Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrHiEndAudio 
Here are the facts:
MCLSOUND: After expressing his total delight and complete satsifaction with his first upgrade, bragged that he "got a super deal on 3 players in new unopened condition for $600" when pressed how he got such a deal, MCLSOUND admits that they were "hot", as in stolen.
Perhaps they were. Perhaps he meant they were gray market products which is not necessarily illegal but generally means you're not entitled to factory authorized service. Happens with a lot of stuff like Nikons. If you're of the position that they stolen you should contact the appropriate authorities with whatever information you have and let them act upon it.
Quote:
He went on to state that "the players were a new Denon DVD-2930Ci, new Denon DVD-3930Ci and the Marantz DV-9600" that he had just sent in for upgrades and was "sweating it on return because it took longer through customs then he had expected" and that he "would like to drive up and meet halfway to hand deliver the 3930 upgrades".
I assume he's in Canada and wouldn't be the first person who has had to deal with delays from customs. On your part, I probably wouldn't drive 1/2 way and unless you were known to have people drive to your place to pick up product, I'd just handle it using your normal approach. Of course, one might reasonably speculate that the reason you don't want anybody over at your place would have to do that seeing what you do and don't have might not inspire the greatest confidence. After all an aerial view of your address indicates that it's a private home situated right next to the Cestnut Valley Golf Course.
Quote:
Immediately upon learning of this, I was quite surprised to say the least. I refused to do any further busines with MCLSOUND. This is all on audio tape loud and clear. Then MCLSOUND called back with threats and tried to stir up all kinds of crap on other websites.
Goes with the business model doesn't it? If you're willing to take and use public praise, man up and be prepared to take the converse.
Quote:
Interesting that we have yet another crook turn up here: "classba" who we have learned deals in black market stolen merchandise in the UK, including cell phones (his Audiogon ID is "FLASHUNLOCK" no less!), hot EMM LABS, dCs and other gear ogftensold in Hong Kong and Singapore. "CLASSBA" sent us what turned out to be a black market/stolen EMM LAbs CDSA-SE player. All was well for many months until CLASSBA decided to remove the top cover to "have a look around at the magic" in his words. Per his own admission on tape, CLASSBA decided to dissassemble some of the CDSA and look at the player in greater detail, and ended up pulling wires loose from inside of a connector, which he attempeted to resolder it himself, admitting right on tape over the phone that he "cannot solder too well", it wont work now, will you have a look?" "If you send it to EMM LABS PLEASE remove the serial number off the back". "It is not an uauthoried EMM's unit. I get them from a "special source". Well we have the serial number from your player which ou asked us to remove, right here "classba". And "No" we are not going to repair the player when you have voided your warranty, published out and out lies to the internet, and have turned out to be a complete crook with a hot black market player. Secondly, the inside was a filthy mess of dust and pet hair when your EMM arrived. Third, you cannot work on electronics without following proper grounding procedures including wearing a grounding strap aroud your wrist to prevent static discharge into the player when touching it in any manner whatsoever inside. You admitted on tape that you had the top cover off to show friends and that your pet sheds a lot, and that you were totally unaware that static discharge can cause serious damage, especially when you said loud and clear "It might have some black pet hair in it because I had it sitting on the floor trying to fix it".
Am I to take this that you knowingly work on stolen merchandise? You've yet been able to sufficiently substantiate the merchandise is stolen and not gray market.
Quote:
I think a call to Scotland Yard is in order you crook.
Then call already and stop threatening.
Quote:
The Upgrade Company LLC has a SPOTLESS Michigan Atty General and BBB record, with hundreds of new satisfied customers every year. I urge both you and MCLSOUND to file a formal report as it will only aid in the investigation and hopefull full-prosecution by authorities against criminals like yourselves.
The BBB has insufficient information on you and you're not an accredited member of the BBB. It has given you a C- based on limited information which can be found
here. It is interesting that you choose to cite them specifically for in that link they state,
Quote:
BBB has requested basic information from this company but has not received a response. As a result, BBB may not have current information about the company.
A formal report against you which can be filed
here, will not have the desired effect you purport which is to somehow investigate the accuser. If your position is that they're committing illegal acts, then filing a complaint with an American agency seems rather a piss-poor way of doing things.
Quote:
Neither one of you were even able to get a charge back. Our record is spotless, and I'll bet authorities are onto you now. You try lying in a police or any official report and I will personally so to it that you both are additionally prosecuted for filling out a false police report. Hopefully with some jail time to straighten you crooks out.
Well one is in Canada and one is in England. Good luck. As to getting a charge back, perhaps we'll hear more from the poster. Not getting a charge back does not necessarily mean they're guilty or that you are.
Quote:
ClassBA's Audiogon ID "Flashunlock" says it all: bragging that you know how to unlock the flash memory of stolen and black market cell phones for resale.
I'm not about to go searching Audiogon, but if that's the case, then bring it to the attention of Audiogon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MrHiEndAudio
Michigan Law indeed states that any person directly participating in any conversation may lawfully tape record that conversation. 1 on 1 is legaly admissable into a Michigan Court of Law. My father was a prominent Michigan attorney and we have coporate counsel who have just informed me that this still the law in Michigan.
Good for Upgrade Company LLC, bad for crooks like MCLSOUND, CLASSBA and others....
Ummmm...no. Things could certainly have changed but according to
this brief rundown of states, Michigan requires two party consent. So do 11 other states.
The same website states in a
different area,
Quote:
Any person who willfully uses any device to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of illegal eavesdropping, whether or not they were present for the conversation. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c.
In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.
The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication. This interpretation allows a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
The state Supreme Court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation may not unilaterally nullify other participants' expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private. Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999).
If you feel secure in recording conversations with your clients, more power to you. Maybe the 1982 ruling protects you. Maybe there are subsequent rulings that don't. I'm sure that if you're right, then any complaint to the Colorado Attorney General regarding this will result in a reply that there's nothing they can do about it. OTOH, now anyone who does business with you knows you record their conversations.
.
. How can you actually have any idea on what improvements there are if any at all? The second thing is I am shocked that this thread is still up and going
.
