Law Enforcement Action?

So-Called Loon · Post by **So-Called Loon** » Mar 19th 2003, 12:02 am

With all the press bits showing up and what i assume have been all the IFCC and Attorney General reports filed by customers, is there no movement from any quarter toward investigating or busting Ross "the Ratbag" Rojek?!

This business may not be all that huge but my understanding is that a fairly significant number of customers have had problems, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 at least, has been misappropriated, and half a dozen laws broken.

Postings here have shown a pattern of skullduggery by Ross going back some years.

This guy is looking worse than Clinton for dodging consequences!

Does anybody know of any movement by any organizations toward prosecution or.... anything?

Nostradamus · Post by **Nostradamus** » Mar 19th 2003, 2:25 am

Jason has mentioned that he will (or has) provide information pertaining to the AU mess to various governmental units, though what, if anything they will do with that info remains to be seen.

Jason R · Post by **Jason R** » Mar 19th 2003, 9:33 am

I was contacted by the Sacramento office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Friday, 3/14. My first remark was "sure took you guys long enough!"

That's all that I may be able to say about it at this time. I believe that this followup was a direct result of the complaints to the IFCC.

Best
Jason

starbug · Post by **starbug** » Mar 19th 2003, 10:46 am

That's good news. I never heard anything back from the IFCC but I made sure I referenced your complaint in mine, so if enough people did that it would make sense that they would go to you first...

Here's hoping something monumental comes from it.

so-called customer · Post by **so-called customer** » Mar 19th 2003, 3:21 pm

The problem is one of proving intent. If there was no intent to commit fraud, then no law is broken. Being bad at running a business is not illegal, doing it on purpose is another matter.

Jason R · Post by **Jason R** » Mar 19th 2003, 4:27 pm

I don't believe it will be hard to prove.

fnordboy · Post by **fnordboy** » Mar 19th 2003, 6:51 pm

Besides stuff they we all probably don't even know, Ross got caught in too many lies by too many people (including his vendors) that it shouldn't be too hard to prove that there was atleast some intent.

If the law actually follows through then something might come of it. My problem is that who knows how much they will bother with. I don't, obviously, have too much faith in our legal system.

lance · Post by **lance** » Mar 20th 2003, 10:31 am

Jason,

Thanks again for your continued efforts. I am glad to hear that some movement is finally happening on AU and Ross.

Best,

Lance Man

Tapp_Darden · Post by **Tapp_Darden** » Mar 21st 2003, 1:06 am

I'm glad to hear that some more people hear about this. and are doing something about it.

So-Called Loon · Post by **So-Called Loon** » Mar 22nd 2003, 7:05 am

so-called customer wrote:The problem is one of proving intent. If there was no intent to commit fraud, then no law is broken. Being bad at running a business is not illegal, doing it on purpose is another matter.

So how does that work? You can't actually just go missing dates, dragging the whole thing on forever, not supplying the product promised, holding onto mega $$$ of people's money and breaking laws willy-nilly and have it all ignored because you weren't good at conducting things otherwise can you?

What if i own a company and somebody gets ground up in a machine and i say, "oops, i'm kinda sloppy at following those OSHA rules"? Or like Ross, i steal a hundred grand or two and say "whoops, i guess there was a problem with our software."

jason wrote:I don't believe it will be hard to prove.

I would think it would be elementary! But then i've not really gotten caught up in the legal world much.

so-called customer · Post by **so-called customer** » Mar 22nd 2003, 5:50 pm

Unfortunately, many people are innept when it comes to running a business. Companies go under, bills are left unpaid, merchandise never ships. Proving intent is pretty difficult, though I think in Ross' case there is enough history to present a pretty strong case, but I'm not a jury.

We all know Ross will plead that it was all an unforseen series of circumstances, accidents and clerical errors that caused all the problems. He will also claim Jason plotted to ruin his business out of revenge. Just because none of this is true doesn't mean someone won't buy it. Just look at all the people who actually believed AU would deliver the goods, despite mounting evidence that this was all a sham.

lance · Post by **lance** » Mar 23rd 2003, 10:45 am

So-Called Loon wrote:
so-called customer wrote:The problem is one of proving intent. If there was no intent to commit fraud, then no law is broken. Being bad at running a business is not illegal, doing it on purpose is another matter.
So how does that work? You can't actually just go missing dates, dragging the whole thing on forever, not supplying the product promised, holding onto mega $$$ of people's money and breaking laws willy-nilly and have it all ignored because you weren't good at conducting things otherwise can you?

What if i own a company and somebody gets ground up in a machine and i say, "oops, i'm kinda sloppy at following those OSHA rules"? Or like Ross, i steal a hundred grand or two and say "whoops, i guess there was a problem with our software."

jason wrote:I don't believe it will be hard to prove.
I would think it would be elementary! But then i've not really gotten caught up in the legal world much.

You got your refund? Did the check clear?

Best,

Lance Man

starbug · Post by **starbug** » Mar 24th 2003, 6:33 am

We've had this whole 'is Ross a criminal?' debate before...

I'll just say that intent is hard to prove as it's a state of mind. Unless you're a mindreader you're never going to be able to know for sure what someone's state of mind is.

However, the courts will infer someone's intent by looking at their actions and deducing from the evidence of actions what they can be pretty sure that person's state of mind was at the time. Were they lying (on the basis of previous statements being inconsistent)? Did they have knowledge? Should they have had knowledge? The list goes on...

Basically, this is what courts do all the time. There is also one other important mechanism; put the defendant on the stand and watch his testimony. Juries and judges can then decide for themselves whether that person is trustworthy and telling the truth... a further blow to Ross's case, I think, would come at this stage

Now, what do we all infer from the fact that Ross's story has changed dramatically from one day to the next? Both statements cannot be true simultaneously therefore one of them is a lie. Therefore his credibility is damaged.

Ross has lied to us. He led us to believe things that were not true and induced us to part with our money for something that we didn't get and as far as I can see never will: the exclusive bonus-disk set of MSCL. Surely this is fraud?

I'm just wondering what happens between my credit card provider, and AU... I got my money but from my CC. Do they just write this off, or do they follow up with enforcement action?

Benebula98 · Post by **Benebula98** » Mar 25th 2003, 6:21 am

Hey Guys!
So for the sake of splitting hairs....the definition to the word may not apply here....then again it may. One doesn't accidently not refund money, cancel orders, return emails, return phone calls, and tell the truth. All of these things WERE done intentionally be it premeditated or not. The fact that a transaction took place...or money for said goods was paid...and the transaction having not been completed but money was paid...isn't that fraud? This whole thing is wrong on so many levels for the sake of fraud...or breach of contract? For example, I am proud to have been one of the first people to preorder my set to get the product even made, but I placed a preorder with this company because it was stated that this was the only place I would be able to purchase this DVD set let alone get the bonus material. As all this information comes out though, I could have purchased it somewhere else for MUCH cheaper. The argument could be made "but you wouldn't have gotten the bonus material" but I still didn't get the bonus material. Isn't claiming the the set would only be available through them also fraud? I cancelled my order about 50 times, got sick of waiting, bought it from Best Buy (for MUCH cheaper), never was refunded, and finally got my set on December 27th! Now I have paid for 2 sets and still don't have any bonus material. I could even sell my addition set in theory, but it would be at a loss because I will never get the $115 I paid for it on ebay. I would be lucky to get $50.
K, sorry about the rant, I am just confused!
*BEN*

Tapp_Darden · Post by **Tapp_Darden** » Mar 25th 2003, 12:16 pm

why does intent matter?

So, I could be speeding on the highway, but not intend to, and get out of the speeding ticket?
I could murder somebody, but not intend to, and get off the hook?
I'm not trying to be dificult, I just don't understand.

I guess if AU files for bankruptcy, i could understand if we get nothing after that...

Forum

Law Enforcement Action?

Law Enforcement Action?

news

refund

Definition of Fraud

Who is online