Whats the real truth.....

[spacemule]

If a truck full of goods has an accident the insurance carrier will many times pay off the entire contents of the load whether of not some of the load does not appear damaged.

Once this occurs the insurance company owns these items and can dispose of them as they see fit.......in this case it is possible that an agreement was made that the serial numbers would be removed from the goods to ensure that no unchecked possible hidden damaged saws were given a guarantee.

Another large brand name disposes of such saws occasionally by dis assembling the saws then selling out the parts with certain parts not available.

So there is a fair chance that these saws were not stolen

If true, which is doubtful, that still only explains one aspect. Why the cock and bull story about clearance items and the retailer not losing its distributorship and don't take them to the dealer, etc. etc.?

 

[PES+]

Because they may have been slated for destruction

They could have been ordered destroyed under the agreement and though technically not stolen they actually did not exist

 

[Lakeside53]

I've heard of insurance companies taking titles, but not serial numbers...

These saws are HOT!

 

[Lakeside53]

They could have been ordered destroyed under the agreement and though technically not stolen they actually did not exist

:monkey: Pes, are you drinking out of Fishes bottle again?

 

[spacemule]

They could have been ordered destroyed under the agreement and though technically not stolen they actually did not exist

If you were selling these saws with no serial numbers, don't you think you'd tell the buyer that they were part of an insurance settlement and/or provide some sort of documentation to alleviate suspicion? Notice his original post makes it plain that the guy didn't want the factories or dealers to know about these, because they were "out the back door deals with no sales tax." That in itself shows tax dodging if nothing else.

 

[PES+]

The manufacturer takes the serial number tags......so the whole goods do not enter their system

I used to work for a retailer and they used to remove tags from new demonstrator whole goods after the demonstration because the manufacturer had them on a different balance sheet.....and we were not allowed as employees to take any of the goods....they had to be thrown in the dumpster

Brand new Microwaves......TVs etc

 

[spacemule]

and we were not allowed as employees to take any of the goods....they had to be thrown in the dumpster

Brand new Microwaves......TVs etc

And if you had taken one, you would have been taking that which didn't belong to you. Correct?

 

[treeclimber jul]

hmmmmm..... If a homeless person comes by and takes a old smelly fish that someone put in a dumpster, because they didn't want it, are they stealing?????

 

[spacemule]

hmmmmm..... If a homeless person comes by and takes a old smelly fish that someone put in a dumpster, because they didn't want it, are they stealing?????

If the person wanted it thrown away, yes, they are stealing. However, you all are sidetracking from the issue.

 

[treeclimber jul]

Unfortunately our society is that way, When you speed sometimes(we all do) do you go to a officer and tell him that you need a ticket??

The man who bought the saws should talk to the one that sold him them and find out where they came from, then he would know if the saws were HOT, or like someone else said,"damaged goods" and written off as a claim..

Any way.... maybe China was practicing making clones and didn't know how many digits were on the serial# so they left it blank:hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange:

 

[spacemule]

Unfortunately our society is that way, When you speed sometimes(we all do) do you go to a officer and tell him that you need a ticket??

We're not talking about a speeding ticket here, we're talking about prison time for concealing a crime. The only defense to this crime is if he tries to find the real owner. That can be accomplished by turning the stolen stuff into the cops. Sure, he may not get jail time, but someone is eating the cost of those stolen tools, and he'll have to look himself in the mirror every day for the rest of his life.

 

[volks-man]

it is so simple

the saw are stolen.

he got a great deal.

it is illegal.

no, it is not right.

what he does now is up to him, right or wrong.

this stuff happens, would i have bought a really cheap saw? yes. should i?
no.

we all make our own decisions. let the op make his, and let everyone else make thier own.

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

hmmmmm..... If a homeless person comes by and takes a old smelly fish that someone put in a dumpster, because they didn't want it, are they stealing?????

If the person wanted it thrown away, yes, they are stealing.

Not correct. If it was tossed in the dumpster, it is legally abandoned, and fair game for anybody. KISSINGER V. REPORTERS COMMITTEE, 445 U. S. 136 (1980)

Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that when Kissinger put his private papers out in the trash, he abandoned them, and they were fair game for reporters. Anything put out for trash collection is abandoned.

Some localities have laws against raiding dumpsters, but those are NOT laws against stealing. They are more akin to trespassing laws.

However, you all are sidetracking from the issue.

Now THIS is right on the money!

 

[Chris J.]

the saw are stolen.

he got a great deal.

it is illegal.

no, it is not right.

what he does now is up to him, right or wrong.

this stuff happens, would i have bought a really cheap saw? yes. should i?
no.

we all make our own decisions. let the op make his, and let everyone else make thier own.

Using your logic: If someone steals your saws, tools, etc., & then offers them to me really cheap, it's okay for me to buy them, & not worry about whether or not they were stolen.

 

[gink595]

Using your logic: If someone steals your saws, tools, etc., & then offers them to me really cheap, it's okay for me to buy them, & not worry about whether or not they were stolen.

I think ebay represents that, without the "cheap" part.

 

[spacemule]

Not correct. If it was tossed in the dumpster, it is legally abandoned, and fair game for anybody. KISSINGER V. REPORTERS COMMITTEE, 445 U. S. 136 (1980)

Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that when Kissinger put his private papers out in the trash, he abandoned them, and they were fair game for reporters. Anything put out for trash collection is abandoned.

Some localities have laws against raiding dumpsters, but those are NOT laws against stealing. They are more akin to trespassing laws.



Now THIS is right on the money!

I don't have the time to research the abandonment issue right now, but it depends on how the trash container is stored and if it is available to the public. I suspect you were thinking of a different case than Kissenger, because it contains nothing about materials being thrown away. It is about the freedom of information act and whether Kissenger not retrieving documents after he had transferred them to another agency was a "withholding."

I

This litigation arises out of FOIA requests seeking access to various transcriptions of petitioner Kissinger's telephone conversations. The questions presented by the petition necessitate a thorough review of the facts.


A

Henry Kissinger served in the Nixon and Ford administrations for eight years. He assumed the position of Assistant *140 to the President for National Security Affairs in January 1969. In September 1973, Kissinger was appointed to the office of Secretary of State, but retained his National Security Affairs advisory position until November 3, 1975. After his resignation from the latter position, Kissinger continued to serve as Secretary of State until January 20, 1977. Throughout this period of Government service, Kissinger's secretaries generally monitored his telephone conversations and recorded their contents either by shorthand or on tape. The stenographic notes or tapes were used to prepare detailed summaries, and sometimes verbatim transcripts, of Kissinger's conversations.FN1 Since Kissinger's secretaries generally monitored all of his conversations, the summaries discussed official business as well as personal matters. The summaries and transcripts prepared from the electronic or stenographic recording of his telephone conversations throughout his entire tenure in Government service were stored in his office at the State Department in personal files.

FN1. Tapes and stenographic notes were always destroyed immediately after they were summarized or transcribed.

On October 29, 1976, while still Secretary of State, Kissinger arranged to move the telephone notes from his office in the State Department to the New York estate of Nelson Rockefeller. Before removing the notes, Kissinger did not consult the State Department's Foreign Affairs Document and Reference Center (FADRC), the center responsible for implementing the State Department's record maintenance and disposal program. Nor did he consult the National Archives and Records Service (NARS), a branch of the General Services Administration (GSA) which is responsible for records preservation throughout the Federal Government. Kissinger had obtained an opinion from the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, however, advising him that the telephone summaries were not agency records but were his personal *141 papers which he would be free to take when he left office.FN2

FN2. This conclusion was premised on the Adviser's finding that the notes were covered by a Department regulation providing that a retiring official may retain papers “explicitly designated or filed as personal at the time of origin or receipt.” 5 FAM § 417.1(a) (1974).

**964 After Kissinger effected this physical transfer of the notes, he entered into two agreements with the Library of Congress deeding his private papers. In the first agreement, dated November 12, 1976, Kissinger deeded to the United States, in care of the Library of Congress, one collection of papers. Kissinger's telephone notes were not included in this collection. The agreement established terms obligating Kissinger to comply with certain restrictions on the inclusion of official documents in the collection and obligating the Library to respect restrictions on access. The agreement required that official materials in the collection would consist of “copies of government papers of which there is an original or record copy in government files.” It also provided that all such materials must have been “approved for inclusion in the Collection” by “authorized officials.”

Public access to the collection, under the terms of the deed, will not begin until 25 years after the transfer or 5 years after Kissinger's death, whichever is later. Until that time, access is restricted to (1) employees of the Library of Congress who have been jointly approved by the Library of Congress and Mr. Kissinger; (2) persons who have received the written permission of Mr. Kissinger; and (3) after Kissinger's death, persons who have received the written permission of a committee to be named in his will. Kissinger and all of his research assistants who have appropriate security clearance retain unrestricted access to the collection.(...)

Three separate FOIA requests form the basis of this litigation. All three requests were filed while Kissinger was Secretary of State, but only one request was filed prior to the *143 removal of the telephone notes from the premises of the State Department. This first request was filed by William Safire, a New York Times columnist, on January 14, 1976. Safire requested the Department**965 of State to produce any transcripts of Kissinger's telephone conversations between January 21, 1969, and February 12, 1971, in which (1) Safire's name appeared or (2) Kissinger discussed the subject of information “leaks” with certain named White House officials. The Department denied Safire's FOIA request by letter of February 11, 1976. The Department letter reasoned that the requested notes had been made while Kissinger was National Security Adviser and therefore were not agency records subject to FOIA disclosure.FN3

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

I don't have the time to research the abandonment issue right now, but it depends on how the trash container is stored and if it is available to the public. I suspect you were thinking of a different case than Kissenger, because it contains nothing about materials being thrown away. It is about the freedom of information act and whether Kissenger not retrieving documents after he had transferred them to another agency was a "withholding."

Ooops! Sorry - it was Kissinger, but evidently a different case. That's what you get for doing a quick search and then assuming. Stands to reason a guy like Kissinger might have more than one case in front of the SCOTUS!


As for the case I was thinking of, basically, he tossed some papers in the household trash which was put out on the curb for collection. Reporters grabbed the trash and went through it, finding some things of minor embarrassment to Kissinger. Published it, made a minor news story. Kissinger sued, and lost. SCOTUS said it had been put out for trash collection, therefore abandoned, therefore fair game for anybody to glom onto and use however they wanted to.


Shortly after that, the office shredder became popular!

 

[Haywire Haywood]

Using your logic: If someone steals your saws, tools, etc., & then offers them to me really cheap, it's okay for me to buy them, & not worry about whether or not they were stolen.

No, he never said that it was ok. He just said that he is perfectly willing to accept stolen goods if they're cheap enough and you have to make your own decision about what you are willing to do.

It's said that everyone's honesty has a price, some are just pricier than others.

Ian

 

[kevin j]

He just said that he is perfectly willing to accept stolen goods if they're cheap enough and you have to make your own decision about what you are willing to do.

It's said that everyone's honesty has a price, some are just pricier than others.



Good post.

So, to complicate the thread, is not buying the cheapest product knowing it was made under miserable working conditions, with no polution or safety regs, similar? It trades on someone elses suffering and misery, but it's ok, because I got a good deal.

How about a pawn shop? Granted someone walked in that door and brought the object in to sell, under pressure of their life for some reason. That seems a bit more fair, but I avoid pawnshops just because I feel like I am allowing the shop to profit at the expense of another. And because it encourages more theft in the area....

Or, the argument (that I have hard time swallowing) is that the sweatshop machinist/seamstress/farm worker would not have any job at all if we didn't buy the cheap stuff they slave at....

I avoid wally world and harbor freight partly for those reasons, but most products we have no choice. Shoes? Even much of Redwin is MIC now....

k

 

[foxeye]

:censored: Well you all can belive what the heck you want to belive. I beleive they wer ewnot stolen or hot when I bought them just as the fella told me they were not. I have nore reason to believe him and the truck load of others that have bought saws as well as other items from this individual over the years, and stillcontinues to sell items....You want a saw he'll get you a saw, you want a certain model he will get that model if possible..he does not go out and steal to make quotoa or satisfy a customer. He has bona fide connections and where those connections are is not my business. I might add, not that it means anything as most here have already heard and convicted me as well as him or others that may have bought the saws etc , as guilty and already say they are stolen, when you all do not have a half clue if they were or not......so rant on idiots (spacemule is about as dense as they come in this regard)As for warranty, he merely stated not to take the items to a dealer, and that "he/they" would take care of any repairs on them........which they have done. These saws were merely dumped oput of the system for some reaosn or other and why I really could care less if they save me a buck and have mediocre waranty coverage.....who the F cares, I sure don;t and that does not make me as SPace mule make that spacejackass would like to have you all believe, that I am also a thief. Show me one person here that does not like paying taxes..now show me another who honestly can say if they figured out the sales tax on an item they bought wrong, that they would insist on paying the amount that was in eror.No way your not gonna pay the difference. The space jackass is grasping at straws., and his back yard lawyer crap is a joke. He makes assumptions for all areas when he does not have a clue what he is talking about. PIcking stuff out of a dumpster in this area will get you arested for theft, yes theft, not tresspassing but theft. Trash is assigned to the dumpster company when its depostied in the container be it a trash can or dumpster, and a cop can and will arest a person dumpster diving or picking trash on trash days along the curbside......

This is my last post on this issue, and probably my last post on this forum. I see that there is way too many biased and ready to condem type folks in this :censored: bunch. No sense in hanging aorund this place then with such :censored: folks making assinine assumptions and adding to what was posted just because it could be this or that.Y'all have a :censored: great day.........