all important information. For example, say someone files a report that they were hit in the head with a rock by another person, but they leave out that the rock was thrown by a lawnmower. In this case the person filing a false claim would be arrested and charged, and the case would be airtight. The authorities take this type of thing seriously, if you actually did file a claim I hope when they show up and see all of those fig trees you get some federal charges of your own.
Quote

If you file a claim in bad faith like the lawnmower example that is wrong. If you file a claim in good faith that you bought something and it never arrived that is not a problem. There is no comparison between the two. If someone files a claim that they paid thousands for a product years ago that was never delivered and no refund was given that is a perfectly legal claim. If James happens to issue a refund that doesn't change the validity of the initial claim.

Quote

OK next time an order from Amazon is late, I will call the FBI.  Sound right?
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosierbanana
OK next time an order from Amazon is late, I will call the FBI.  Sound right?


How do you compare a late order from an established company that communicates with customers to this shop, a person who is a year + late on numerous orders, that does not communicate with a plethora of clients that reach out to him??

And keep in mind, not everyone saw this forum first. I saw his website and bought directly from there, not knowing this was a "favor" to people in this forum.
Quote

Go ahead and include that third party, unsubstantiated information in your report, see how that goes. "Some people on the internet said" Ha!
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosierbanana
Go ahead and include that third party, unsubstantiated information in your report, see how that goes. "Some people on the internet said" Ha!


Uhh... okay. If multiple people file reports, the investigator talks with those people, and it becomes substantiated... they bought products from a seller, the seller doesn't deliver, and the seller doesn't return calls or emails.

Folks, don't just complain here. File a report with cybercrimes:
https://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx
Quote

Oh, I see, you want your claim to be made more credible by multiple reports. Well I really just wanted to warn people that they could be opening themselves up to charges by telling a one sided story, or a reporting a false narrative after reading many, many accusations here, since you are recruiting people and all.
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosierbanana
Oh, I see, you want your claim to be made more credible by multiple reports. Well I really just wanted to warn people that they could be opening themselves up to charges by telling a one sided story, or a reporting a false narrative after reading many, many accusations here, since you are recruiting people and all.


Dude, be honest, do you really believe what you write? When anyone files a complaint aren't they always telling their side of the story??? You sound like a shmuck.
Quote

You betray yourself.

one-sid·ed
ˈwən ˈˌsīdid/
adjective
 
  1. unfairly giving or dealing with only one side of a contentious issue or question; biased or partial.
    "the press was accused of being one-sided, of not giving a balanced picture"
Quote

Seems we have a closet lawyer here......chew on this, the false report charge has a burden of proof of "malicious intent". File your complaints folks. Do not be intimidated by this silliness that you will get into trouble for asking for legal help.  
Quote

You could provide some evidence to support your claim. But you didn't, why?

From the IC3 website:

Quote:
The information I've provided on this form is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that providing false information could make me subject to fine, imprisonment, or both. (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001)


This thread has plenty of false information. And people certainly do have malicious intent.
Quote

Malicious indeed! What happened to helping each other succeed? We used to help each other build barns so their farms could be more productive.

Our modern life has given us some great things...but it hasn't made us better people. So much for evolution. More like de-evolution. Not to mention sad.

Quote

Let me take some time attempt to clear up some misunderstandings of legal complaints.

Every citizen has the right to file a complaint without fear of intimidation or retaliation. That is one of your many civil rights. A complaint is not an accusation someone broke the law, you as the complainant are not required to have legal knowledge or be a Lawyer to file a complaint. 
 
When you file a complaint you are saying to the "best of your knowledge" because a complaint has to be sworn to for legal reasons. 
 
It is not the job of the complainant to investigate or prove the party is guilty of anything, that would be the Police or Sheriff. Legal proof is in the hands of the cops and DA, not the complainant. 

If the law enforcement investigators decide a law may have been broken, as in this case, they can and will in this state give him 30 days to make good on his debts and a court appearance to prove he has complied.

If he does not make good on his agreement to make good on the debts or fails to appear in court a bench warrant will be issued for his arrest. Formal charges on the crime will then be filed by the DA. Not the complainant nor the cops, the DA.....who is a Lawyer.
 
Most importantly, all states and the fed laws protect a complainant from retaliation if the complaint is not proven.

Filing a single complaint would probably never be considered malicious in any court. Nor is encouraging others to file complaints considered malicious without proving malicious intent. In other words prove you did this to harm the person, demanding a refund in NOT harming him. 

I have ordered nothing from him. I have no dog in this hunt other than curiosity as to why you are trying so hard to protect him by trying to intimidate the the ones with a complaint into not filing it. Seems very extraordinary to me.

No, I am not a Lawyer. But I have filed legal complaints as high as one rape and too many others to be counted in my duties. After that they get a Lawyer.

So stop with this silliness........why would you want people that have been ripped off to NOT complain about it? We all pay taxes for law enforcement, and you do not want people to use them? What is your dog in this hunt? 
Quote

@JMRTSUS POST #1239

GREAT POST!!!
Very well stated!, No name calling, no names, a very well stated legal(maybe quasi-legal) presentation.

THIS MAY BE THE BEST POST OF ALL 1239 POSTS!

Lets see how long it takes someone to try to attack it.

THANK YOU FOR THE ISLAND OF SANITY IN A SEA OF SOMETHING ELSE!
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMRTSUS
Let me take some time attempt to clear up some misunderstandings of legal complaints.

Every citizen has the right to file a complaint without fear of intimidation or retaliation. That is one of your many civil rights. A complaint is not an accusation someone broke the law, you as the complainant are not required to have legal knowledge or be a Lawyer to file a complaint. 
 
When you file a complaint you are saying to the "best of your knowledge" because a complaint has to be sworn to for legal reasons. 
 
It is not the job of the complainant to investigate or prove the party is guilty of anything, that would be the Police or Sheriff. Legal proof is in the hands of the cops and DA, not the complainant. 

If the law enforcement investigators decide a law may have been broken, as in this case, they can and will in this state give him 30 days to make good on his debts and a court appearance to prove he has complied.

If he does not make good on his agreement to make good on the debts or fails to appear in court a bench warrant will be issued for his arrest. Formal charges on the crime will then be filed by the DA. Not the complainant nor the cops, the DA.....who is a Lawyer.
 
Most importantly, all states and the fed laws protect a complainant from retaliation if the complaint is not proven.

Filing a single complaint would probably never be considered malicious in any court. Nor is encouraging others to file complaints considered malicious without proving malicious intent. In other words prove you did this to harm the person, demanding a refund in NOT harming him. 

I have ordered nothing from him. I have no dog in this hunt other than curiosity as to why you are trying so hard to protect him by trying to intimidate the the ones with a complaint into not filing it. Seems very extraordinary to me.

No, I am not a Lawyer. But I have filed legal complaints as high as one rape and too many others to be counted in my duties. After that they get a Lawyer.

So stop with this silliness........why would you want people that have been ripped off to NOT complain about it? We all pay taxes for law enforcement, and you do not want people to use them? What is your dog in this hunt? 




AMEN!! Very well said. Thank you for bringing logic and common sense back into the forum!
Quote

OK, I'll just post the applicable law here and everyone can decide for themselves if nunorig would be in trouble for misrepresenting his alleged telephone altercation with James or omitting it from his complaint. And you can see if JMRTSUS has successfully comprehended the applicable law stated by the FBI. 

Quote:
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)
falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2)
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3)
makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b)
Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c)With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1)
administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2)
any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosierbanana
OK, I'll just post the applicable law here and everyone can decide for themselves if nunorig would be in trouble for misrepresenting his alleged telephone altercation with James or omitting it from his complaint. And you can see if JMRTSUS has successfully comprehended the applicable law stated by the FBI. 





It's not the applicable law. You just omitted a lot of it. That law it's related to Congress. Here's the complete version. It doesn't apply in this case.
It's very long, but I want to post the original version, without omitting anything.


U.S. Attorneys » Resources » U.S. Attorneys' Manual » Criminal Resource Manual » CRM 500-999 » Criminal Resource Manual 901-999
902. 1996 Amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 1001

The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 (FSAA), Pub. L. No. 104-292, H.R. 3166 (October 11, 1996), made several changes that affect the work of United States Attorneys' Offices, including revisions to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1505, 6005, and 28 U.S.C. 1365. This section describes the changes to section 1001.

Section 2 of the FSAA revises section 1001 of title 18, United States Code. The new 18 U.S.C. § 1001, effective October 11, 1996, reads as follows:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully --

falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only in --

administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or

any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

The new section 1001 contains several important features. First, section 2 of the FSAA restores the Department's ability to prosecute false statements made to the judicial and legislative branches. In 1995, the Supreme Court reversed long-settled precedent in Hubbard v. United States, 115 S.Ct. 1754 (1995), and held that a court is neither a "department" nor an "agency" under § 1001. Although the Court's opinion left open the possibility that a judicial or legislative entity might still be considered an "agency" under section 1001, several courts interpreted Hubbard broadly to mean that section 1001 applies only to false statements made to the executive branch. See, e.g., United States v. Dean, 55 F.3d 640 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1288 (1996); United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1301 (D.C. Cir. 1995). As of March 1997, there was pending in the District of Columbia Circuit an interlocutory appeal concerning whether the old version of section 1001, even after Hubbard, still applies to financial disclosure statements that Members of Congress filed, pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act, with the Clerk of the House of Representatives before October 11, 1996. See United States v. Oakar, No. 96-3084 (D.C. Cir.). Prosecutors therefore should not concede, in any pleadings or arguments presented in federal courts, that the old section 1001 does not apply to such statements, at least until the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decides this case.

The new statute effectively overrules Hubbard, and expressly provides that section 1001 covers false statements that are made to all three branches of the federal government, without regard to whether the entity may be categorized as a "department" or "agency."

By including certain statutory terms (e.g., "jurisdiction" and "statement") from the former section 1001 without change, Congress intended that those terms, as reenacted, continue to carry with them the body of existing judicial constructions of those terms. For example, with respect to statements made within the jurisdiction of the executive branch, prosecutors should continue to consider all statements -- whether oral or written, and whether sworn or unsworn -- as being within the scope of the new section 1001. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 (July 16, 1996) at 8 ("Other than establishing materiality as an element of all three offenses, the Committee does not view the offenses defined in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as changing already existing case law as it relates to the elements of the offenses.")(There was no Senate report concerning the Act, and the House report covers only the changes that the Act made to section 1001).

Section 2 of the FSAA, however, contains certain limitations concerning statements within the jurisdiction of the judicial and legislative branches. Subsection 2(b) of the FSAA provides that statements made to a judge or magistrate by parties or their counsel in a judicial proceeding will not be subject to prosecution under section 1001. Section 2 of the FSAA thus codifies a limited version of the "judicial function exception," which was created by the courts under the old section 1001 to avoid the chilling of advocacy that might occur if attorneys and parties were subject to prosecution for concealing facts from a court or jury. Under the codified version of the judicial function exception, parties or their counsel may be prosecuted for false submissions to other entities within the judicial branch, such as the probation office. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 at 9. Non-parties may be prosecuted for any false submission within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.

In subsection (c) of amended § 1001, Congress created a "legislative function exception." Under the new provision, false statements within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch are subject to prosecution only if they relate to administrative matters or congressional investigations conducted consistent with the applicable congressional rules. Amended § 1001 will thus reach those documents that have most often been the subject of congressional false statement prosecutions, such as vouchers, payroll documents, and Ethics in Government Act (EIGA) financial disclosure forms. The exception was intended to protect, among other things, the free flow of constituent submissions to Congress. See H.R. Rep. No. 104-680 at 4-5.

Amended § 1001 also expressly includes materiality as an element under each of the three clauses in subsection (a). This resolves a conflict among the courts on that issue. See, e.g., United States v. Corsino, 812 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Elkin, 731 F.2d 1005 (2d Cir. 1984).

Quote

It applies to people making criminal complaints through IP3, like they legally warn you before you make the complaint. Cornell didn't include the update, I didn't omit anything https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
Quote

Here is the link other link for you, shouldn't be any argument here. 
https://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx
Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosierbanana
It applies to people making criminal complaints through IP3, like they legally warn you before you make the complaint. Cornell didn't include the update, I didn't omit anything https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001


Then read the one with the update. It doesn't apply to this case. It's for the three main branches of government.
Quote

Excuse me, sir, click on the second link and read what it says. Are you saying the FBI is making a hollow threat?
Quote
  • Avatar / Picture
  • Lewi
  • · Edited

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosierbanana
You could provide some evidence to support your claim. But you didn't, why?

From the IC3 website:



This thread has plenty of false information. And people certainly do have malicious intent.


You accuse people of lying, yet you defend a man who has not delivered products ordered.

We are supposed to work on the Honor system here. Where is the honor in taking large orders, not delivering them, and then taking even more and possibily larger orders? We know figcuttings (dot) com Is Right Now Taking orders for fall of 2017...

SO we have people (many new) who claim to have ordered in excess of Four Thousand USD....and of course no delivery.

So who am I too believe? A grown "man" with a broken pinkey toe, who thinks 45 little trees will make 1500 trees, has not delivered to customers since the spring of 2016; or do I believe in strangers who claimed to be ripped of by THE SAME INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT DELIVERED MY ORDER.

Just now I put an Emerald Strawberry ( one of my figs still to be delivered) in a shopping cart for "fall 2017" delivery...

9 bucks was the price for fall 2017 delivery...alarm bells should have gone off in late 2015, but I had purchased cuttings from James before the 7 dollar tree late 2015 offer, and that went well...I really thought he wanted to "help" forum members...boy was I naive.

So what is YOUR relationsip with/to James? Are you waiting on an order? Do you know him from the Banana circles/forums?

Please give us your personal experiences with James, maybe you could tell us more about his failed enterprises in the past? S/
Quote

OK, I see what you missed.

Quote:
The new statute effectively overrules Hubbard, and expressly provides that section 1001 covers false statements that are made to all three branches of the federal government, without regard to whether the entity may be categorized as a "department" or "agency." 

Quote

Lewi,

Ignore him.  No one with a half of brain believes him.

I'm pretty confident people understand if they feel they are being ripped off, they can file a claim at https://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx

Let's let law enforcement determine if the claims are creditable.  If they're not, then they won't press charges against James.  If they are, they are protecting other people from being ripped off.

I think it's pretty safe to say, it seems like a potential scam by taking people's money, not responding to people, not delivering merchandise, and not refunding money.

Best,
Nunuorig
Quote

Quote:
You accuse people of lying, yet you defend a man who has not delivered products ordered.

We are supposed to work on the Honor system here. Where is the honor in taking large orders, not delivering them, and then taking even more and possibily larger orders? We know figcuttings (dot) com Is Right Now Taking orders for fall of 2017...

SO we have people (many new) who claim to have ordered in excess of Four Thousand USD....and of course no delivery.

So who am I too believe? A grown "man" with a broken pinkey toe, who thinks 45 little trees will make 1500 trees, has not delivered to customers since the spring of 2016; or do I believe in strangers who claimed to be ripped of by THE SAME INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS NOT DELIVERED MY ORDER.

Just now I put an Emerald Strawberry ( one of my figs still to be delivered) in a shopping cart for "fall 2017" delivery...

9 bucks was the price for fall 2017 delivery...alarm bells should have gone off in late 2015, but I had purchased cuttings from James...and I really thought he wanted to "help" forum members...boy was I naive.

So what is YOUR relationsip with/to James? Are you waiting on an order? Do you know him from the Banana circles/forums?

Please give us your personal experiences with James, maybe you could tell us more about his failed enterprises in the past? S/


Quote where I defended James, show me the money. 
Quote
Load More Posts... 172 remaining topics of 1,422 total
Reply Cancel
Subscribe Share Cancel