924Board.org

[Rasta Monsta]

Wow, that even scared Count Floyd!


_________________
Toofah King Bad

• WeiBe (1987 924S 2.5t) - 931 S3

[tuurbo]

Like, y'all fked up my rhoid joke.
_________________
1980 924 turbo, MSD, Meth. Inj, otherwise stock.

[Rasta Monsta]

Nibbleroids, I get it!
_________________
Toofah King Bad

• WeiBe (1987 924S 2.5t) - 931 S3

[skytrooper]

Alright...enough !

you 2 can badger, and flail yourselves against the wall trying to prove who is right and who is wrong in this epic battle...but you seem to have forgotten that that this was a warning that somebody ...most likely... wasn't whom they seemed to be.

I appreciate the "heads-up" to a scammer, but we are sinking to a whole level of in-fighting that probably makes him very happy.

Personaly I think this thread has run it's course, and we are not furthering the cause of the 924, nor serving it anymore with this thread.

As a 30 year military veteran (still serving, thank you). I have seen this kind of stuuf too many times. What good will come out of this pissing contest ? Believe me when I say, being fired upon by someone who wants you dead, changes your perspective...a lot ! This whole Rasta vs Ideola thing has swayed us from the original topic...which was a warning that peaceful924 could...and probably is the scammer know as Mark Johnson.

Rasta & Ideola...I respect and have sought both of your advice since I have been here...and you both are steadfast 924 afficsionados (I know...spelling....LOL). I trust we can end this BS and the law debate...and move in a forward direction from here.


Whaddya say guys ?
_________________
Matt

1987 - 924S "Black Pearl"
1982 - BMW 633CSi
1984 - BMW 528e
1983 - 944 N/A "Blue Max" (Gone)
1981 - 931 "Scarlet Harlot" (Gone)
1976 911S Targa (Gone)

[tuurbo]

Skytrooper - Law debate or groinal 'flaying'?
_________________
1980 924 turbo, MSD, Meth. Inj, otherwise stock.

[ideola]

Let's start with the matter of Ideola vs Rasta Monsta. I made it very clear yesterday that I am sick and tired of the constant haranguing and snyde comments and I'm-smarter-than-you-cuz-I-practice-law attitude. I would love nothing more than to stay on topic instead being dragged into pointless bickering about stuff that is frankly not conducive to the end goal. That goal is simple: keep the community vigilant against would-be scammers.

There have been roughly 500 new members since we first went public regarding Mr. Johnston. It's noteworthy that all of the members identified in this latest episode have been forum members less than 18 months. James himself even made recent note of all the new members. We all agreed months ago that there was no need to institute different rules for selling & buying here. We all agreed that the current system of vigilance and community camaraderie was the best approach to keeping scammers at bay. I'm doing my part, and I don't appreciate being constantly targeted and castigated by James for reasons that remain a mystery to everybody but him. And for the record, I DID contact Vaughan and Peter before I started this thread. I discussed the situation with both of them, and obtained their permission before I posted.

Furthermore, I am highly offended by the personal attacks. Comparing me to an incarcerated person, accusing me of narcissism, and the countless other subtle digs and blatant provocations is completely uncalled for. I have attempted multiple times in the past to extend the olive branch to James. I have sent PMs, exchanged emails, and I even took the initiative to call James and discuss more amiable discourse between the two of us. I have never singled him out, or provoked a confrontation with him in ANY of my posts.

However, I am guilty of retaliating for what I view as unfair treatment and disingenuous, self righteous "opining" about my tactics and approaches regarding Mr. Johnston, and even other 924-related posts. I truly don't understand what I've done to piss off James, I've never met him in person, and I cannot account for the personal attacks. I can't promise I won't retaliate in the future, but I will do my best to take the high road in the future and ignore the behavior should it continue. Like everyone else here, I am human, and sometimes my emotions get the better of me. This is my way of apologizing to the community for the bickering. I hope it ends here.




Deep breath.




Having said all of that, I feel it is important to make a couple of things totally clear regarding this issue of whether Identity Theft was perpetrated in this latest round of activity. Contrary to James' insinuations, I am not speaking completely off the top of my head regarding these matters. I won't get into a discussion of my professional background or expertise on matters of identity and privacy, because it will never compare to a practicing attorney, and because it will only appear as more self-serving narcissism. But rest assured, I have spoken to the prosecutor in our case against Mr. Johnston. Here are some key takeaways:

A. The elements of IDENTITY THEFT (as defined in the State of Michigan) aren't satisfied because only a first name and a city were used. There was no personally identifiable information used beyond a first name and a city. To illustrate, every single one of us here is using a pseudonym (some more obfuscated than others), and many of us here are using some convention to obfuscate where we actually live. Simply using a fictitious name and location does NOT constitute identity theft under ANY definition. Somebody brought up the issue of a fictitious address and business name; the address was not fictitious, it is Mr. Johnston's current address, and for all we know, the business name ("Vintage Performance") is a legit DBA (it's no big deal for someone to set up a "doing business as", or DBA, in Michigan). To summarize, there are OTHER ELEMENTS required in order for Identity Theft to come into play.

B. Two of the "other elements" defined in the statute are contained in the simple phrase "intent to defraud". According to the prosecuter, there has to be sufficient evidence of INTENT before they will consider filing charges; and there also has to be sufficient evidence that FRAUD actually occurred. Under Michigan statutes, neither of those elements are satisfied in this particular episode. To be specific, the only transactions we've been able to identify related to the pseudonym of Peaceful924 (a.k.a "Carl") were 1) the purchase of Mr. Dude's wrecked 931; 2) the trade of Rob the Plumber's jeep for a blue 931; 3) the sale of two WURs to Grenadiers; and 4) the attempted sale of other 931 parts to gegge and gravel, both of whom live in a European country. #1 and #2 apparently went off without too much of an issue (I have the complete PM transcript between Peaceful & Mr. Dude). #3 there IS an outstanding issue, which I will address below. #4 were never consummated due to warnings posted on this board. In none of those transaction is there any evidence of INTENT or nor is there any evidence that FRAUD was committed. Therefore, by definition, there can be NO identity theft. Mind you, EVIDENCE is a key concept in this whole discussion: we may all have our suspicions regarding the motives and intent of Peaceful924, but suspicions and opinions from a bunch of pseudonymous internet forum users hardly constitutes evidence.

C. Regarding the WURs sold to Grenadiers, apparently, one of the items, valued at ~$50 was never shipped, and Grenadiers is still attempting to get resolution. Now, to you and I, the average lay person, that might sound like FRAUD, and it might sound like INTENT to commit fraud. Unfortunately, it doesn't pass the test in the State of Michigan. According to the prosecutors I spoke with, the outstanding issue between Grenadiers and Peaceful924 is what is referred to as "failure to perform" in a business transaction (or something along those lines). The point being, "failure to perform" (cue tuurbo for a crude joke) is classified as a CIVIL dispute, and is NOT considered FRAUD. Taken together, points A, B & C, as I stated yesterday, THERE IS NO IDENTITY THEFT in this instance, no matter what the laws happen to be in Oregon or any other jurisdiction.

D. The final point on this matter of identity theft: in the State of Michigan, it is the VICTIM who must file a criminal complaint. I spoke directly (over the phone) with Carl of Algonac on Thursday 18 Sep 2008 about what Peaceful924 was doing. So far, I have been unable to convince Carl to file a complaint. The sad fact is, if Carl doesn't file a complaint, EVEN IF Peaceful924 committed identity theft (which I am convinced, by definition of the law, he did not), it wouldn't matter. Carl is the ONLY person that can file that complaint. At this point, he has chosen to stay out of it. In any event, our efforts continue on the existing pending actions against Mr. Johnston, and this latest episode, whether it is deemed criminal by the State of Michigan or not, certainly doesn't harm our case.

As always, I welcome constructive feedback. I am more than happy to exchange PMs, email addresses and phone numbers with anyone here. I am not going to be deterred by James or anyone else who chooses to sit on the sidelines and take potshots. Participation in any thread in this forum is strictly voluntary, so to anyone who professes to be tired of hearing about Mr. Johnston, DON'T READ THE THREADS. In the meantime, I'm going to continue my efforts until Mr. Johnston settles his obligations with me and others listed in the complaints we have filed, or until he is dealt with by law enforcement. If I see evidence of his activity here and elsewhere, I will expose him.
_________________
erstwhile owner of just about every 924 variant ever made

[Rasta Monsta]

[Chrenan]

[ideola]

OK, so point of clarification: according to the prosecutors here, since I wasn't victimized by this particular act, I as a third party cannot file a complaint. Furthermore, I never said that the only person who was a victim was the person whose identity was stolen. To be clear, the victim of identity theft could also be someone who was harmed as a result of someone perpetrating fraud while using a stolen identity. In our example at hand, that could be one of the five forum members identified above (although as I asserted, it is arguable in any of those cases that FRAUD was perpetrated or intended). Point being, I can't file the complaint because I wasn't victimized in this last episode. If Carl or Grenadiers want to come forward, that's a different story, and I've offered to assist them by coordinating their efforts with our ongoing action on behalf of all of the previous victims.

Bottom line, the prosecutors here aren't going to file a criminal charge of ID theft just because I (or any other citizen off the street) allege that it happened. They won't even investigate unless an actual VICTIM makes the allegation AND files a complaint. That means that unless Carl of Algonac or Grenadiers decides to file a complaint, there will be no charges. And as I've pointed out, it is in serious doubt the elements required for Id Theft even exist in this particular instance.

Trust me, I'm not defending the actions of Peaceful924. I'd love nothing more than to pile even more allegations onto our list. Believe me, if it were as simple as marching down to the local PD and filing a complaint, do you think I would be even bothering with any of this?

Some people here seem to be under the impression that I haven't even bothered to exhaust all available options in pursuit of nailing this guy down. So far, I have filed complaints with the FBI, the State of Michigan, Oakland County, Wayne County, and Waterford Township. Now that the perp has moved again, I'll be paying a visit to Commerce Township to let them know about the wonderful new citizen they've just welcomed into their community.

Because of due process and the rule of law, it is NOT easy to bring charges against people (as it should be), especially when the details are murky, allegations are made by people hiding behind pseudonymous internet IDs, and victims are reluctant to come forward or get involved. We've had some success in many of these areas, which is why the case is still moving forward. But it's not easy. It's not simple. It's not like I can just call up David Gorcyca and tell him to go after this guy. Believe me, I tried.

So in the meantime, Johnston is still on the loose, he's still concocting the same old schemes, and he's still targeting the same community. I'll be buggered if I'm going to stand by and just watch it happen. Because I'm in physical proximity to this guy, I'm one of the few people on this forum in a position to do something about it. That includes coordinating and filing local charges (something that is VERY difficult if not impossible to do for preponderance of the victims who are outside of MI), that includes investigating local addresses known to be used by the perp (as in this last episode), and it includes leveraging the power of the internet to reach out through PM and email to collaborate with other members who might have been in touch with or targeted by the perp, which is how we were successful in exposing this last attempt with a minimum of victims.
_________________
erstwhile owner of just about every 924 variant ever made

[ideola]

[ideola]

For the record (bold emphasis is mine):

[PORSCHEV]

I can read about 2 paragraphs...then my mind wanders and all I hear is blah blah blah.
_________________
1976 924
5 lug conversion, 17'C2 wheels,custom body work,327 vette engine.

1978-#53 "D" track racer.

[ideola]

[5150]

I read the initial post, thought "ohh feck! Here we go..." and skipped to the last comment.... And then I went back to the Timstar post and lost bladder control again today.
_________________
Mars Red '78 Euro 924 n/a
http://www.cardomain.com/id/5150_uk

Graphite? Grey Metallic '85 (late model) 944 2.5

There are two kinds of pedestrians: the quick and the dead.

[Nobbi]

Worum zum Teufel gehts hier eigentlich....?
_________________
NA 924 - april/1977- 4-speed-audi gearbox.
500.000 km with fun.....and new toy:Porsche 944 S2 Cabriolet.Other car Daimler c-class cabby,brandnew..Plus : DEUTZ 4005 tractor Built 1969