Advertising someone else's stuff on Craigslist

[Ddrak]

Embar,

It's happened before. People have been charged. The police and DA didn't say there was *nothing* to charge on, just that they weren't sure what to charge with - big difference. The law expert didn't say that there was no criminal case available, just that the civil route was probably a better one to take (he's right). There *is* a criminal case available if they want to pursue it, of which forgery is one aspect.

For example:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... st17m.html

Nichole Blackwell, 28, was charged with second-degree burglary, malicious mischief and criminal impersonation for allegedly posting an ad that read, "Moving out ... House being demolished. Come and take whatever you want, nothing is off limits," on the online classifieds Web site, according to charging documents from Pierce County Superior Court.

My understanding of the law is fine. The fact you're continuing to harp on about claiming ownership despite being informed several times that it's irrelevant simply shows that you have no willingness to even research the issue. You've offered no rebuttal of any of the points I've made and instead beat your silly old ownership strawman each time I explain how it's wrong.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar,

It's happened before. People have been charged. The police and DA didn't say there was *nothing* to charge on, just that they weren't sure what to charge with - big difference. The law expert didn't say that there was no criminal case available, just that the civil route was probably a better one to take (he's right). There *is* a criminal case available if they want to pursue it, of which forgery is one aspect.

For example:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l ... st17m.html

Nichole Blackwell, 28, was charged with second-degree burglary, malicious mischief and criminal impersonation for allegedly posting an ad that read, "Moving out ... House being demolished. Come and take whatever you want, nothing is off limits," on the online classifieds Web site, according to charging documents from Pierce County Superior Court.

My understanding of the law is fine. The fact you're continuing to harp on about claiming ownership despite being informed several times that it's irrelevant simply shows that you have no willingness to even research the issue. You've offered no rebuttal of any of the points I've made and instead beat your silly old ownership strawman each time I explain how it's wrong.

Dd

You can't use another states laws, Dd. They vary from state to state. For instance, had this happened in New York, the guy probably would ve been charged with 2nd degree aggravated harassment, but that law isn't on the books in Texas.

And I absolutely offered rebuttals. You claim his post passes himself off as the owner, its the basis for your "forgery" charge. I specifically addressed that. I responded that his post does not identify himself as the owner, and gave reasons why.

[Harlowe]

Embar,
Wouldn't that be implied by the very act of creating the post?

[Lurker]

Any reasonable person would think the post was made by the owner of the property. That's the standard, not whether the guy explicitly said he was the owner or not.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Embar,
Wouldn't that be implied by the very act of creating the post?

Not necessarily, no. Again, that's why I think the guy was so careful about his wording. I think it can also be construed as "I know of some free stuff that is avaialble, this is where its at, come get it." Was he wrong about it being free? Maybe, maybe not. The actual owwners didn't help by giving the basketball goal away, which implies that at least some of the items WERE free.

[Trollbait]

I am with Lurker. There is an implication with making a post in the first place that you are responsible for the stuff you are posting about.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Even if YOU think there was an implications, doesn't mean there was one. And even if there was an implication, absent a definitive statement claiming to be the onwer, it doesn't rise to the level of criminality.

People can imply many things, in fact that's how people get away with slander without actually engaging in slander... they imply, but don't definitively make a statement about someone.

[Harlowe]

Slander doesn't involve the act of giving away someone else's stuff.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Sure it does, Harlowe, its the damaging or giving away of reputation.

[Harlowe]

Well when I say stuff, I mean physical property.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think everyone has articulated their positions, so now its a wait-and-see game to find out what happens. Will the guy be charged or not? If he isn't charged, there probably wasn't a crime they could charge him with. If he is charged, we'll see how he does at trial.

[Lurker]

They could also find that this is to trivial to bring charges even though a crime was committed. My money is on that happening.

[Riggen]

So Texas doesn't have any kind of law against false advertising?

[Ddrak]

You can't use another states laws, Dd. They vary from state to state. For instance, had this happened in New York, the guy probably would ve been charged with 2nd degree aggravated harassment, but that law isn't on the books in Texas.

Fair comment.

And I absolutely offered rebuttals. You claim his post passes himself off as the owner, its the basis for your "forgery" charge. I specifically addressed that. I responded that his post does not identify himself as the owner, and gave reasons why.

I never claimed the post passes himself off as the owner. In fact, I specifically stated several times that it's not required that he pass himself off as the owner for forgery to be a legitimate charge. That's where I think you're not actually reading what I'm posting because you keep asserting my position is he said he was the owner when I've said no such thing.

To recap, he said there was stuff being given away for free. This is not the case. It's a forgery, under the strict definition in Texas law. No need for him to claim he was the owner at all.

In any case, the second obvious crime here is a federal one: wire fraud.

Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

That would be up to 20 years in a federal pen, right?

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

What's the definition of "honest services"?

[Ddrak]

As far as I can tell, about as broad as the FBI wants it to be (mail fraud and wire fraud are their favorite charges):

The DoJ says:

"[T]he words 'to defraud' in the mail fraud statute have the 'common understanding' of '"wrongdoing one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes," and "usually signify the deprivation of something of value by trick, chicane, or overreaching."'" Carpenter, 484 U.S. at 27 (quoting McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 358 (1987) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924))).

Seems more solid than my somewhat overliteral interpretation of forgery, but you'd have to get the FBI interested enough to make a federal case (which is unlikely).

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

You'd also have to make the argument that the stuff had value, and since the owner gave some of it away for free, that argument would be hard to make.

Sorry, this still doesn't qualify as a crime. Too many holes... carefully worded statements and acts by the owner to devalue the items essentially gut any criminal case.

[Harlowe]

It wasn't anyone else's to give away besides the owner.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Doesn't matter. If something had no worth, then no harm could be caused. Its like prosecuting someone for giving away someone else's trash.

[Harlowe]

Of course it has worth, someone wanted it and it wasn't in fact in their trash.