Those that have been scammed..

[EE THr]

I can do ya one better: For the question, Was that your opinions or do you have verifiable proof of your claims?" Can you just answer?

By the way, I couldn't help but notice....ya know that list you made, "Predictable Patterns of Con Artists"?

In your last several posts, you have managed to exemplify these, whether directly or in some form close to them: 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 31, and 38.

Wow!

Wrong about the list. I checked the first few numbers, and you got them wrong, I didn't bother with the rest. Besides, the main point of the list is people who are scamming others by promoting LRLs, which I do not, and you in fact do.

You are trying to limit me to a multiple choice question, above. My answer doesn't fall in the category of either of your two choices, therefore you are asking a Loaded Question, and it is therefore invalid.

Typical of an LRL promoter.

You are even more so, your own best debunker!

Keep up the good work!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[EddieR]

I can do ya one better: For the question, Was that your opinions or do you have verifiable proof of your claims?" Can you just answer?

By the way, I couldn't help but notice....ya know that list you made, "Predictable Patterns of Con Artists"?

In your last several posts, you have managed to exemplify these, whether directly or in some form close to them: 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 31, and 38.

Wow!

Wrong about the list. I checked the first few numbers, and you got them wrong, I didn't bother with the rest. Besides, the main point of the list is people who are scamming others by promoting LRLs, which I do not, and you in fact do.

You are trying to limit me to a multiple choice question, above. My answer doesn't fall in the category of either of your two choices, therefore you are asking a Loaded Question, and it is therefore invalid.

Typical of an LRL promoter.

You are even more so, your own best debunker!

Keep up the good work!

Don't you just hate questions that make you look bad? I don't blame you for being scared to answer it...but don't fret. You have already proven your fallacy claims. Thanks!

 

[EddieR]

Hi Ed

Stickin' around for the pole dance?

Love the avatar!!!!!!

 

[EE THr]

Gloves are off, eh?

What next, Pole Dancing?

Your train of thought is so convoluted that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever anymore.

And still not a single word about LRLs.

By now I think it's plenty obvious to everyone that you're just Trolling.

And you're not even an interesting troll, at that.

 

[EE THr]

I can do ya one better: For the question, Was that your opinions or do you have verifiable proof of your claims?" Can you just answer?

By the way, I couldn't help but notice....ya know that list you made, "Predictable Patterns of Con Artists"?

In your last several posts, you have managed to exemplify these, whether directly or in some form close to them: 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 31, and 38.

Wow!

Wrong about the list. I checked the first few numbers, and you got them wrong, I didn't bother with the rest. Besides, the main point of the list is people who are scamming others by promoting LRLs, which I do not, and you in fact do.

You are trying to limit me to a multiple choice question, above. My answer doesn't fall in the category of either of your two choices, therefore you are asking a Loaded Question, and it is therefore invalid.

Typical of an LRL promoter.

You are even more so, your own best debunker!

Keep up the good work!

Don't you just hate questions that make you look bad? I don't blame you for being scared to answer it...but don't fret. You have already proven your fallacy claims. Thanks!

You haven't asked a valid question.

You tried the sneaky line of, "Oh please don't contradict me, because I'm just an innocent bystander trying to be fair to both sides."

You try to push your loaded question, while it matters not to you that LRLs are a scam.

Thus proving that you are an LRL promoter, on the sly.

You have exposed yourself, and are your own best debunker.

Thanks for your help, and keep up the good work!





Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

 

[EE THr]

JH---

Your avatar forgot to trim his sideburns.

...Just sayin'....

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE!

There was no "not guilty" verdict, which you claimed there was.

Sure glad that you are sticking to your predictably patterns. You are wrong again and repeating it over and over will not make it true...I guess it has something to do with that psychological thing...Art
Don't be a doof---show the proof!

 

[EE THr]

~EE!

There was no "not guilty" verdict, which you claimed there was.

Sure glad that you are sticking to your predictably patterns. You are wrong again and repeating it over and over will not make it true...I guess it has something to do with that psychological thing...Art
Don't be a doof---show the proof!

916 F.Supp. 613 (1996)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
QUADRO CORPORATION, Wade L. Quattlebaum, Raymond Fisk, Malcom S. Roe, Quadro Corporation of Texas, William J. Long, et al., Defendants.
No. 1:96CV38.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.

February 10, 1996.

...

*618 The court finds that the government has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and that defendants used the U.S. mail and interstate wires to perpetrate the fraud. This finding is supported by the testimony of the witnesses, exhibits, and affidavits. The evidence shows by a preponderance that:

(1) Defendants made representations regarding the structure and ability of the Quadro Tracker.
(2) Defendants representations were false. The government presented evidence regarding the structure of the Quadro Tracker which shows that the "chip" inside the device consists of a piece of copy paper with a photocopied image of the object which the Quadro Tracker will purportedly find. The governments' experts testified that the device could not locate objects as represented by defendants under any known principles of modern science. The court finds the testimony of defendants' experts credible and compelling.
(3) The manner in which the Quadro Tracker was manufactured by defendants establishes that the defendants knew or should have known that there was no reasonable scientific basis for the Quadro Tracker to operate as advertised in their marketing brochures, demonstrations or training sessions. Therefore, the defendants knew or should have known that their representation were false.
Even if defendants subjectively believed in the ability of the Quadro Tracker, defendants made numerous representations to government agencies and the general public with reckless disregard to the truth or falsity of the representations.
(3) Defendants enticed law enforcement, correctional and educational authorities to purchase the Quadro Tracker through the use of the U.S. mails and over interstate wires via telephone calls and faxes.
(4) The extent of defendant's advertising and distributorship network indicates that sale of the Quadro Tracker is an ongoing scheme which would continue to defraud government agencies and consumers unless an injunction is granted.


----------

There is no "not guilty" verdict.

You continue to fantasize.

And thus you are your own best debunker.

Keep up the good work!

 

[aarthrj3811]

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...1438.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7
On its face 18 U.S.C. § 1345 provides that the Attorney General may seek an injunction "in any Federal court" when a person has or is about to violate one of the predicate statutes, including mail fraud or wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and § 1343, where an injunction is "warranted to prevent a continuing and substantial injury to the United States or to any person or class of persons." 18 U.S.C. § 1345.
II. Conclusions of Law
Plaintiff filed an application with this court for preliminary injunctive relief, and other equitable relief, including a freeze of defendants' assets pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1345. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from using the United States mails or private commercial interstate carriers or the telephone or interstate wires to solicit customers or entities, promote, sell, transfer, or demonstrate the Quadro Tracker devise, or receive monies from marketing schemes which are the subject of this action, or to transmit any other substantially similar solicitations or promotional materials, which violate 18 U.S.C. § 1341 or § 1343, two of the predicate offenses which serve as a basis for injunctive relief under § 1345.

The court finds that the government has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and that defendants used the U.S. mail and interstate wires to perpetrate the fraud. This finding is supported by the testimony of the witnesses, exhibits, and affidavits. The evidence shows by a preponderance that:
For the reasons stated in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law previously entered in this matter, the court ORDERS that defendants, Quadro Corporation, Wade L. Quattlebaum, Raymond Fisk, and Malcom S. Roe are preliminarily enjoined as follows:
~EE~

There is no "not guilty" vertict.
You continue to fantasize.
And thus you are your own best debunker.
Keep up the good work!

I agree that there was not a not guilty in that case. This case you are pushing was a decision made by one man.

You may want to look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro_Tracker
The Quadro Tracker, also known as the Positive Molecular Locator, was a "detection device" sold by Quadro Corp. of Harleyville, South Carolina between 1993 and 1996. Around 1,000 were sold to police departments and school districts around the United States on the basis that it could detect hidden drugs, explosives, weapons and lost golf balls. In 1996, the FBI declared it to be a fake and obtained a permanent injunction barring the device from being manufactured or sold. Three principals of Quadro Corp. were charged with mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud, but were acquitted in a trial held in January 1997.[1]
Or you can check here..
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,374021.0.html
And many other places on the internet
http://www.google.com/search?source...T4GGHP_enUS414US415&q=Texas+Vs+Quadro+Tracker

Just another failed attempt on the part of the EE’s...Your scam is not going to work..Art

 

[EddieR]

I can do ya one better: For the question, Was that your opinions or do you have verifiable proof of your claims?" Can you just answer?

By the way, I couldn't help but notice....ya know that list you made, "Predictable Patterns of Con Artists"?

In your last several posts, you have managed to exemplify these, whether directly or in some form close to them: 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 31, and 38.

Wow!

Wrong about the list. I checked the first few numbers, and you got them wrong, I didn't bother with the rest. Besides, the main point of the list is people who are scamming others by promoting LRLs, which I do not, and you in fact do.

You are trying to limit me to a multiple choice question, above. My answer doesn't fall in the category of either of your two choices, therefore you are asking a Loaded Question, and it is therefore invalid.

Typical of an LRL promoter.

You are even more so, your own best debunker!

Keep up the good work!

Don't you just hate questions that make you look bad? I don't blame you for being scared to answer it...but don't fret. You have already proven your fallacy claims. Thanks!

You haven't asked a valid question.

You tried the sneaky line of, "Oh please don't contradict me, because I'm just an innocent bystander trying to be fair to both sides."

You try to push your loaded question, while it matters not to you that LRLs are a scam.

Thus proving that you are an LRL promoter, on the sly.

You have exposed yourself, and are your own best debunker.

Thanks for your help, and keep up the good work!





Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

I did ask a valid question, but you chose to skirt around it because your truthful answer would expose you as trying to push your opinions as fact. The evidence of this is in our posts above (in case you forgot) and it is there for all to see.

You presented several fallacies as truths, and cannot produce one teeny tiny bit of evidence to back up your claims. If you had produced documented verifiable evidence then I would have had to believe you. But since you cant, I can't help but wonder....how much more of the supposed evidence you say exists isn't real?

 

[EE THr]

If you can buy a U.S. Attorney, who knows what else can happen?

-----

"In late January, Guy Lee Womack, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, resigned his office and agreed to pay a $5,000 civil fine. Womack confessed that he used his office to promote the Quadro Tracker®, a bogus drug and weapon detecting device. He paid $13,600 for distribution rights in Alabama, Arkansas, New Mexico and Wyoming and hosted meetings with investigators in Houston to show how the device worked (Richard Stewart, "Tracking-device sellers cleared of fraud counts," Houston Chronicle, January 30, 1997, p. 21A)."

"The men were indicted on August 21, 1996 for deceiving customers into buying what they knew was a worthless device. Prosecutors claimed that the Quadro Tracker® was just a radio antenna attached to a hollow plastic box containing "chips" constructed of paper and plastic."

"Scientists at the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and the FBI Engineering Research Facility in Quantico, Virginia tested the Tracker, but found it was nothing more than an empty black box with a transistor radio antenna attached. When they opened the gunpowder, marijuana, and cocaine cards, they only found a sheet of white paper coated with plastic and human sweat. The paper is similar to that used in candy wrappers."

"A device marketed to law enforcement agencies nationwide, the Quadro Tracker ... is a fraud," the FBI wire said. "All agencies should immediately cease using the device if used as a basis for probable cause. Anyone who bought one of the devices is asked to contact the FBI white-collar crime division."

-----

I hadn't seen that part of the news before, but just because they got off on some kind of technicality, or someone was bought off, has no bearing on the fact that they were fraudulent---and that is the whole point here.

No LRL has ever been proven to the World to work. Period.

But now I know why you embarked on that line of argument. Thinking that it would somehow prove that LRLs work. But it doesn't. Because they don't.

If you think that court cases prove anything, then how come no debunker has ever been sued or arrested for slander? Because the LRL makers can't prove that they work, that's why.

And the reason they can't prove it, is because they just don't work! (Duh!)

 

[EE THr]

I did ask a valid question, but you chose to skirt around it because your truthful answer would expose you as trying to push your opinions as fact. The evidence of this is in our posts above (in case you forgot) and it is there for all to see.

You presented several fallacies as truths, and cannot produce one teeny tiny bit of evidence to back up your claims. If you had produced documented verifiable evidence then I would have had to believe you. But since you cant, I can't help but wonder....how much more of the supposed evidence you say exists isn't real?

You asked me a multiple choice question.

I answered your question, but my answer was not one of the two answers which you suggested. In other words, you asked a loaded question, which is invalid (see definition of Loaded Question.)

You whined that you wanted debunkers to stop criticizing your phony stories, and claimed that you were merely an unbiased innocent bystander. Yet you don't demand any documented verifiable evidence from Art when he alledges how many LRL buyers, testimonials, and happy users there are. You only attack the debunkers, and never the LRLers---making you an LRL promoter in disguise, which is the slimiest type of scammer shill.

You don't need to worry about the validity of what I say, because I usually give reference links, like the one above. But apparently you didn't read the same one I gave before, so you should click on this one.

 

[EddieR]

I did ask a valid question, but you chose to skirt around it because your truthful answer would expose you as trying to push your opinions as fact. The evidence of this is in our posts above (in case you forgot) and it is there for all to see.

You presented several fallacies as truths, and cannot produce one teeny tiny bit of evidence to back up your claims. If you had produced documented verifiable evidence then I would have had to believe you. But since you cant, I can't help but wonder....how much more of the supposed evidence you say exists isn't real?

You asked me a multiple choice question.

I answered your question, but my answer was not one of the two answers which you suggested. In other words, you asked a loaded question, which is invalid (see definition of Loaded Question.)

You whined that you wanted debunkers to stop criticizing your phony stories, and claimed that you were merely an unbiased innocent bystander. Yet you don't demand any documented verifiable evidence from Art when he alledges how many LRL buyers, testimonials, and happy users there are. You only attack the debunkers, and never the LRLers---making you an LRL promoter in disguise, which is the slimiest type of scammer shill.

You don't need to worry about the validity of what I say, because I usually give reference links, like the one above. But apparently you didn't read the same one I gave before, so you should click on this one.

Nope, I don't believe anything you say anymore. Your little Fallacy Posting did that in.

And now you are whining wanting me to pursue other people.

Geez, grow a pair and admit you made it up.

 

[EE THr]

Nope, I don't believe anything you say anymore. Your little Fallacy Posting did that in.

And now you are whining wanting me to pursue other people.

Geez, grow a pair and admit you made it up.

You claimed to not believe anything I said before this, so nothing has changed. It's clear that you are just another LRL promoter now, so why should I try to impress you?

Besides, the statement I made was an obvious generalization of common knowledge, developed by those who are familiar with the legal system. You should have known that to begin with. Then I spelled it out for you twice, which you simply ignored, in order to try to push an ad hominem attack to pull the focus off of the fact that LRLs don't work (which is the whole point, anyway).

If you don't understand the concept of my answer, that's your problem. It's not surprising that someone who promotes the LRL scam, would try to also use an invalid Loaded Question scam.

If that's all that you can come up with to try and invalidate me, then you must be a real lightweight.





P.S. Your LRLs don't work, and you will never be able to prove otherwise.

If you try to fight facts with fiction, you will always lose in the long run....





Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

 

[EddieR]

Nope, I don't believe anything you say anymore. Your little Fallacy Posting did that in.

And now you are whining wanting me to pursue other people.

Geez, grow a pair and admit you made it up.

You claimed to not believe anything I said before this, so nothing has changed. It's clear that you are just another LRL promoter now, so why should I try to impress you?

Besides, the statement I made was an obvious generalization of common knowledge, developed by those who are familiar with the legal system. You should have known that to begin with. Then I spelled it out for you twice, which you simply ignored, in order to try to push an ad hominem attack to pull the focus off of the fact that LRLs don't work (which is the whole point, anyway).

If you don't understand the concept of my answer, that's your problem. It's not surprising that someone who promotes the LRL scam, would try to also use an invalid Loaded Question scam.

If that's all that you can come up with to try and invalidate me, then you must be a real lightweight.





P.S. Your LRLs don't work, and you will never be able to prove otherwise.

If you try to fight facts with fiction, you will always lose in the long run....





Don't be a doof---show the proof!

P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's double-blind test, and collect the $25,000.00?
A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

I don't want you to impress me. You have proven to everyone that some, if not all, of your "proof" is fabricated, so it's impossible for you to impress me now.

And you didn't try to divert attention away from your fabricated statements by drawing Art into it? Gimme a break.




Don't be a Doof---Tell the truth!

P.S. When will you man up and take the "Tell The Truth Challenge"?

 

[EE THr]

You have proven to everyone that some, if not all, of your "proof" is fabricated, so it's impossible for you to impress me now.

And you didn't try to divert attention away from your fabricated statements by drawing Art into it? Gimme a break.

My statement was common knowledge, not fabricated. That's your lie.

Art was posting before you were, in fact it was his post that I was responding to.


Those who have been scammed, are anyone who has bought an LRL, and those who believed your phony claim that you are an unbiased spectator in this matter.

The bottom line is that LRLs don't work, and you are a scammer.


A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

 

[EE THr]

Art---

If you think that court cases prove something, then how come no debunker has ever been sued or arrested for slander? Because the LRL makers can't prove that they work, that's why.

And the reason they can't prove it, is because they just don't work! (Duh!)




A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

 

[EddieR]

You have proven to everyone that some, if not all, of your "proof" is fabricated, so it's impossible for you to impress me now.

And you didn't try to divert attention away from your fabricated statements by drawing Art into it? Gimme a break.

My statement was common knowledge, not fabricated. That's your lie.

Art was posting before you were, in fact it was his post that I was responding to.


Those who have been scammed, are anyone who has bought an LRL, and those who believed your phony claim that you are an unbiased spectator in this matter.

The bottom line is that LRLs don't work, and you are a scammer.


A Dozen Points Proving LRL Fraud These points have never been rationally refuted.

Common knowledge? Then it should be easy to post the references from which you gained this "common knowledge"....references which show that someone purchased a LRL, wasn't happy with it, threatened to sue, so the manufacturer (or seller) gave their money back to avoid a lawsuit. That was ONE of your claims. Can you post the verifiable references?

We'll work on this one then we'll go on to the other claims.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

G'evening EE. You posted -->And you're not even an interesting troll, at that. <-- referring to Judy.

***************
If'n yer referring to our Judy, speak for yourself. She is one extremely intelligent gal, titled and going for her PHD, besides being - blushing -very sexy.

A perfect 'B and B' package, and an excellent foil for just about what ever you wish to talk about.

It was a very elevating day in my life when I met our Judy.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[aarthrj3811]

~EE~
Re: Those that have been scammed..
Reply To This Topic #490 Posted Today at 01:02:47 PM

If you think that court cases prove anything, then how come no debunker has ever been sued or arrested for slander? Because the LRL makers can't prove that they work, that's why.

And the reason they can't prove it, is because they just don't work! (Duh!)

~EE~
Re: Those that have been scammed..
Reply To This Topic #496 Posted Today at 03:32:44 PM

If you think that court cases prove something, then how come no debunker has ever been sued or arrested for slander? Because the LRL makers can't prove that they work, that's why.

And the reason they can't prove it, is because they just don't work! (Duh!)

Your acting like SWR now...What’s wrong? I see..You can’t get your hand out of the cookie jar..
Could the reason none of the debunkers (Skeptics) have not been sued is that they are great advertisement for the whole industry..Keep up the great work...Art