Brandon Cifani is engaged in fraud

[southpaw52]

It is sad what's sadder that you continues to do such activity. This young man needs help and I hope that someone intervenes to help this young man. The path he is taking is not a positive one it is only going to get worse and bigger.

[Penne Stilografiche]

Brandon has gone back to his old ways. He was just kicked off of the Fountain Pen Network for trying to sell pens he does not own as well as lying about what pens he owns. His username was "Penister".

http://www.fountainpennetwork.com/fo...9233-58/page-3

Best Regards
Vincenzo

[Jon Szanto]

A concatenation of penis and sinister. Perfect.

[Penne Stilografiche]

A concatenation of penis and sinister. Perfect.

You are not that off, the slang meaning of his name can be found below.

http://www.soslang.com/term/penister

http://www.urbandict...p?term=penistry

[kirchh]

Brandon Cifani has changed his FPN username (or had it changed) to "pen-lover".

--Daniel

[Penne Stilografiche]

Brandon Cifani has changed his FPN username (or had it changed) to "pen-lover".

--Daniel

That is quite strange, he changed his username after he was blocked. I didn't even know you could change your FPN username in the first place.

[Sailor Kenshin]

Curiouser and curiouser.

[Penne Stilografiche]

Brandon, If you are reading this, please understand the severity of what you have done. You obviously do not see anything wrong with scamming people, as you have tried to scam members of the pen collecting community numerous times. What you have done is not only wrong, but what you have done has greatly decreased your chances of getting a decent job in the future as well as decreasing your chances of getting into any college. Any of your possible future employers will look up your history before hiring you. Try typing your name into any browser. This thread as well as many threads discussing your business practices will come up, along with the link to your photo and Facebook page which is embedded in this thread as well as threads on the FPN AND FPB.

Well played Brandon, well played.

[Penne Stilografiche]

Mr. Brandon Cifani is engaged in fraud, in my opinion.

Brandon Cifani is a minor and a high school student. His email address is brandon15926@gmail.com; his FPGeeks user name is Brando090, his fountainpennetwork username is Brando090 (banned), his fountainpenboard username is Brando090, he has used cifani090 on other boards such as Head-Fi.org (banned), his former eBay IDs were “Brando090” (banned) and “Branny090” (banned), and his current eBay ID is “penmaney”.

Brandon Cifani has a long history of fraudulent, dishonest, and deceitful behavior:

- Lying about his age when inquiring about obtaining a firearm

- Lying about the price he paid for a book when offering it for resale

- Lying about his age when registering for an eBay account (three times). He has admitted this lie: “The reason im not on ebay is really not any of your business, and is related to me not being old enough (18)”

- Lying about no longer being on eBay and about no longer buying items there while actively buying pens and other items on eBay

- Violating PayPal terms of service by lying about his age

- Winning items on eBay and refusing to pay for them (e.g. this group of Vacumatics which was won by user "penmaney" according to the seller)

- Lying about the source of items he “bought” (see above)

- Lying about owning certain pens and engaging in negotiations to sell or trade those pens

A previous post here included a survey of some other of Mr. Cifani’s activities.

Brandon Cifani’s latest and perhaps most serious fraud concerns the offering for sale of very expensive pens that he does not possess nor own. Here is a timeline of the events surrounding this fraud:

On May 11 of this year, Brandon Cifani sent me an email asking,



This was an apparent reference to an old For Sale listing I had posted. I replied, stating that I still owned the pen to which he referred. He answered in part,

“Could you please send me photos of that one, and silver and gold pens your [sic] looking to sell. English, German, French, and Italian pens along with the normal Waterman silver and taper pens.”

I replied to Mr. Cifani, but I did not send a direct email. Instead, I sent my response through eBay to User ID “penmaney” as I suspected that was Mr. Cifani’s eBay handle. I asked Mr. Cifani what his budget was. He replied back through eBay from user “penmaney” and stated that his budget was “unlimited.” This confirmed that Brandon Cifani’s eBay userID was “penmaney”.

I sent Mr. Cifani a photo of the Waterman combo, and I also sent a photo of some of my early overlay pens. Knowing Mr. Cifani’s history of unethical activities, in order to protect myself I subtly watermarked my name in the image of the overlays, and I included a comment in the EXIF data in the image file stating that I owned the pens in the image and that Mr. Cifani did not. On a hunch, I also sent a copy of the image to George Rimakis, as I know he has an interest in early Waterman pens and in overlays in particular, and the image included several early Waterman overlays. I warned George that if he were offered any of these items, a fraud was being perpetrated.

Here is the picture I sent to Brandon Cifani:



Mr. Cifani replied to me on May 13 and said, in part,

“I would be interested in everything. What are the model number [sic] and what are you asking.”

I replied by identifying some of the model numbers, including that of a Waterman taper cap half-overlay – a model 222.

The next day, May 14, George Rimakis contacted me and stated that he had received an email from Mr. Cifani stating that Brandon had some sterling taper cap pens that Mr. Rimakis might be interested in. Brandon then emailed George a picture, with the cover note,

“Here are some of the pens I can trade.”

Mr. Cifani followed that message with a PM to George, in which Brandon stated,

“I sent you some pictures of a recent overseas pen collection that I bought.”

Here is the picture that Brandon Cifani sent to George Rimakis:



The picture that Mr. Cifani sent to Mr. Rimakis of this “overseas pen collection” he had supposedly purchased was instead the very same image I’d sent him of my early overlay pens, complete with watermark (top left) and EXIF data indicating that Mr. Cifani did not own the pens.

To be sure that Brandon did not simply mix up some pictures, and that he was claiming that he both owned and physically possessed the pens in the picture he had sent, George asked him about a few details of the pens, and George also inquired about how the purported “overseas collection” was shipped to Mr. Cifani. Brandon promptly replied,

“The Waterman's [sic] on the left are about 5 3/4 inches long, while one being just lightly longer. The beautiful Moore overlay pen I was lucky to acquire a short time ago seems to have the cursive initials 'AG' or 'AC'. While I'm open to trades, I'm reluctant to let the Watermans go, and cash is king for these pens. As for shipping, I was lucky enough to get the package personally shipped with a secured delivery which was quite expensive, but well worth it.”

This reply eliminated any possibility that Brandon could claim that he innocently mixed up any pictures, and it also made it clear that he was claiming that he actually had the pens in the picture in his possession.

George then asked Brandon how much he was asking for the group of pens. Mr. Cifani replied,

“For the collection, excluding pens 1,2,3, and 5 I could do $33,300.”

To summarize: Brandon Cifani is attempting to sell, for over $30,000, a group of pens that don’t belong to him.

[George Rimakis’s version of these events is posted here. We collaborated on our posts to ensure accuracy.]

Hi Kirchh,
I would recommend you report this loser to the FBI, I'm pretty sure he will never stop trying to scam people unless something is done about it.

http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

[mmahany]

Here’s what I personally see: A young kid who could use a lesson on proper business ethics and practices, but not necessarily a young kid who is scamming people. I didn’t once see him claim to own any of the pens he mentioned. I see him trying to line up a buyer before he acquires the pens himself. That’s a very smart way of lowering his risk before buying them himself, the time the pens are in his inventory, and it’s a great way to avoid losing his buying power (money in/out very quickly). It sounds like he’s simply acting as a middle man and attempting to get compensated for it.

Again, I want to explicitly state that some of his selling tactics are misguided, but the basic idea behind what he’s doing is very intelligent. Many upstanding people do the exact same thing for a living. Heck, unless you buy directly from a manufacturer, you probably deal with this on a daily basis (grocery stores, Costco, Pen stores, etc).

In regards to his age: unfortunately, many people online feel the need to offer their opinions and try to “parent” younger kids. I don’t blame him for not providing full disclure. I do see that when he was called out, he openly admitted that his age was a factor in almost all of those situations.

In many cases it looks like he’s either trying to get his questions answered, or he’s trying to get a buyer lined up before he buys a certain pen. Consequently, people are giving him a hard time so every time he makes a new post, he has to provide little detail or flat out lie. That's sad on his part, but also on everyone who is trying to run this kid into the ground.

Now I’m not saying that the kid is legitimate. He may very well be trying to scam someone out of a lot of money. However, the examples you cited DO NOT confirm that he’s trying to steal from people. In fact, the examples you cited show me that he could have a very bright future as a businessman provided he reads a few books on basic ethics and acceptable practices.

Bad business practices? Yes
Is he a scammer? Not necessarily

[kirchh]

Here’s what I personally see: A young kid who could use a lesson on proper business ethics and practices, but not necessarily a young kid who is scamming people. I didn’t once see him claim to own any of the pens he mentioned.

Except he did, repeatedly.

Please re-read my post, then post back here with a retraction and correction.

Thanks.

--Daniel

[Penne Stilografiche]

Here’s what I personally see: A young kid who could use a lesson on proper business ethics and practices, but not necessarily a young kid who is scamming people. I didn’t once see him claim to own any of the pens he mentioned. I see him trying to line up a buyer before he acquires the pens himself. That’s a very smart way of lowering his risk before buying them himself, the time the pens are in his inventory, and it’s a great way to avoid losing his buying power (money in/out very quickly). It sounds like he’s simply acting as a middle man and attempting to get compensated for it.

Again, I want to explicitly state that some of his selling tactics are misguided, but the basic idea behind what he’s doing is very intelligent. Many upstanding people do the exact same thing for a living. Heck, unless you buy directly from a manufacturer, you probably deal with this on a daily basis (grocery stores, Costco, Pen stores, etc).

In regards to his age: unfortunately, many people online feel the need to offer their opinions and try to “parent” younger kids. I don’t blame him for not providing full disclure. I do see that when he was called out, he openly admitted that his age was a factor in almost all of those situations.

In many cases it looks like he’s either trying to get his questions answered, or he’s trying to get a buyer lined up before he buys a certain pen. Consequently, people are giving him a hard time so every time he makes a new post, he has to provide little detail or flat out lie. That's sad on his part, but also on everyone who is trying to run this kid into the ground.

Now I’m not saying that the kid is legitimate. He may very well be trying to scam someone out of a lot of money. However, the examples you cited DO NOT confirm that he’s trying to steal from people. In fact, the examples you cited show me that he could have a very bright future as a businessman provided he reads a few books on basic ethics and acceptable practices.

Bad business practices? Yes
Is he a scammer? Not necessarily

Hi mmhany,
He did claim to own those pens, see the quote below.

“I sent you some pictures of a recent overseas pen collection that I bought.” -Brandon Cifani

In his newest scam he claimed to own the following (quote directly taken from the FPN);

"Pretty good price,

As of 8/3/13, prices are as follows;

RHR 58: $3-3.5k = $49,000

RMHR 58: $1.2-1.6k = $35,200

BHR 58: $7-900 = $36,000

458: $8-12k = $48,000

558 Yellow: $15-18k = $54,000

558 Green: $18-20k = $20,000

558 Rose: $15-18k = $18,000

My collection is worth a modest $225,000 give or take a few pennies. " -Brandon Cifani

"... Exactly its a number 8 nib... These pens are pretty common if your looking for them. I have over 70 in my collection at this moment. We're not talking #20's, were talking #58's..." -Brandon Cifani

"I now have 39 BHR 58's, 14 RHR 58's, and 22 MHR 58's. Let alone, the beauties of my collection, 4 458 and 1 Rose gold 558, 3 Yellow gold 558's, and 1 Green gold 558." Brandon Cifani

[Jon Szanto]

Bad business practices? Yes
Is he a scammer? Not necessarily

When one makes a judgement call one hopefully does so with as much evidence gone over as possible. I believe you've read things here, and maybe on FPN, and come to the above conclusion. However, on the Fountain Pen Board, there was a very, very long thread regarding many of his activities, where Brandon actually took part, answered and asked questions, etc. It became very clear that he is a troubled young person without the concept of both legal prudence and simple right and wrong. He is most definitely aware that he has tried to, essentially, steal from people, and he has done it repeatedly.

Frankly, I don't think it important for every single person to read every single bit of info on this situation, but if you wanted, I would post a link to the other site and the thread (though I'd have to go look it up).

[mmahany]

Except he did, repeatedly.

Please re-read my post, then post back here with a retraction and correction.

Thanks.

--Daniel

It seems you are greatly upset by this situation. I empathize with some of your points , while others I do not. I also can’t offer a full retraction or a correction on my initial post with only the information made available in this thread. I will openly state that I did skip over the quote about him owning the pens in question, but that still doesn’t change the point I am attempting to deliver.

Furthermore, the fact that I read this thread in its entirety is what prompted me to make my initial post. Although I may have skipped over some of the minutia, the comment you made below is what caused me to post. It seems that you are blurring the issue of seller misrepresentation and turning a profit. One is fraudulent and illegal. The other is perfectly legitimate.
It can certainly be your duty to make people aware of fraudulent and illegal activity. It should not be your duty to decide for others what is and isn’t fair. Calling someone a fraud or a scammer should be treated objectively not subjectively.

When two people buy into a collection, they each pay part of the price, and they each get some of the pens.
Are you insinuating that that wouldn’t have happened? If Cifani were to have not delivered on his promise then I would certainly agree. That would be engaging in illegal activity.

In Brandon Cifani's fraud, putting aside all the lies he told about owning the collection, he was asking George Rimakis to pay $33,300 to get 12 of the items, while Brandon was going to come away with four pens, including the two most valuable. And how much was Brandon going to pay to "buy into the collection"?
Are you insinuating that it is unethical to buy in bulk and then sell the portion you do not need? If so, we should be picketing outside Costco right now demanding that they sell to us at the same prices they pay from their distributors.
Let's do the math.

The total I gave Brandon for all 16 items was $26,000.

So, Brandon Cifani was plotting to take George's $33,300 and give $26,000 to me, thus pocketing $7,300. And, he was going to keep four of the pens, worth several thousand dollars.
Do you consider a 28% profit unethical? Would it be wrong of me to buy a Parker 51 for $50 and sell it for $65 (a 30% profit)?
So now, in a desperate attempt to deny responsibility for his fraud, he has concocted yet another shameless lie, which is trivially exposed, as are so many of his lies.

I don't know if the cover-up is worse than the crime, but certainly if anyone had any doubt about the depths of Brandon Cifani's dishonesty and the emptiness of his apologies, this most recent falsehood should put those doubts to rest.
His lies and false information are certainly unethical. I don’t think I once disagreed with that.
--Daniel

Again, I question if your issue is with the kid making actual lies about his ownership, or is your issue with him turning a profit?
As I previously stated, there is no place for lying when conducting an honest and ethical business transaction. I never once disagreed with that. However, one is an issue of legal and illegal activity. The other is your personal interpretation of what is and isn’t fair.

[Jon Szanto]

I will openly state that I did skip over the quote about him owning the pens in question, but that still doesn’t change the point I am attempting to deliver.

Furthermore, the fact that I read this thread in its entirety is what prompted me to make my initial post.

Well, there you go.

You might also consider the fact that the subject was substantial enough to some collectors to become a pinned topic over at the Fountain Pen Board. That might illuminate the topic a bit more, especially since he was trying to con some very knowledgeable pen people.

[kirchh]

mmahany
Re: Brandon Cifani is engaged in fraud

Originally Posted by kirchh
Except he did, repeatedly.

Please re-read my post, then post back here with a retraction and correction.

Thanks.

--Daniel

It seems you are greatly upset by this situation.

Your guess in this regard is both incorrect and irrelevant. Most importantly, it has no bearing whatsoever on the facts -- and you are wrong on the facts. I'd appreciate it if you would stay on the subject; it will speed the clearing up of the multiple misapprehensions under which you are laboring.

I also can’t offer a full retraction or a correction on my initial post with only the information made available in this thread.

Please retract and correct your erroneous claim that Brandon Cifani did not claim to own the pens he offered for sale to George Rimakis.

I will openly state that I did skip over the quote about him owning the pens in question, but that still doesn’t change the point I am attempting to deliver.

False. Your entire argument is premised on your erroneous claim that Brandon never claimed to own the pens, but rather was merely lining up a buyer for items he would later purchase. Here's what you wrote, just so there is no confusion on this point:

I didn’t once see him claim to own any of the pens he mentioned. I see him trying to line up a buyer before he acquires the pens himself. That’s a very smart way of lowering his risk before buying them himself, the time the pens are in his inventory, and it’s a great way to avoid losing his buying power (money in/out very quickly). It sounds like he’s simply acting as a middle man and attempting to get compensated for it.

Again, I want to explicitly state that some of his selling tactics are misguided, but the basic idea behind what he’s doing is very intelligent. Many upstanding people do the exact same thing for a living. Heck, unless you buy directly from a manufacturer, you probably deal with this on a daily basis (grocery stores, Costco, Pen stores, etc).

Every assertion you make in the above paragraphs is false. They are all predicated on your erroneous claim that you "didn’t once see him claim to own any of the pens he mentioned."

Although I may have skipped over some of the minutia, ...

The foundation of your claim is that Brandon didn't "claim to own any of the pens he mentioned." Once that assertion is proven to be false, you assign it the status of "minutia". As a test of the importance of that falsehood to your argument, try re-writing it, replacing "I didn’t once see him claim to own any of the pens he mentioned" with "Brandon lied and claimed he owned all the pens he mentioned." Substituting the truth for a falsehood on a point you deem "minutia" shouldn't damage your argument at all, right?

When two people buy into a collection, they each pay part of the price, and they each get some of the pens.
Are you insinuating that that wouldn’t have happened? If Cifani were to have not delivered on his promise then I would certainly agree. That would be engaging in illegal activity.

You appear to have again skipped over some of the "minutia". I'm not "insinuating" that wouldn't have happened; I'm stating it as a matter of fact. Brandon was not going to share the price of the collection with George. He was going to have George pay the entire price. Plus $7,300 more. Plus Brandon was going to keep some of the pens. Therefore, Brandon was not, in fact, looking for "someone to buy into the collection" with him. That statement is a lie.

In Brandon Cifani's fraud, putting aside all the lies he told about owning the collection, he was asking George Rimakis to pay $33,300 to get 12 of the items, while Brandon was going to come away with four pens, including the two most valuable. And how much was Brandon going to pay to "buy into the collection"?
Are you insinuating that it is unethical to buy in bulk and then sell the portion you do not need? If so, we should be picketing outside Costco right now demanding that they sell to us at the same prices they pay from their distributors.

That pesky "minutia" again, coupled with your bad habit of "skipping over" things. Brandon claimed he was going to share the cost to buy the collection; that he and George were both going to buy into the lot, so that two people could afford to split the cost. That was a lie; Brandon wasn't going to contribute anything to the cost. In fact, he was going to have George foot the entire cost, plus $7,300. And Brandon was going to pocket the difference, as well as several pens. So, the point you have missed with your "skipping over" of "minutia" is that Brandon lied after he was caught when he claimed he was only looking for another buyer so that two people could afford the cost of the collection together. So, to conclude, I am stating -- not insinuating -- that it is dishonest for someone to claim that he was looking for someone to buy into a collection with him, when he is not, in fact, buying into the collection at all. Note that even Brandon, in all his dishonesty, does not make the claim that you do -- that he was merely buying a collection at one price and then selling it at a markup. Instead, having been caught lying about ownership of the pens, he attempted to re-cast the entire attempted transaction as merely two people sharing the cost of a collection. So, your Costco analogy is void.

Let's do the math.

The total I gave Brandon for all 16 items was $26,000.

So, Brandon Cifani was plotting to take George's $33,300 and give $26,000 to me, thus pocketing $7,300. And, he was going to keep four of the pens, worth several thousand dollars.
Do you consider a 28% profit unethical? Would it be wrong of me to buy a Parker 51 for $50 and sell it for $65 (a 30% profit)?

It's that "skipping over" "minutia" thing again. Brandon claimed that he was merely looking for someone to share the cost of the collection with him, because he couldn't afford the entire cost of the collection alone. Not only did Brandon himself never claim he was trying to buy the lot for resale to make a profit, he never even admitted that he would walk away with anything other than some of the pens. He probably believed he could get away with that claim because no one knew how much he was actually going to pay for the collection; it was not posted. That was a stupid mistake; add it to his collection. Again, you are attempting to invoke explanations and defenses that even Brandon himself never offered. Strange.

So now, in a desperate attempt to deny responsibility for his fraud, he has concocted yet another shameless lie, which is trivially exposed, as are so many of his lies.

I don't know if the cover-up is worse than the crime, but certainly if anyone had any doubt about the depths of Brandon Cifani's dishonesty and the emptiness of his apologies, this most recent falsehood should put those doubts to rest.
His lies and false information are certainly unethical. I don’t think I once disagreed with that.

It follows, then, that his lie about merely looking for someone to share the cost of the collection is unethical to you. You therefore agree that after being caught in his original lie -- that he owned the pens he was attempting to sell -- he crafted another lie in an attempt to explain why he did what he did.

Again, I question if your issue is with the kid making actual lies about his ownership, or is your issue with him turning a profit?

See "skipping over" "minutia", above. I'll restate for you in an attempt to avoid further reading errors: Brandon lied when he attempted to sell my pens to George Rimakis. He stated that he both owned and possessed the pens. That's fraud, by the way. Please let me know if you believe that attempting to sell something one claims to own but does not is not a fraudulent act. Once his fraud was exposed, Brandon fabricated another lie in an attempt to explain his first lie: he claimed he was simply looking for someone to buy into the collection with him. I explained, using arithmetic, why that claim was false.

As I previously stated, there is no place for lying when conducting an honest and ethical business transaction. I never once disagreed with that. However, one is an issue of legal and illegal activity. The other is your personal interpretation of what is and isn’t fair.

Brandon engaged in fraudulent activity. He attempted to sell goods he said were his, and that he said were in his possession, but they weren't his, and he did not possess them. Those are facts that even Brandon does not dispute. I never raised any issue of "what is and isn't fair." That is a frank straw man you have constructed.

I hope you read this post with care before responding; it's a timesaver.

--Daniel

[mmahany]

Since you’re putting words in my mouth, let’s save ourselves the trouble. I’d like to ask you a few simple questions:
1) Has this kid ever stolen money from you or anyone else?
2) Is there reasonable evidence to prove(or even suggest) he had the intention to steal money from you or anyone else?

They are simple yes or no questions. However, you’re welcome to provide a longer explanation after. If you can prove the either of those two questions are true I’ll happily admit I’m wrong. Those are the only two points I’m attempting to make. Not that lying is okay. Not that he never claimed to own the pens. Not that I think what he's doing is right.

Is he a thief or not? It's that simple

[Penne Stilografiche]

Since you’re putting words in my mouth, let’s save ourselves the trouble. I’d like to ask you a few simple questions:
1) Has this kid ever stolen money from you or anyone else?
2) Is there reasonable evidence to prove(or even suggest) he had the intention to steal money from you or anyone else?

They are simple yes or no questions. However, you’re welcome to provide a longer explanation after. If you can prove the either of those two questions are true I’ll happily admit I’m wrong. Those are the only two points I’m attempting to make. Not that lying is okay. Not that he never claimed to own the pens. Not that I think what he's doing is right.

Is he a thief or not? It's that simple

Hi,
Although you did not say the above directly to me, I still feel like I should answer you.

1) He has not stolen anything from me, but I can not answer for everyone else.

2) In a couple of pm's between me and other members of the FPN, I found out that Brandon, under the username "penister", had attempted to sell pens that he did not own. He tried to steal from 2 members (that I know of). He is a simply a lying thief.

Best Regards
Vincenzo

[kirchh]

Since you’re putting words in my mouth, ...

Back up your assertion that I misquoted you. If you fail to do so, you will be implicitly admitting that this charge is false.

let’s save ourselves the trouble. I’d like to ask you a few simple questions:
1) Has this kid ever stolen money from you or anyone else?
2) Is there reasonable evidence to prove(or even suggest) he had the intention to steal money from you or anyone else?

They are simple yes or no questions. However, you’re welcome to provide a longer explanation after. If you can prove the either of those two questions are true I’ll happily admit I’m wrong. Those are the only two points I’m attempting to make. Not that lying is okay. Not that he never claimed to own the pens. Not that I think what he's doing is right.

Is he a thief or not? It's that simple

Wrong on all counts. You specifically made the following point: That Brandon Cifani did not commit fraud, because he never claimed to own the pens he was offering for sale.

Your point was demolished by the fact that your premise was false. You asserted a false premise because you "skipped over" the central fact of the entire situation. For that, you have no one but yourself to blame.

Next, let's observe that you have not disputed a single factual assertion I have made. That is reasonably taken as agreement with those facts. You have also not disputed any of the conclusions I have drawn from those facts. That's progress, as it seems you now do not disagree that Brandon Cifani engaged in a fraud when he attempted to sell pens that he said he owned and possessed but that he actually neither owned nor possessed.

I will be happy to address your specific questions about the support I have for the positions I have taken and the claims I have made. Please provide a specific quote of mine where I asserted that Brandon Cifani stole money from me or from anyone else, or that he had the intention to do so. Once you produce that quote, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

Meanwhile, we can agree that my claim that Brandon Cifani engaged in fraud when he attempted to sell pens he didn't own or possess is accurate.

--Daniel

[mmahany]

Back up your assertion that I misquoted you. If you fail to do so, you will be implicitly admitting that this charge is false.

I didn’t once see him claim to own any of the pens he mentioned.

Those were my exact words that I chose very wisely. Notice how I said “I didn’t once see” instead of “Brandon never claimed.”

Since you want to continue bringing up the legality of all of this, my statement makes no claim of Brandon’s actions. It simply states that I had not seen any proof when I made my initial post that he had claimed ownership. When that proof was made available I directly stated that I had not seen that quote at the time:

I will openly state that I did skip over the quote about him owning the pens in question, but that still doesn’t change the point I am attempting to deliver.

If we were in a court of law, my statement would NEVER be considered a claim, nor would it hold any legal bearing in any way. It is no difference than saying "I did not see John Doe kill that woman" instead of "John Doe did not kill that woman." Those are two completely different statements.

Let me attempt to make this as perfectly clear as possible. I’m not sure if I can simplify this anymore
Facts:
1.) Brandon has engaged in fraudulent activity by lying about his age
2.) Brandon has engaged in fraudulent activity by lying about his ownership of the pens.
3.) Lying is considered fraudulent activity.
4.) Not disclosing information when you are not required to do so is not considered fraudulent.
5.) It is illegal to collect money for a transaction and not fulfill your obligation as a seller.
6.) It is not illegal to sell something before you buy it.
7.) However, you are required to fulfill your obligation as the seller.
8.) You are not required to disclose that you will be acting as a middle man up front without being asked.
9.) It is not illegal to profit from a transaction.

Brandon engaged in illegal activity. He attempted to sell goods he said were his, and that he said were in his possession, but they weren't his, and he did not possess them.

He has committed fraud by claiming ownership of pens that weren’t his.

It is perfectly legal to sell goods that you do not yet possess as long as you fulfill your seller obligation in a reason period of time. That is the entire premise behind a short-sell, online order drop ship, or any transaction conducted as a third party.

You are also not required to disclose your position in the transaction nor are you required to disclose your cost basis. However, lying about either would be considered fraudulent.

Please provide a specific quote of mine where I asserted that Brandon Cifani stole money from me or from anyone else, or that he had the intention to do so. Once you produce that quote, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

Did I ever accuse you of calling him a thief? While I HAVE NOT SEEN (that means it could exist but I personally have not viewed it with my own two eyes) you call him a thief. Others have made those accusations on several accounts. Libel is just as illegal as fraud. That statement is directed towards those who HAVE accused him of theft.


Since you are not calling him a thief, I’ll ask you to help me understand why this has upset you so greatly.

Are you truly so upset that a kid has lied about his age and lied about owning pens?

Unless I’m missing something, those are the only relevant issues you’re upset about. If he were 18 years old and bought the pens from you for $26k then sold them for $33k without claiming ownership, you would have been perfectly content with the transaction?

That of course would be perfectly legal. His statement about looking to share the cost of the collection is perfectly legitimate as long as he has not violated both agreements (when acting as the buyer and then as the seller). Had he delivered his obligation in both situations (which is sounds like he had the intention of doing), all parties would have been satisfied. You may not like it, but it’s a perfectly legitimate and legal way of conducting business.

He is providing a service by working as a middle man to both you the initial seller and George the ending buyer, and asking to be fairly compensated for his time, effort, and the risk he is assuming.


Again, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just asking for some transparency about what has truly upset you. I guess what throws me off is the fact that you felt the cost of the pens in question. It has no legal relevancy nor does it have much relevancy period.


The kid has lied and committed fraud as a result. I do not deny that fact for a second. However, what court is going to prosecute a minor for lying about his age, and lying about the ownership of a set of pens? In a court of law, you must establish intent. Do you honestly think he lied to maliciously hurt others? Would either lie have significantly affected the sale in any way? Was his intent to lie and then steal money from you and the prospective buyer? Or did he simply lie to make a sale?

Again, I question if his SMALL acts of fraud are truly your motives for making this thread, or if it's because a <18 year old kid found a way to make $7000 more off a sale than you planned to.

Here's the simple point I have been making all along
I do not deny that he has lied. That is wrong, unethical, and a strong example of poor judgement. Lying is considered fraudulent and can be a prosecutable offense. However, from the evidence made available to me, I do not see how it would have significantly affected either transaction. Had he conducted this transaction with the supervision of an adult, and not disclosed his ownership of the pens (instead of lying), it would have been a perfectly legitimate transaction.

He has a habit of choosing his words poorly......that's about all I see so far.