Sloan backpedals on declaring assets, now “considering” it
Top TelexFree pimp Faith Sloan recently asked a Massachusetts District court to release $15,800 in currently frozen funds. Sloan claims she needs the money to cover living expenses and payment to her lawyer.
The SEC were quick to file an opposition to the motion yesterday. Perhaps caught unaware by just how closely the SEC have been monitoring Sloan’s post TelexFree Ponzi activities, Sloan has now filed a response to the opposition.
Dangling the carrot of possible injunction before the court, Sloan seems to be under the impression that, subject to her own whims of consideration, court orders are little more than polite suggestions.
In their opposition filing, the SEC presented detailed evidence of Sloan’s “flouting” of the preliminary injunction currently in place.
Bank records show that Sloan has at least two undeclared accounts with Chinese banks, and has made numerous payments with assets that are subject to a freeze order. Three payments of note are to the company Changes Worldwide, covering Sloan’s apparent investment buy-in and that of at least one of her downline affiliate investors.
In her original motion, Sloan has asked for $15,800 to be released. As the SEC points out however, when granting the preliminary injunction against Sloan, the court ordered that
there would be no carve-outs from the asset freeze for defendants who fail to identify their assets.
In addition to spending money that is supposed to be frozen, Sloan has to date failed to identify her assets to the SEC as required.
Sloan now argues that not complying with the injunction doesn’t matter, because apparently now she’s “considering” it:
Based on her lawyer’s research and opinion that she may not be incriminating herself by identifying her assets, (Sloan) is now considering compliance.
Forgive me for pointing out the obvious though, but consideration of compliance with an injunction granted a month ago? How on Earth does that invalidate a court order that no funds be “carved out” if assets are not declared?
Until those assets are declared in full, Sloan doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Another point of contention is when exactly Sloan became aware of the injunction against her. A temporary injunction was granted on April 15th, which Sloan ignored. This was then turned into a preliminary injunction in early May.
Up until today, where now Sloan claims she’s “considering” to acknowledge it and comply, she otherwise ignored the preliminary injunction too.
In her opposition response, Sloan insists though she ‘has not violated the asset freeze‘. She claims that when the SEC called her up to inform her of the case against her, she claims that at no point was she
informed that Judge Casper had entered a temporary restraining order against her on April 16, 2014.
Sloan hereby swears that Scott Stanley did not tell her that a temporary restraining order had been entered against her during his telephone conversation with her on April 17, 2014, nor did he provide or refer her to a copy of the content of that order.
As Sloan stated in her Verified Motion for Leave to File a Response (Document 130), the aforesaid temporary restraining order was never served on her.
Accordingly, none of the transactions cited by the Plaintiff as evidence that Sloan “repeatedly violated the freeze order” prove that Sloan violated that order, because they occurred before Sloan had actual notice of the temporary restraining order and the Preliminary Injunction that the Court had entered against
her.
What Sloan fails to mention though, is that when Scott Stanley (an SEC attorney) called her up, here’s how that conversation went down:
On April 17, 2014, I spoke with Faith Sloan, a defendant, on the telephone.
After introducing myself as an attorney for the Securities and Exchange commission, Sloan asked “[A]re you from the state SEC or federal?” I responded that I was representing the United States Securities Division.
I then stated that the SEC had sued TelexFree and that she had been named as a defendant in the complaint.
Sloan responded by stating “Why are you picking on me? There are bigger promoters than me.”
Sloan then asked where she could find the complaint. I walked her through the SEC website and to the location of the press-release and complaint.
Sloan then stated “I need to speak to my lawyers”. I then asked if she was represented by counsel. Sloan did not respond.
I then asked Sloan if she would provide her email address and home address so that we could send her the Complaint and the Court’s Order of April 16th (Ozedit: which includes the preliminary injunction).
Sloan refused by stating “You just sued me. You must know everything about me so you can figure it out.”
Sloan then repeated “I need to speak to my lawyer” and hung up while I was attempting to ask her to have her counsel call us.
Faith Sloan, hoisted entirely by her own petard.
Sloan has since deleted her Facebook posts from November 2013 to March 2014 and her TelexFree website, but I can confirm that one post was a downplay of the litigation against her, boasting that the Massachusetts Securities Division “loved her”.
Perhaps if Sloan wasn’t so pre-occupied with denials on social media and instead took the SEC’s litigation a bit more seriously, she wouldn’t be in the position she is in now.
A decision is yet to be made on Sloan’s request, however given the remarks of the court when the preliminary injunction was granted, and Sloan’s continued “flaunting” of them, it’s expected to be denied.
Perhaps when Sloan has actually declared and remitted her assets (including what she has stashed away in China), she can then resubmit it.
In related news fellow co-defendant Sanderly Rodrigues has applied for an extension to reply to the SEC’s amended complaint, claiming that until the week beginning Monday June 9th, he was “unable to retain counsel”.
The SEC have assented to the motion so it’s likely to be passed sometime next week.
Rodrigues has known about the litigation against him for some time, publicly declaring himself a multi-million dollar earning “victim” of TelexFree the same day the SEC’s litigation was made public.
Why Rodrigues didn’t retain counsel back in April, or any time prior to this last week is a mystery.
Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of Faith Sloan’s reply and Sann Rodrigues Motion For An Extension Of Time.
This reminds me of the comment Faith Sloan wrote in December 2012 regarding Leaf International:
My answer was:
She never responded to that.
He’s busy pretending to receive a medal in Brazil, of course.
No offense to Faith Sloan, but does anyone else get the impression that she’s a complete idiot?
I mean, she seems to be acting like that if she completely ignores the SEC investigation then it will just go away, not to mention the court orders. Ignoring court orders gets you fancy new jewelry and new cozy accommodations.
This is how people end up after “succeeding” in pyramid schemes. The biggest winners end up as the biggest losers. I am not only talking about financial loss, they also lose their ethics, their commons sense, and eventually their friends.
When I hear a person complaining about losing $1,000 in a pyramid or ponzi scheme, I tell him: Losing $1,000 is not that bad. Be glad you didn’t earn $50,000, that could destroy you for the rest of your life.
I think she started out a couple of months ago as a complete idiot (or more accurately, a complete snob), but her lawyer is educating her.
BF, I agree. I’ve often stated the only thing worse than failing at MLM is succeeding at it, because you only lose money when you lose, but you lose your moral and ethical compass when you rip off others and you “win.”
There are two interpreations that I see (there’s obviously more). Either she’s NOT being represented until recently and she’s playing “sea lawyer”, or she’s cultivating this “harmless forgetful little old lady” persona hoping for lenient sentence later (much like Burks, under advice of Noell Tin, threw in the towel early and faded away)
She seems to be resistant to authority, but I can’t blame her for that.
I think she’s freaking out!
There is a great response from the Government to Faith Sloan’s second attempt to avoid prosecution and have the charges dismissed by Don at ASDUpdates.com.
Simply put they said she is full of it.
The SEC response kind of shredded her “I did not know” defenses. Rightfully so.
@Lynn
Yeah they basically call her out for the weak ass objection she filed. I know she’s got legal representation but it does feel like she’s dictating what her lawyer filed in court
The legal arguments aren’t much different to the excuses she’s been using online for years whenever she’s been confronted or called out. Only now she can’t brush them off and get on with scamming people.
Perhaps she has an excellent lawyer, but you can’t make chicken salad from chicken feces.
I see it more as being the inevitable outcome of the artificial “positive thinking at any cost” which (necessarily) underpins the whole online HYIP fraud scene, and, in particular, Sloans’ response to critics and criticism over the past few years.
To me, her response to what are very serious charges appears to have been lifted directly from the Positive Thinking Cliches handbook as if she believed if she thought positively enough and responded accordingly, the SEC would simply go away.
Perhaps she should send the SEC a few positive thinking books. And it’s not just the distributors who spout this garbage. When we cross examined the Amway (Ozedit: Offtopic).
As the SEC pointed out in their response, scienter (knowledge of guilt) is not required to prevail on the charge that she was promoting and selling unregistered securities. It does not matter what she knew or thought….the SEC only has to prove she did it.
So far as this allegation is concerned her responses are based on wishful thinking because lack of scienter is no defense.
Her best defense here is an insanity plea. She should walk into court with a flower pot on her head and yell ” BOOYAH ! “I’m 100% Telexfree!
Its her only chance.
The best defense will normally be about something a court can recognize as “valid” and “relevant”. Insanity isn’t very relevant in this case.
“Didn’t know” (didn’t have access to business information) isn’t very relevant either. “Was actively misled” will be relevant, e.g. pointing to all the misleading information about VOIP sales.
If you can point to specific factors, and show that most other people also were misled by the same factors, then the argument can be both recognized as “valid” and “relevant for the case”.
I believe she should look at that idea before she makes a final decision about “refining the harmless old lady strategy”. 🙂
The right view is simply to look at the factors already introduced, already accepted by the SEC and the court, and use them in a different way. She will most likely find “levels of confusion” in SEC’s own material, enough to prove “my opponent seems to have been confused too, we were both misled by a fraudulent business project”.
Her whole Facebook account is full of jovial posts and her life experiences as if all of this legal business is not happening. I wonder if her everyday life is as pleasant and if she sleeps as well at night as she reveals on her Facebook.
Of course, she deleted a lot of stuff related to TF and her MLM ventures, which I believe is incriminating as it shows that she is trying to hide something she did wrong.
That will be easily defendable in court. Deleting stuff on Facebook can be defended by a lot of valid legal arguments, e.g. “precautionary activity”. BTW, the court has indirectly ordered it through an injunction, in all the parts about “implementing a device to defraud people”, etc.
If people follow the injunction step by step, they will most likely delete potential violations first, and then they will try to restore it to preserve evidence. And then they will delete it again to comply with the first part, and then they will restore it to comply with the second part, and so on and so forth.
You will most likely find that the injunction has conflicting instructions like the example I showed there. “Conflicting instructions” is normally a relevant defense argument, if you can point to an exact conflict between instructions that will make them impossible to follow.
From a legal standpoint, you may be right. But, from a practical standpoint, to me, it is clear what the bitch is trying to do 🙂
haha You just put a picture in my head that I don’t think that I’ll ever be able to get out 😀
Your not listening, or your not reading the SEC’s response. All the garbage about being mislead is irrelevant. If the SEC can prove she promoted and sold that is all that is required to prevail on the allegations.
Since its abundantly obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that she did in fact promote the sale of Telexfree participations she has no defense against the allegations.
Do I think she is going to put a flower pot on her head and yell Booyah? No of course not. Its absurd. Its a joke and implies above all else that she is out of options not that it is a relevant defense. When all else fails, play crazy.
I really doubt this woman has any consciousness of guilt or wrongdoing. If she deleted something its not because she thought it was wrong, but because it could get her in trouble.
“Was actively being misled, and so were all the others” should be relevant enough, e.g. if she can point out the same effect of being misled among most other people, including the SEC lawyers.
One example:
“The MSD blindly accepted the balance sheet as valid, it even included it in the complaint as valid and based many of the other charges on data from that” (it didn’t, but it was only an example).
Note:
“Was actively being misled” was only an EXAMPLE for a better defense strategy (better than the insanity argument). Defense arguments should preferrably reflect something from the reality, something identifiable that can be recognized by a court as relevant legal defense.
Insanity isn’t a defense argument like that other than in some criminal cases. It may lead to psychiatric treatment rather than prison time.
WTF are you talking about? A balance sheet? What balance sheet?
Maybe you need to put a flower pot on your head and yell Booyah!
No insanity is continuing to argue that being “misled” is legally relevant or a defense against allegations of illegal promotion and sale of securities in the USA. Its not.
You have a flower pot on your head. I’m on a horse. Old Spice.
It was an imaginary example for valid defense argument. You will find an “income / expenses” tabel in one of the complaints.
Using insanity as a defense argument won’t make much sense, i.e. it won’t lead to any results even if the court potentially can accept it as true.
Do you understand what a joke is? Humor? Absurdity? Comedy?
Farce? Nobody suggested that Sloan should really actually put a flower pot on her head, walk into court and yell Booyah. Can you understand that?? This was not about pleading not guilty by reason of insanity.
Geez forget it. Go back to watching water drip from a faucet.
I didn’t have any problems understanding that? I didn’t respond to the joke, but I analysed the TYPE of argument among other types of arguments (“Didn’t know”, “harmless old lady”, “insanity”, etc.).
My primary response was to the “harmless forgetful little old lady” argument.
All the Feds have to do is provide the court with a list of all the programs that Faith Sloan has pimped all these years that were all Ponzi’s; and this list is long not counting all the illegal cash gifting schemes she pimped as well.
A reasonable person would conclude that you can’t keep saying you were duped and a victim when you have the degrees she claims to have.
Her blog was a treasure trove of her past Ponzi’s and illegal cash gifting schemes. They will bury her in court with them.
This is going to be fun to watch.
If she does not have those degrees its prima facie evidence that she was falsely representing her qualifications in order to sell and promote illegal securities. Definitely frowned on.
Also ruins her credibility. “Ms Sloan were you lying then or are you lying now ” type of questions are bound to come up if she has no degrees.
This is a civil action, you cannot plead “Insanity” in a civil case. The time for flower pots is in a criminal case.
I look forward to reading your full opinion regarding mental illness as an excuse for civil wrongs.
It’s the wrong TYPE of argument, a type of “human rights” argument. They have very specific uses, and will not be recognized as valid or relevant if they’re being used incorrectly (e.g. in wrong types of cases).
Insanity as a defense isn’t a true “human right”, i.e. it may not be recognized in every jurisdiction or for every type of crime.
Whatever you say M_ Why don’t you write a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council and work it out with them.
@Hoss
Wrong type of argument = the court doesn’t have any rules to recognize the argument or to apply to it (in civil cases). It’s a defense argument against imprisonment and potentially against death penalties, but it’s not a defense argument against all types of wrongdoing.
People will still be held responsible for their illegal actions in one way or another, but the judicial system may not be the correct authority to handle it.
“Wrong type of legal argument” also mean you asked the wrong type of question when you asked for a legal opinion (about the use of insanity as a defense argument in civil cases). You didn’t ask for why it CAN’T be used, only a general question about the uses in civil cases.
Try to google a few variations of “insanity defense argument” if you want many more arguments for why it can’t be used.
Do you have really wild looking eyes? I imagine that you do…because the more you go on like this the more I envision a painting by Goya named “Saturn Devouring His Son.”
I can extend that logic:
Wrong type of question = people will not have the right ideas in place to recognize answers as valid. They will solely be looking for the wrong types of answers.
It will be like one of the dialogues in the BLGM thread where george dagal’s ideas about “trustworthiness” and “integrity” revolved around his own flawed ideas about penny auction profits (the idea that each bid was “worth” $0.58 and could be added to the revenue). Any answer that didn’t reflect his idea would be “wrong”, it didn’t really matter how correct those answers were.
George apparently thought so. You think back office accounting entries are actual payouts…. so what do you know?
The fact that he BELIEVED in that idea didn’t make the idea more rational. He had other ideas built up around that idea, e.g. ideas about “trustworthiness” and “integrity”.
Everyone who didn’t reflect his idea about “penny auction revenue” would be labeled “not trustworthy” and “lack of integrity” (and various other personality factors).
People will often not look for the truth, but for what they BELIEVE is the truth. They will look for reflections of their own beliefs.
Don’t repeat that comment too often, it may gradually lead to that you’re convincing yourself about something and will be unable to recognize the truth. It may lead to a comment similar to my initial one = “the fact that you BELIEVED in your own idea didn’t make it more rational”.
Imagine you are shopping with your wife and she is excited by a new dress priced at $400. You make a lot of noise and argue that its not worth $400 She says the dress is for her, not for you, and tells you to shut your mouth. Then she happily pays $400 for the dress.
What is the dress worth?
What’s the dress worth?
I am already convinced.
The dress was worth $400. It will be worth $10 the first time she wears it and has it cleaned.
Right.
The example will be irrelevant, because “penny auction revenue” was about that each bid would add $0.58 to the auction revenue. That idea was clearly flawed, yet he based other ideas on it.
Your example isn’t similar in any way, it’s missing some core factors. “The fact that you may BELIEVE the example was relevant won’t make the idea become more rational, it will only become less rational if you strongly believe in it”.
Then you have already identified the problem correctly = you have convinced yourself about something. You’re probably mentally prepared and ready to join every opportunity reviewed here, they’re eagerly looking for “low hanging fruits”. 🙂
Its a question not an example. What is the dress worth?
Too tough of a question for you? Or you don’t like the answer?
@Hoss
Replace your example with this one:
If you buy 1 unit of orange juice for $400 (pay $400 to the shop, receive 1 unit of 1 litre of orange juice in exchange for your payment), will your unit of orange juice then be worth $400?
Question 2:
If you give your unit of orange juice back to the shop, can the shop then add “$400 worth of orange juice” to its revenue?
George Dagal didn’t pay for something that was worth a lot of money, he paid for something that had close to zero value in a normal market. The fact that he paid a very high price didn’t make the unit worth more money. When he returned his bids to BLGM (used them in auctions), he didn’t add anything to the revenue.
What “core factors” are missing. The color of the dress? The size? The cut? The material? She took those into account. What else do you need to know?
What’s the new dress worth M_
Just answer the question. How much was the dress worth?
Who can say what it WILL be worth. At the time of purchase it was worth $400 in the estimation of the buyer.
What? Returned orange juice as revenue! Are you out of your mind? The store booked revenue at the time the orange juice was sold for $400 and now you suggest the store should take the OJ back and book revenue again? ?????????
Look you do not have the accounting background to explain yourself adequately and you only make a hash of it when you try. Its as waste of time trying to straighten out your misconceptions.
I think M_Norway is as good at not answering questions as an MLMer. What a bizarre situation. LOL
hoss, where are you, in the U.S.?
There isn’t any good logical answers to it, because the question is based on a belief system rather than on logical factors. The dress will be “worth” (not VALUE) whatever people FEEL it’s worth. The worth of it will belong in the realm of FEELINGS rather than in the realm of logic or math.
When you managed to identify an answer as “logically correct”, it was because the answer reflected your beliefs rather than because the answer was logically correct.
The mix of logic and feelings was also clearly reflected in your question. The REACTION was emotional rather than rational, and she focused on her own emotional needs rather than on the economical factors (there’s nothing wrong with that, but people should preferrably be “balanced” to function properly).
M_Norway, answer the question. It’s really quite simple, and I already provided it. If you would like for me to tell you why I said $400, I would be happy to provide that as well, but I am more interested in why YOU think $400 is the correct answer.
Jacksonville, FL
Hot out there!!
So that’s your problem. Let me help you out. The woman took all known factors into consideration (including her husband’s bitching and moaning) and concluded that the price asked was acceptable given the anticipated benefits. Therefore she paid $400 for the dress. That’s the logic.
So….now that you understand this you should be able to answer what the dress was worth to the lady? In other words, how much value did she place on the dress?
I don’t think it’s the correct answer, but I believe both you and Hoss (and many others) may BELIEVE it’s the correct one.
The fact that people believe in something doesn’t make it correct in itself (because then most of the frauds would have been legitimate businesses, because of the beliefs). And then I could have trumped your “Amway Tool Scam” with my own beliefs.
Scams will use beliefs like that to defraud people, e.g. the ideas people have about PRICE and VALUE, or the mixture of emotional values with monetary values.
One example (Ponzi/pyramid hybrid):
Participants in BLGM bought (invested in) units of bids, each containing 2,000 bids for penny auctions, for the price of $1,160. What they really bought wasn’t the product itself, but the profit sharing in the program.
We had some comments from people believing the units would be worth $1,160 each, “since I was willing to pay that price it must be worth it”. That’s simply not true, the units were worth close to nothing in a normal market.
If they had bought units of gold for $1,160 each it would have been worth close to the price.
If they had bought units of orange juice for $1,160 each it wouldn’t have been worth much (maybe $1 – $2 per unit).
The price people pay for a product doesn’t necessarily reflect the value of the product. It might reflect an irrational thought set or some other emotional factors.
He’s so perfectly suited it scary.
@Hoos
I gave you the correct answer. The dress will be “worth” anything within “acceptable range”. Based on the description, the emotional value of the dress will be extremely unstable, the woman in your example had many uncovered emotional needs she tried to cover through shopping. That’s not a good idea.
I also pointed out some flaws in your question.
* It was based on a belief system rather than rational ideas
* you mixed 2 different types of values (emotional and monetary)
The mixing of two different types of values normally should have resulted in no answer if you had used logical methods, you would have detected that the question was meaningless logically.
An answer from your own belief system doesn’t need to make any logical sense, it will simply be about repeating ideas you believe in. And then ANY answer within “acceptable range” may make sense.
I will normally detect when questions are irrational, but I gave you an answer anyway when you insisted.
Who said DAGAL bought a product? That’s ridiculous. He was purchasing the right to participate in the profits of the business, and the participation rights were nominally denominated in bid packs. He knew it. I knew it…but apparently you got lost in a fjord.
Dagal was willing to risk $1,160 for the anticipated benefit of sharing the profits of the business. That’s all. The rest of it was just monkey motion. The right to participate was WORTH $1160 per investment unit (called bid packs) TO HIM regardless of what you believe they were worth. For all you know he has profited handsomely and would have gladly paid even more.
You don’t know. So quit acting as if you do.
Oh damn. Had I known we were going to arrive at a projective assessment of personality and emotional functioning I would have hung up hours ago.
We are done.
You disengaged the logical part of your brain many hours ago, so we can be flexible and let that count as “hanging up”. 🙂
For all you know he has profited handsomely and would have gladly paid even more.
You don’t know. So quit acting as if you do.
hoss, email me at (Ozedit: click Tex’s name), thanks.
M_Norway, you make things too complicated. The right answer is the dress is worth $400. The reason the dress is worth $400 is because someone is willing to pay $400 for the dress.
The problem with MLM is people don’t think the products are worth the amount they cost, but they are worth the amount they cost PLUS the hope of selling others on the idea and thereby lowering your future costs, to the point the products are free to buy and then to the point of making money beyond the cost of the products.
However, when there is little to retail cost to external customers, the operation is, by definition, an illegal pyramid. Any questions?
Stop acting like a “Drama Queen”. The question was about what YOU were willing to believe in, and was used to point out the logical flaw discussed in the BLGM thread. It was clearly identified as an EXAMPLE, so your emotional reactions looks rather weird.
You have had certain “beliefs”, e.g. about the value of penny auction bids, but the question wasn’t about that. So there was no need to dramatize your reactions either. You have mostly got LOGICAL replies from me.
You were already familiar with the Orange Juice example since I have used it earlier. Your emotional reactions to it was clearly “Drama Queen” behavior (attention seeking).
The discussion about VALUE should probably be terminated, since people mostly are discussing their personal BELIEFS, and don’t test whether those beliefs are true or false, truths or half truths. The orange juice example was a logical test.
I’m mostly using business logic, and businesses will separate between emotional values and monetary values. So I’m not simply REPEATING some ideas I have as a consumer, but I’m often repeating the ideas I have been taught in business. But I have BOTH types of ideas.
One question:
* Will gasoline be more “valuable” if you pay a 20% higher price per litre/gallon, i.e. do you get 20% more “value” for your money (or is the 20% extra really worth it?)?
I have removed most of the emotional factors in Hoss’ example, and have replaced the product with one where I know people are highly price sensitive.
No, you’re using muddled logic. A customer doesn’t buy something ONLY because of “business logic” or “monetary values.”
If there is a gas shortage and you want to get somewhere, of course there is more value in the higher priced gas. If it gets too high, the value of your money may be higher than getting there and you may or may not go.
You may not go on a vacation for example, but you would go to see a dying relative or bury a dead one, wouldn’t you?
You analyze things to death. The truth is simple, the lies are complex.
Once again you display your misunderstanding.
I have no belief at all concerning the value of the auction bids… but Dagal did. He valued them at $1,160 per bid pack. I know this because that’s what he paid for them. It was was his money…his risk…and the price HE paid reflected his assessment of value…. not mine….. and not yours.
If anything can be said to be true it is that YOU and Dagal had “certain beliefs” about the value of the penny auction bids. He believing the bid packs were worth paying $1,160 for and you believing they were not. There is no objective standard than can be applied to value. It is subjective. The bids are therefore “worth” whatever someone is willing to pay for them.
Bingo. And that is why it is important to have external sales in an MLM, because the internal consumption buying is influenced by the emotional factor of future profit. For example, the $10,000 pencil MLM model.
hoss, my email address is in section L.
Any discussion of that question requires strict agreement on definitions for value can be defined in different ways. However…
The gas has value because it has utility (its useful)
The utility value of a gallon of gas is independent of the price…. a gallon propels a car 25 miles. Paying more for the gas does not change that. Therefore by this measure paying a 20% higher price does not change the utility value of the gasoline.
Converting utility value to market value, or personal value, or intrinsic value is much more subjective. This is why price paid is often used as a proxy for value. If you pay $500 for Google stock that’s it value. If tomorrow it can be purchased for $450 then that its value though nothing except perception of value denominated in dollars has changed.. Pay $5 for gas that’s its value. Pay $6 for gas that’s its value.
Asking whether the gas is more valuable because you paid $6 rather than $5 is impossible to answer. A gallon still propels the car 25 miles either way.
Your answer was solely about the MOTIVES people might have for buying something, WHY they buy it?
Believe me, there was nothing wrong with the motives when people invested in SpeakAsia, ZeekRewards, Better Living Global Marketing or TelexFree. The motives were “highly rational” for consumers or investors.
There must be some factors you have forgot to include in your explanations? People will usually need some types of ideas to avoid frauds, and the consumer logic will send them directly into them.
Repeating BELIEFS is plain and simple, but that doesn’t mean those beliefs are true. The fact that people believe in something doesn’t make it true in itself.
More psycho-babble. WHY somebody buys something is because of the item’s VALUE to them. You are running around in mental circles, digging the rut deeper every time one of your fingers hits the keyboard. I forgot NOTHING. The issue is YOU didn’t address my $10,000 pencil MLM illustration.
ALL of the examples you provided (SpeakAsia, ZeekRewards, Better Living Global Marketing or TelexFree) had little to no external retail customers, and were therefore ILLEGAL PYRAMIDS. YOU made MY point, thanks. LOL
Right, Keep that in mind the next time you repeat yourself.
Without “arms length” transactions prices are guaranteed to get distorted. Its only a matter of how much.
All those people from all those nations, cultures and sub cultures and they all had the same motive, Eh ??
Amazing.
Even more amazing is the fact M_Norway knows what that motive is or was.
News I’d like to see.
Microsoft today reported mixed quarterly results. CEO Bill Gates informed analysts that rather than report revenue in accordance with GAAP his company would begin to report the emotional value of sales separately from the monetary value of sales.
Microsoft stock (MS -17% ) plunged to a 5 year low on the news with one trader commenting, “WTF is Gates smoking?”
Me:
“businesses will separate between emotional values and monetary values”.
Bill Gates:
“report the emotional value of sales separately from the monetary value of sales.”
I don’t know anything about what he was talking about other than it was related to sales. The information was far too limited to identify.
If you interpreted it to “GAAP will mix emotional values and monetary ones”, you have probably misinterpreted something. GAAP is probably much more strictly about monetary values.
In logic and math, you can’t MIX different types of values, but that doesn’t mean you can’t analyse them or calculate them SEPARATED from each other. You can have factors like “user experience” and other factors which clearly will have value.
Companies will often invest a lot of money (monetary value) into emotional values, e.g. the value of a brand name. Investments like that will normally lead to long term results, so it will also have some monetary value.
Education has emotional value (you can’t directly calculate what it’s worth). You can calculate the COSTS in monetary value. You can estimate a potential loss of income (“if I had worked those 8 hours per day for 4 years, my income from the work would have been $xxx”). You can estimate a potential extra income in the future (“I will earn $xxx more per year with that education”).
But you usually don’t say “I was willing to pay $40,000 for my education, so that’s the VALUE of that education”. You and Tex used ideas like that, but I wouldn’t accept it. You can’t point solely to MOTIVES either, and identify the VALUE from that.
Business logic will clearly separate between emotional values and monetary ones. It will also clearly identify that PRICE or COST is something different than value, but don’t ask me about details for that.
Stop right there! That comment was part of a longer dialogue, and the CONCLUSION was the opposite of that statement. The statement was based on Tex’ ideas about value and motives, not mine.
I have refused to accept some vague ideas about value, e.g. the idea that a product is worth the price someone is willing to pay for it, or some ideas about emotional values.
Business logic will clearly separate between monetary values and emotional values. Consumer ideas will typically not. Hoss and Tex are using consumer logic, and I use business logic.
But I will also TEST their ideas, and that comment was about testing ideas. The conclusion followed shortly after that statement = “There must be some factors you have forgot?”:
If I follow Tex ideas, there’s simply completely rational to invest in Ponzi schemes. His ideas of value isn’t solely about the monetary value of the investment, but also about future hopes of saving money / earning money.
“Hopes for the future” was exactly what those Ponzi schemes were about.
Tex is simply repeating some MLM ideas about that the opportunity also is worth paying for. He has accepted those ideas, but I clearly haven’t. That’s why I have pointed out that repeating beliefs doesn’t make much sense.
Probably not, as you would be more likely say that the education cost you $40,000 but that is beside the point. There is a world of difference between saying “I WAS willing to pay ” and “I AM willing to pay.” Here’s why.
The student must decide whether he IS willing to pay $40,000 for the education. If he decides yes, and in effect says “I am willing to pay this amount, he has confirmed the worth or the value he places on the education.
This is no different than the lady with the dress. She must decide if the dress is worth $400 before she hands over her credit card. If she decides yes, $400 is the value of the dress to her and its also the price.
Dagal must decide if the bids are worth $1615. If he decides yes then that is what the bids are worth….to him…the value he places on them at the time he decided to buy them (at the point of sale)
Perception of value naturally changes day to day and person to person. The student becomes a Rhodes scholar, a Nobel prize winner and President of a nation. He says the $40,000 is the best money he ever spent…a real bargain a great educational value.
The lady wears her dress and wins a beauty prize. She says the dress was worth every penny a solid value at $400.
Dagal says, (maybe) I doubled my money in a month and closed out my position. The money is in the bank. He may say I lost it all. Who knows? It does not change the value he placed on the bid packs on the day he bought them, which as we know was the price he was willing to pay.
And fraudsters, conmen and criminals will use any means possible to separate their victims from their money.
Whether their methods conform to your idea of “logic” or whether they are business “logic” or emotional triggers is neither here nor there.
Once again you’re over complicating what is a relatively simple process.
That’s total junk….Its not as if a business or a businessman never made a decision based at least in part, if not wholly, on mistake, emotion, misunderstanding and belief. Go look at a Bankruptcy calendar or the local paper if you need confirmation.
You are grasping at straws when what you need is a lifeboat. You’re sinking.
I guess M_Norway is giving us a perfect example of why businesses use advertising companies and not accountants to merchandise their products to the public and accountants and not advertising executives to manufacture and distribute the products.
Fraudsters don’t want “business” oriented members.
They don’t want thinkers and questioners and “logical” analysis.
Whether pimping a 1% per day ROI HYIP or a pseudo MLM promising to create squillionaires selling a non existent VOIP product, emotion and not business logic is what dictates success or failure.
I didn’t say that idea was correct either?
I said the idea was logically flawed, because it mixed two different types of values = emotional values and monetary value, and then it assumed they were both about the same.
And then I said that ANY amount within an acceptable range would be just as correct (or incorrect) as the $400.
Discussing examples like that doesn’t make any sense, the discussion should be terminated now. I’m discussing it from a logical perspective and you’re probably discussing it from a belief system. Those two methods are contrary to each other, the logical method will not accept logical flaws, it will detect it as “irrationality”.
You have the following ideas:
* Value = the PRICE someone is willing to pay for the product.
* Value is about MOTIVES, what people FEEL something is worth.
* add a couple of more ideas about value?
I use those ideas in sale, but I won’t use them if I’m analysing something logically. I will usually not use them too much as a consumer either (I won’t try to convince myself that way).
I have the following ideas:
* Price != value (but don’t ask about details).
* Motives are about emotional values, not monetary.
* Emotional values can sometimes be estimated to monetary values, but they can not be calculated relatively exactly.
* Monetary values can be calculated relatively exactly.
* Both monetary values and emotional values can be completely rational to use for decisions, or be completely irrational to use.
* Normally it’s about BOTH types in decision making.
I didn’t say that business people make rational decisions. They have some “tools” they can use, e.g. some well proven methods for how to calculate monetary decisions.
People should normally be able to identify BOTH emotional values and monetary values, they BOTH have some uses and they can easily be combined, but they should also be separated from each other.
Ideas may become irrational AFTER you have tried to analyse them. The source might have been rational, but the output of a result may have been affected by something.
* you read something
* you apply your own ideas to it
* the output will be irrational
Somewhere in that process is an “irrationality generator”. It can be either the source or the applied ideas. You must check the source to see if that was irrational. If it wasn’t, then it was probably your own ideas.
Imo, this whole conversation, business or emotional, doesn’t “factor” in the expectation that people in civilized society should know or suspect right from wrong.
A “highly rational” motive to gain money. Does it end there?
They use “well proven” tools to calculate monetary decisions but in your world that’s not what rational businessmen would use.
Wow!
What would be rational for these businessmen M_?
Consulting the Oracle at Delphi perhaps? Or reading dragon’s teeth? How about astrology? Phrenology? Tea Leaves? Dice? Coin Flips?
What well proven tools would an ir-rational businessmen use?
People will be people, no matter what. People will make decisions as people, even if they’re business people. They will REPEAT the ideas they already have, just like any other people.
Decision making is primarily based on emotional factors, but logical methods can be used to correct some flawed emotional ideas (e.g. to help see things clearer).
Businesses have hundreds of standardized methods, e.g. methods for shoe stores to order the right sizes (based on the feet sizes in the population). 🙂
That method is strictly logical, but it’s typically organized by the importer / wholeseller.
PRODUCT VALUE
To calculate the value of a product (for accounting purposes), the normal method is to use “cost in” (cost in to the business = product cost + freight + insurance). It can also be about other product related expenses, e.g. seasonal variations or price risks (e.g. electronics will typically lose 20% value per year).
Product value in business is highly mathematical. Emotional ideas wouldn’t make much sense.
The method I mentioned was from memory, but it should be relatively correct. I have mostly worked in the opposite end of a business = towards customers rather than towards suppliers.
This is apparently known as belief persistence.
I believe you’re describing the cost to produce and misnaming it value. For example I might mine for gold and find the purest Mother lode.
My cost to produce an oz of .999 pure gold would therefor be relatively low but the value of the gold on the open market would be quite high. The difference is known as profit. Cost to produce does not equal value.
Google glass currently is retailing for $1500. Parts and labor to produce is approximately $185.
Apple sold a couple of bazillion iphones at UP TO $1000 and people clamored to buy them. They obviously valued the phones highly but it sure didn’t cost Apple $800 to produce and sell them. No, more like $100 (which is why Apple is sitting on several billion dollars in cash.)
So what was the value of an iPhone? $100….. or anything up to $1000? The answer of course is: whatever someone paid for it. Not a penny more and not a penny less.
That’s about market strategy, not about value. It’s about a method to sell products to different segments of a market, using different price levels to different types of people / to different times during the lifetime of a product. A company will typically defend the high price with “development costs”, but it’s actually about psychological factors (what customers prefer / will accept).
A market can be divided into segments for what they prefer / will accept. The strategy is normally called “market price strategy”, and is a different strategy than “cost plus” (a strategy based on product cost, rather than on what people are willing to accept)
Upper part of the market:
Some people will simply “die” to get the newest and hottest gadget before anyone else, and they will also accept a high price to get what they want. The high price makes the product more attractive because it’s less affordable to others.
Middle part of the market:
People here will be interested, but not interested enough to line up in queue to become the first ones to get a new gadget. They’re not very sensitive to prices (but this part of the market can be divided into sub divisions).
Lower part of the market:
This part is normally price sensitive, they want “value for their money” and inexpensive products rather than more expensive quality products. The prices will be lowered gradually, but they will make money on the volume sold.
“Market price strategy” will first market a product towards the upper part of the market, e.g. for a couple of months, then towards the middle part of the market for a few months (with the price reduced, but still high), then towards the lower part of the market with price related offers. The product will then be replaced by a newer and better model, using the same strategy.
It isn’t about value. It isn’t about costs. It’s a marketing and sales strategy. It has some other functions to, e.g. the market’s reactions to the product can be measured and be used for production planning.
Here’s some info about price strategies:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pricing_strategies
A price is simply a “mechanism” to regulate demand / trying to get profit. Consumers will respond both to high prices and to low ones, and different types of consumers may respond quite differently.
@Hoss
Price != value. The price people pay will normally be a reflection of the person too, e.g. how experienced the person is. If an inexperienced person pay a higher price than other people, the higher price will simply reflect lack of experience. That’s not value.
Some types of consumer behavior are simply not very valuable, e.g. a shop-a-holic may have a problem rather than a value.
If you want to assign a monetary value to a price (for a product you have bought as a consumer), it should normally be about what OTHER PEOPLE can be willing to pay for the product in a normal market (if you sell it), not what you have paid yourself.
The BLGM units would be worthless in a normal market. That doesn’t mean that NOBODY would be able to sell them to others, they could be sold internally or be sold to some new investors.
Marketing and pricing strategies are designed to stimulate demand. No marketer can force a consumer to purchase so it is the consumer who ultimately decides what he is willing and able to pay and thus the price he pays is equivalent to the value he perceives in the product.
Pricing does not “regulate” demand. You are making up your own terms here which not only are are inconsistent with basic economics and accounting terms but reflect your misapprehensions as well. Pricing can have an effect on demand of course but regardless the consumer must be willing and able to purchase. He will not be willing if he does not also believe there is value
We do not buy a bag of potato chips considering what we can resell if for. Your idea is ridiculous in the extreme. We compare one brand of chips with another, one store price with another and we buy and pay the price which to us represents the best value. Tghat is why price equals value
Pricing is clearly used to regulate demand. Some shops will reduce prices the first 2 weeks of December (for Christmas present sales), then have 1 week with normal prices, then have reduced prices between Christmas and New Year, then have January sale.
The primary function is to regulate the demand so they can avoid completely chaos in the week when most people normally would have bought Christmas presents (the presents they don’t have to send to other places), and to make sure they have something to do after Christmas. January would be “dead” without a system like that.
It will stimulate the market to buy Christmas presents EARLIER or LATER (the last one will not be real “Christmas presents”, but some consumers prefer to buy them in January when the prices are lowest). That’s about “regulating the demand”.
You didn’t read the whole statement? “If you WANT to assign a monetary value to a price …”. That’s an OPTION, not a rule you can apply to all products. I clearly identified that PRICE != VALUE, but it CAN be rational when people are trying to assign a value to a price in SOME CASES.
Your case wasn’t very rational, and I have already identified WHY (the “irrationality generator”). 🙂
I can’t regulate the ideas YOU will apply to a statement, I can only make sure my own statements are relatively rational. I’m not sure the “irrationality factor” can be found in my statements.
Regulate is a poor choice of words, However price does influence demand. The reason for this is because at a lower price a particular product is viewed as a better value and this induces buyers to act.
You can cut the prices in half but if the prospective buyer does not perceive value at the new lower price he still will not buy.
Price alone does not induce buying. Here’s proof.
If BLGM cut the price of its bid packs would you buy? And if you did what discount would you demand? at what price, if any, would you perceive that a bid pack purchase had value to you.
Put down a number. The going market I believe is $ .58 per bid. You can compare the price with what others have paid.
Would you buy at $.29? $.15 $.01?
I believe this puts you on the horns of a dilemma.
I don’t believe anyone have said anything about “price alone induce buying”.
My lack of interest in BLGM’s units doesn’t prove much. I have clearly stated that I don’t see much value in virtual units in Ponzi schemes. I wouldn’t have been motivated by price = I wouldn’t have bought.
I could have been motivated by “experience and insight”, by first hand knowledge about some programs. It makes it easier to communicate things when you can describe something from visual memory rather than from a logical viewpoint.
You did, in slightly different words.
You said price “regulates” demand. But your disinterest in the BLGM bid packs vividly illustrates that price did not “regulate” your desire (“demand”) at all.
Even with an opportunity to purchase at $.01 you “wouldn’t have bought.”
Why?
Dagal, the lady buying the dress, the student purchasing an education, all of us, buys in the present to obtain some future value or benefit. Dagal assumed his purchase would provide a future benefit and was willing to pay for it. You made a different assumption.
You valued at $0 and paid $0 He valued at $.58 and paid $.58
For the individual Price = value
That’s why I called it “consumer thinking”. People have simply accepted those ideas as true, “based on their own beliefs and experiences”.
I have no problems accepting ideas like that if they’re “functional”. That’s where the discussion started in post #38. 🙂
I have already answered it, “I wouldn’t have been motivated by the price”. I even added some details.
People must first be interested in the product itself. If they’re completely uninterested then price offers will have no effect. They CAN be interested in their own ideas about “value for money” and “smart deal”, but I had already excluded those ideas (I simply don’t believe in them).
I simply don’t match the profile of a “virtual unit investor” = I’m not very attracted to ideas like that and I’m not very vulnerable to them either (as a consumer). People must focus on MY motives rather than their own if they want me to buy something.
I simply can’t add much more details than that. The next step will probably be about making up stories about “newer and better units on my computer”, where I will try to get YOU to buy some. 🙂
Its your thinking. Step outside of your bubble and quit labeling everything that does not conform to your world view.
@Hoss
I used the expression “consumer thinking” because it’s TYPICAL, not because it’s “my idea”. There’s nothing wrong with those ideas, but they shouldn’t blindly be accepted as “the one and only truth”.
You can of course claim otherwise, e.g. “those ideas are NOT very common among consumers” or “those ideas should actually blindly be accepted as true”.
People use that method to simplify things. Here it has been based on the examples used (typical consumer examples). It wouldn’t make much sense redescribing it to “typical dress buyer thinking” or “typical gasoline buyer thinking”.
I have already pointed out that in post #85. It doesn’t make much sense discussing something if the viewpoints are based on something completely opposite to eachother. I also identified what I realisticly can be expected to identify about your ideas, and listed some of mine.
The “world view” part WAS handled there. Listing the opposing viewpoints is ONE method to handle it.
This is your explanation for EVERYTHING.
There is 99% certainty that your response to this post will be “people have simply accepted those ideas as true, “based on their own beliefs and experiences.”
Then you should probably offer a better explanation?
Oh. I will offer a better explanation?
Probably?
You have simply accepted your ideas as true based on your own belief and experiences?
Your turn?
This is fun?
This is not fun?
This is idiotic?
I agree?
Who said that?
You’re right, I would never have repeated THAT explanation. 🙂
That is “because you have simply accepted your ideas as true based on your own belief and experiences.”
Whee!
Nope, I didn’t understand what it tried to explain. There’s usually no point in doing that. My focus was solely on the explanation itself.
“Better explanation” should normally be understandable for most people, i.e. it should normally first start with what it’s trying to explain, and potentially also include something about the methods or logic used, and then continue with the explanation itself. It doesn’t always need to follow a system like that, it was just an example.
You have simply accepted your ideas as true based on your own belief and experiences.”
Correct. I accepted ideas like that if they were “functional”. That started the discussion, so it might as well end the discussion too (the example in post #38 pointed out dysfunctionalities when other ideas were built up around a belief that simply wasn’t true).
Your logic will also fit well with the “insanity as a defense argument in civil cases” discussion, e.g. it can clearly show that insanity isn’t always useful. The court might believe in it, but it doesn’t have any function in cases like that.
“You have simply accepted your ideas as true based on your own belief and lack of experience.”
“You have simply accepted your ideas as true based on your own belief and lack of experience.”
If possible pull your head out of your arse and read Docket 40-1 item 2. and related. If you still believe that mental incapacity can not be a factor in civil actions then you are mentally incapacitated yourself (as I have suggested on more than one occasion.
You don’t have to admit you were wrong an a total dumbass. I already know that.
Then you should probably tell which case you’re talking about?
Bell v Disner et al.
Application for entry of default, Michael Van Leeuwen. That isn’t about a defense argument, it’s about the Receiver asking for a default judgment against the defendant.
“Not a minor or an incompetent person” is about “correct person”. Minors or incompetent people will be represented by someone else (parents or legal guardians). Diseased people will be represented by their Estates.
And your point is?
Docket 39-1 item 2, Docket 40-1 item 2, Docket 41-1 item 2.
The Affidavits by Bell’s attorney assert that Leeuwen, Sorrels, and Disner were served, have had 21 days to respond, and are not incompetent.
These three elements permit the judge to render a default judgment against them, thus illustrating that mental competency/incompetency is relevant in a civil case.
What happens in the default scenario now? I held off writing about it as I wasn’t sure.
They get default entry against them, which is the surrender of all Zeek money to the Reciever.
Given they’re obviously not looking to do that voluntarily (probably moved the money offshore and have left the US), what’s the next step after default judgement?
It depends on what the parties do.
Those affected can almost certainly have the defaults vacated or set aside if they take timely action. Even the feeblest of excuses for failure to respond may suffice.
Also….There are states which do not allow a default judgment to be entered against some defendants while other defendants are actively litigating the same case; this is an application of the “one final judgment” rule.
I am not sure of this, but I think that even though a default was entered on the Complaint the amount of money owed is still subject to further objection…. and since the whole point of filing the Complaint was to clawback money its not clear if a default really moves the ball forward very much.
There are numerous other defendants that ARE defending, asserting that there was no security law violation and thus no money due from anyone and if that argument prevails its not likely the judge would hold the defaulters liable when everyone else is not.
Perhaps you can see how these three defendants may just be surfing on the tide and will respond if the need arises. For now they seem content to let others pay for attorneys and do the work. There’s nothing crazy about that.
They are in no imminent danger of having to surrender money to the receiver. Bell is a long way from being able to collect.
Guess we’ll sit tight and continue to watch it play out.
It’s like reading a thousand page book, one page each week :).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competence_(law)
Not as a defense argument against the wrongdoing. The discussion was about mental illness as an excuse for civil wrongs:
(post #33)
You’re mixing up 2 different ideas here, the due process idea and some defense ideas. Competency is normally about decision making, about being able to understand a judgment and make decisions about it. Legally incompetent people will have the right to be represented by someone qualified to make decisions for them, e.g. a legal guardian.
If a person was incompetent, out of his mind, did not know night from day, right, from wrong, was delusional, drugged, suffering from brain disease, stroke, or has undiagnosed mental illness and entered into a contract, performed some act contrary to law or statute…. you believe that he can be held fully responsible for his acts at all times and in every circumstance.
Kool head work, Bro. Love your thought process.
Nope, I don’t believe that. I believe you have extended the topic from the initial one, from civil wrongs into contract laws, from defense arguments into rules about legal reasons to avoid a contract.
That will only support my argument about “wrong type of question”. I pointed out that as the main problem. So rather than analysing what you believe I believe in, try to check your own question?
I never had a question. I said Faith Sloan’s defense was so poor she may as well put a flower pot on her head and yell booyah (suggesting that mental incompetency was her last recourse)
All this other bullshit about insanity pleas in civil versus criminal trials is just you and Greg Evans jacking each other off.
Status as a minor, and mental incompetency, as the Affidavit attests, are taken into consideration by the law. Exactly how and under what circumstances is for you and Greg Evens to discuss. I’m sure it will be a fascinating debate but I want no part of it.
Then you should acknowledge that that incompetency may be an issue in civil proceedings and quite blathering on about human rights and other such garbage and nonsense.
I have already covered that in post #34, in the initial answer to the question you didn’t ask.
“Wrong type” was about the type you mentioned in post #33, the post where you didn’t ask any question about insanity as an excuse for civil wrongs.
You answered a question I didn’t ask and to you that seems normal? Are you possessed? You must be possessed.
Do you answer other voices that don’t speak?
M_Norway
If you ever need to plead insanity in a civil or criminal case, just give them a transcript of these blog comments. The judge will believe you right away!
Ok, I was totally joking there. No offense please…
Yep, that’s quite normal in communication. Didn’t you know?
The focus in communication should normally be on whether a method makes some sense. If it make some sense, it’s normally allowed. If you believe otherwise, you can of course post your opinion about it.
I can easily point to factors like e.g. “Hoss wasn’t the only one discussing defense arguments. By handling his post as a question, I was able to add some missing information”. It will clearly reflect the truth and make some sense to most people = the communication method was acceptable.
The legal meaning of “incompetence” is primarily about decision making and ability to understand realities. Some of my posts would completely have ruined a defense strategy like that (they have identifiable decisions, and identifiable interpretations of realities).
Keep talking . This will all be useful at the hearing.
Which hearing?
As far as I can see, we can STOP the discussion about “insanity as a defense argument” and “legal incompetence” now, i.e. you have probably discovered the difference?
The lack of counter arguments indicates that you haven’t found any support of your own viewpoints on the internet. 🙂
That discussion was generated by your inability to recognize a simple joke.
I remain convinced that incompetency may be a factor in a civil proceeding…. and that an insane person is by definition incompetent.
If your contention is only that an insanity defense can not be used as a plea in a civil case, I have never contested it, I merely joked about it. However insanity may in my opinion, mitigate the culpability, liability and fault of an incompetent individual in a both a civil and criminal setting.
That wasn’t the point. You were unable to recognize it as true 100 posts ago. Your “joke” wasn’t based on a clear understanding of something, but on your own misunderstandings. 🙂
Here’s your “joke” in post #35.
It’s probably better to call it “instinctive response to information he didn’t like” rather than “well planned joke”. 🙂
You will probably find some hypothetical scenarios where previously undetected insanity will have some type of function as a defense argument against civil wrongs.
But the general answer will remain the same = “Rational people will identify it as a defense argument in criminal cases, while certain others will desperately look for constructed scenarios where they can use it in all types of cases”. 🙂
Hmmm. Rational people obviously includes only you. Neat. A party of one.
“Rationality” was about the discussion itself. I was simply pointing out that it wouldn’t be very rational to continue the discussion in some specific directions.
“Insanity as a defense” was relatively rational when it was brought up, but discussing that topic (or discussing general legal incompetence) through 50 or 100 posts won’t make much sense.
No it wasn’t but I agree that this conversation should end. The issue of Mental competency/incompetency is not limited to criminal actions. I’m sure you can agree with that.
That argument has already been covered in the “Argument Clinic” (post #127).
You have probably found the same sources I have found, e.g. “The Free Dictionary” –> “Insanity defense”, so you already know that “Legal Incompetency” is an extension of the topic initially discussed.
You can try the method I used in post #85 = try to list the viewpoints logically in a list (as a “summary”).
“Incompetency” will be relevant in both civil and criminal cases. Insanity can be a type of incompetency, but then we’re actually talking about something different than the initial “insanity as a defense argument”.
Maybe you should correct your initial post (#33)? You can extend it from “insanity” to “ANY type of mental incompetency or incapacity”. You can also extend “civil wrongs” to “ANY type of civil action”.
I said nothing about insanity in that post. I asked Greg Evan’s opinion on mental illness as an excuse for civil wrongs and you ASSUMED that this meant that I thought a person could plead not guilty by reason of insanity in a civil trial and went on page after page trying to prove how wrong I was and how right you were.
To be clear a plea is never entered in a civil trial so there is no way to plead not guilty for any reason.
I only tried to illustrate how mental competency (up to and including complete insanity) could be an issue in a civil setting. I think you finally understand that.
If a defendant shows up with a flower pot on their head screaming Booyah! and that defendant is going to be acting as a witness on behalf of herself or others then the court would be almost certain to inquire into the mental competency of the witness.
If said witness is found to be mentally incompetent then his/her actions as a defendant will naturally be viewed in a different light.
Since there is currntly no evidence that Disner, Sorrel and Leewellen are incompetent they have been held responsible for their failure to respond and were defaulted. If evidence of incompetence arises later that excuses their failure to respond the defaults can be set aside.
By the same token a finding of incompetence at any stage can suggest a reevaluation of the defendants actions in light of this new information.
Another is defaulted.
Defendant Douglas is neither a minor nor an incompetent person, nor is he a member of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
I’m waiting on some judgements before penning anything.
The Receivership has asked for default judgement of $2.27 million ($almost $300,000 in interest alone).
Ouch. How this all ultimately plays out is still unclear but you’ve got to ask yourself, “is it worth it?”