Chris Paris (Oxebridge) Rides Again! Where will the next sucker come from?
Marc Smith
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8854
I received this PM. I'm not a person to hide so - name removed - I ask for
your comments.
[quote]Has the chris paris complaint died or are you still dealing with the
aftermath?
you may have noted chris is playing by all the rules over in the "new" ASQ
forum, acting "nice nice" and gushing with compliments for the new staff
(thank god ASQ terminated Neil Eglash, who was such a jerk about the forums
and even threatened in an email to bar me forever from the ASQ website.)
surprising what a chameleon chris can be.[/quote]
I do not believe it's a matter of Chris Paris being a 'chameleon'. Chris
Paris is - simply put - an opinionated, selfish person. I want to say that I
do not believe Chris Paris is a stupid person. Chris is in the ASQ forums
prominantly now because it's a matter of visibility. His advice and
thoughts are typically good. Chris just got a hair up his :ca: when I
started a thread here complaining about his SPAMMING the
misc.industry.quality NG with his "40 Wonder Implementation" program a
couple years ago. I felt, and feel, advertising a 40 day implementation
program was (and is) seriously misleading. Recently, Chris and Jim Wade (aka
Nosmo and several others) 'defamed' the Elsmar forums - and I over reacted
to their childish responses. I should have kept my mouth shut.
I also want to admit herein I over responded to Chris. Chris Paris is
sitting there with a failing business model (witness his complaint about
falling registrations 'petitions' to the ISO folks). I don't see Chris as a
'snake'. He does offer realistic advice in many situations. He's just greedy
and not happy that his business model is failing. I'm sure Chris does not
appreciate my 'questioning' his claims.
To Chris Paris (Oxebridge) I have this to say: After having to deal with
your complaint to the Ohio Atty General's Office, I suggest you Get A Life.
You - Chris Paris - Oxebridge - have inflicted more 'harm' upon your own
reputation - not to mention your business model - than I could ever have
done on my own.
As far as Chris Paris participating in the ASQ forums, I welcome it. Let
Chris share there what he won't here because of his pride and personality.
##########################
Ms. Woodruff:
In response to complaint 256873
The complainant:
Christopher Paris
Oxebridge
1025 West Lake Hamilton Drive
Winter Haven, FL 33881
863-651-3750
Specifically with respect to the following in your e-mail to me:
"After reviewing the consumer's allegations in the complaint, we are most
concerned with possible violations of O.R.C. 1345.02(A) and (B), which
specifically prohibits a business from committing an unfair or deceptive act
in connection with a consumer transaction.
Please note pursuant to O.R.C. 1345.09(A) and (B), the consumer is entitled
to rescind the transaction or either recover minimum statutory damages of
$200 per violation or treble damages, whichever is greater, if these
allegations are proven in a court of law. Additionally, the consumer may be
entitled to recover attorney fees."
Initial comments and response: There was no consumer or other Śtransactioną
and no Śtransactioną is required.
[QUOTE] 1345.01.01 are definitions; the meat follows:
§ 1345.02. Unfair or deceptive consumer sales practices prohibited.
(A) No supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in
connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act or
practice by a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before,
during, or after the transaction.
(B) Without limiting the scope of division (A) of this section, the act or
practice of a supplier in representing any of the following is deceptive:
(1) That the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval,
performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not
have;
(2) That the subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular standard,
quality, grade, style, prescription, or model, if it is not;
(3) That the subject of a consumer transaction is new, or unused, if it is
not;
(4) That the subject of a consumer transaction is available to the consumer
for a reason that does not exist;
(5) That the subject of a consumer transaction has been supplied in
accordance with a previous representation, if it has not, except that the
act of a supplier in furnishing similar merchandise of equal or greater
value as a good faith substitute does not violate this section;
(6) That the subject of a consumer transaction will be supplied in greater
quantity than the supplier intends;
(7) That replacement or repair is needed, if it is not;
(8) That a specific price advantage exists, if it does not;
(9) That the supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that the
supplier does not have;
(10) That a consumer transaction involves or does not involve a warranty, a
disclaimer of warranties or other rights, remedies, or obligations if the
representation is false.
(C) In construing division (A) of this section, the court shall give due
consideration and great weight to federal trade commission orders, trade
regulation rules and guides, and the federal courts' interpretations of
subsection 45(a)(1) of the "Federal Trade Commission Act," 38 Stat. 717
(1914), 15 U.S.C.A. 41, as amended.
(D) No supplier shall offer to a consumer or represent that a consumer
will receive a rebate, discount, or other benefit as an inducement for
entering into a consumer transaction in return for giving the supplier the
names of prospective consumers, or otherwise helping the supplier to enter
into other consumer transactions, if earning the benefit is contingent upon
an event occurring after the consumer enters into the transaction.
(E) (1) No supplier, in connection with a consumer transaction involving
natural gas service or public telecommunications service to a consumer in
this state, shall request or submit, or cause to be requested or submitted,
a change in the consumer's provider of natural gas service or public
telecommunications service, without first obtaining, or causing to be
obtained, the verified consent of the consumer. For the purpose of this
division and with respect to public telecommunications service only, the
procedures necessary for verifying the consent of a consumer shall be those
prescribed by rule by the public utilities commission for public
telecommunications service under division (D) of section 4905.72 of the
Revised Code. Also, for the purpose of this division, the act, omission, or
failure of any officer, agent, or other individual, acting for or employed
by another person, while acting within the scope of that authority or
employment, is the act or failure of that other person.
(2) Consistent with the exclusion, under 47 C.F.R. 64.1100(a)(3), of
commercial mobile radio service providers from the verification requirements
adopted in 47 C.F.R. 64.1100, 64.1150, 64.1160, 64.1170, 64.1180, and
64.1190 by the federal communications commission, division (E)(1) of this
section does not apply to a provider of commercial mobile radio service
insofar as such provider is engaged in the provision of commercial mobile
radio service. However, when that exclusion no longer is in effect, division
(E)(1) of this section shall apply to such a provider.
(3) The attorney general may initiate criminal proceedings for a
prosecution under division (C) of section 1345.99 of the Revised Code by
presenting evidence of criminal violations to the prosecuting attorney of
any county in which the offense may be prosecuted. If the prosecuting
attorney does not prosecute the violations, or at the request of the
prosecuting attorney, the attorney general may proceed in the prosecution
with all the rights, privileges, and powers conferred by law on prosecuting
attorneys, including the power to appear before grand juries and to
interrogate witnesses before grand juries.
HISTORY: 134 v H 103 (Eff 7-14-72); 137 v H 681 (Eff 8-11-78); 148 v H 177.
Eff 5-17-2000.
[/QUOTE]
The Administrative Code doesn't seem to apply at all.
[QUOTE]Ohio Administrative Code 109:4-3-06 Prizes.
(A) It shall be a deceptive act or practice in connection with a
consumer transaction for a supplier to in any way notify any consumer or
prospective consumer that he has
(1) Won a prize or will receive anything of value, or
(2) Been selected, or is eligible, to win a prize or receive anything
of value, if the receipt of the prize or thing of value is conditioned upon
the consumer's listening to or observing a sales promotional effort or
entering into a consumer transaction, unless the supplier clearly and
explicitly discloses, at the time of notification of the prize, that an
attempt will be made to induce the consumer or prospective consumer to
undertake a monetary obligation irrespective of whether that obligation
constitutes a consumer transaction. The supplier must further disclose the
market value of the prize or thing of value, that the prize or thing of
value could not benefit the consumer or prospective consumer without the
expenditure of the consumer's or prospective consumer's time or
transportation expense, or that a salesman will be visiting the consumer's
or prospective consumer's residence, if such is the case.
(B) A statement to the effect that the consumer or prospective
consumer must observe or listen to a "demonstration" or promotional effort
in connection with a consumer transaction does not satisfy the requirements
of this rule, unless the consumer or prospective consumer is told that the
purpose of the demonstration is to induce the consumer or prospective
consumer to undertake a monetary obligation irrespective of whether that
obligation constitutes a consumer transaction.
(C) The following example illustrates a violation of this rule as a
result of a lack of disclosure relative to a promotional presentation which
is not a consumer transaction:
A free vacation is offered in connection with the purchase of a set of
encyclopedias. All disclosures required by this rule are made except that
during the vacation the consumer is required to observe a sales presentation
for real estate. An offer to sell real estate is not a consumer transaction,
but it is an attempt to induce the consumer to undertake a monetary
obligation, and such attempt was initiated in connection with a consumer
transaction (the sale of encyclopedias).
(D) It shall be a deceptive act or practice in connection with a
consumer transaction for a supplier to in any way notify any consumer or
prospective consumer that he has:
(1) Won a prize or will receive anything of value, or
(2) Been selected, or is eligible, to win a prize or receive anything
of value, if the receipt of the prize or thing of value is conditioned upon
the payment of a service charge, handling charge, mailing charge, or other
similar charge.
HISTORY: (former COcp-3-01.06); Eff 6-5-73
Rule promulgated under: RC Chapter 119.
Rule authorized by: RC 1345.06[/QUOTE]
How is the complainant injured or damaged? If he personally suffers no
injury or damage, what is his standing to complain?
**************************************
To further address EACH accusation individually:
The complainant states:
The proprietor of the website www.Elsmar.com is running an illegal prize
contest, the details of which can be seen here:
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8476 In short, he will run a
contest each month whereby guests to his site can submit articles; he then
puts the articles up for "voting" and the winner gets $150. The violations
are that:
(a) the proprietor, Marc Smith, has "banned" many individuals from
participation in his site, including the contest;
My Response: No one is banned from the site. There is, however, 1
individual, Mr. Jim Wade, an English citizen and friend of Chris Paris, who
last year came to the site, established multiple identities and proceeded to
cause problems by trying to start arguments and to play people against each
other. This individual's accounts were discontinued - erased. The individual
was told through direct e-mail, through an internet quality assurance
related news group and another forum, that he is welcome to register again
IF he 1) Uses his real name - Jim Wade, and 2) Jim Wade apologises for the
problems he caused when he 'played his games'. The following is the e-mail
exchange in its entirety:
#############################
"On 9/9/03 7:12 AM, Jim Wade at jim....@bin.co.uk wrote:
Marc
At thread http://www.Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6964, someone asks
about a rival to BRC.
Pleased to be of help.
Can I come back if I promise to be good?
rgds Jim
My Response:
Itąs less of a matter of being Śgoodą. It is the problem that you
purposefully created multiple accounts and played people against each other.
You were often rude and many people were quite offended.
After you were deleted, it also happened that a number of hacking attempts
occurred which is when the FBI here got involved with British Telecom.
Several accounts such as the htanaka account were identified as you by
the FBI here.
After a day of discussions, we have decided to let you register and
participate again. Of all people, energy was the one who made the
difference. Whilst he did not defend you Śglowinglyą, he did make the
difference.
However, you must do a few things.
1. You must register under the name Jim Wade.
2. After you re-register I expect you to start a new thread titled łI
apologise˛ in the Coffee Break forum, tell us all of your identities from
the past. And I want an apology, therein, with a brief description of what
you did, and why, for the problems you caused me and others.
3. You will not use the ŚBetter than thouą tone which your are famous for.
Many comments which came up during the discussion were as follows:
łI can't stand the guy. He is an arrogant, childish snob. I always found he
took every opportunity (well, not every...but a lot) to be argumentative,
especially when calling his card.˛
łI believe he was somewhat arrogant (the pot calling the kettle black here)˛
łI don't think I have to remind anyone about the major uproar we had here,
and how much calmer the Forums have been lately. I simply do not want to see
a repeat performance.˛
"Well, someone has to bring it up. They say the definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The
question I would ask is what's different. Why would Jim behave differently?˛
4. If you get into tag team mode with Martin Greenaway, you'll be gone again
for good.
Marc T. Smith
#################################
Jim Wade is not banned, but rather I set reasonable conditions for him to
register and participate again based upon his previous behavior. Jim Wade
has chosen not to register again probably because the last thing he wants to
do is to openly acknowledge his actions and apologise.
Mr. Paris, in his complaint, states "...many individuals..." are banned. Mr.
Paris himself registered in the forums recently and Mr. Paris knows no one
is banned from the site. Mr. Paris is aware of the above e-mail exchange.
Mr. Paris is lying. Can Chris Paris be charged for knowingly giving false
testimony to the Ohio Attorney General's office?
The complainant states: (b) the site does not address the age of contest
entrants;
Response: There is no age restriction. The site is a 'standard' business
process discussion site focused on Quality Assurance and Business Systems.
If an 8 year old would like to register, she or he may and may participate
in the monthly content award. However it is highly doubtful that anyone
other than business professionals would have an interest in so much as
visiting the Elsmar Cove web site - http://Elsmar.com . I would suggest that
you visit the site, if you have not already done so, to see what the site is
about.
If a child is advanced enough to read and understand the forums postings I
would encourage it. When a child knows at a young age what they want to do
in life, or is even asking him/herself that question, why would anyone want
to keep that child from participating? From learning? Is Quality Assurance
and Business Systems a 'bad' thing for children?
If I was charging a fee or posed some other requirement, we would be talking
a different story. But in this case, if an 8 year old was to submit an
article and the registered users voted that child's submission the best, I
would be PROUD that on my site such a young person expressed quality
assurance or business systems knowledge and interest - win or lose.
However, if someone makes me aware of a violation of law with respect to age
I will amend the 'terms and conditions' of the article submission rules to
comply.
The complainant states: (c) the site owner has indicated he will send the
prize money to countries currently on the US list of international sponsors
of terrorism;
Response: Mr. Paris should get a life. We're talking about US$150. People
from all over the world do visit the site, I fail to see this as a
significant aspect. Mr. Paris is seeking, by any means possible, to initiate
trouble. Potentially federal trouble. This is NOT rocket science. In some
ways, the Elsmar forums has become a peer group forum unrelated to any
military, political or other similar group. We discuss manufacturing issues
mainly related to civilian products - from cars to lawn mowers to machine
shops to metal stampers - and on and on. This is not trade. It is discussion
and recognition to those of us who appreciate quality assurance and related
interests. Not to mention - so far no submissions are from anyone residing
in any country on the US list of international sponsors of terrorism. I
really think this is a bit much.
The complainant states: (d) the current technology of the site allows
administrators to alter poll results, by their own admission;
Response: This was explained AND discussed by members of the forums and the
decision was made to make poll votes open. That is, while there are numbers
attached to the results, each vote has a member name attached which cannot
be changed without finding someone who knows the software and can manipulate
the database. But - even if someone were to change a name and number to
another person's article, the person who voted would know it because their
name would not be next to the article they voted for.
Mr. Paris makes this out to be a big thing - as if this is a gigantic web
site with millions of visitors a day. It is not. Roughly 3000 unique
individuals visit the site every day. Not exactly a big draw. It is a
'niche' forum. In all the job interests in the world, quality assurance is
not exactly the largest interest group.
If it were, we might be looking at something significant. In addition, there
is no fee or other requirement other than to register using a valid e-mail
address. Requiring a valid e-mail address to register is standard procedure
at most forums. It is intended to keep those who want to make 'trouble
posts' from doing so, or if someone does, as Jim Wade did, it allows
traceability to an individual in addition too the IP. It was a combination
of IP logged in the Apache server log and the IP he used to retrieve e-mail
from his 'free' e-mail addresses which was used to 'dead ringer' Jim Wade by
cross referencing the two.
The complainant states: (e) the rules of the contest are not spelled out
properly;
Response: They were spelled out AND discussed in this thread:
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8476
Last month that above thread was at the top of thr May 2004 Submissions
forum: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=80
However, at months end it was moved to the current forum of June 2004:
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=84
The complainant states: (f) the site regularly engages in slander, libel,
religious slurs, and other forms of internet harassment;
Mr. Paris has been upset with me for some time. It goes back to when Mr.
Paris was spamming a news group with what many of us considered to be
borderline fraud in promoting a "40 day ISO registration" (see
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1815 ). Mr. Paris considers
criticism and discussion of what many of us in the profession to be
misleading claims as 'slander' or 'libel'. It is my understanding that in
the United States a person may state their opinion in private or in public
without hinderance by way of accusations of slander, libel and the like.
As to accusations of 'religious slurs', the closest you might find is jokes
in the Coffee Break forum in very old threads. This potential problem aspect
was recognized, along with other potential objectionable aspects, and
addressed in a thread last fall (2003). In this forum:
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=33 very near the top is a thread
labeled 'Sticky: Pls. Read Rules and Guidelines for Coffee Break Forum
Threads and Posts'. It's url is:
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7171
I might add that in part this thread wherein we set standards for forum
content (which became the "Readers Digest Acid Test") came about because of
Mr. Jim Wade including his posting a picture of naked girls/women in a
thread. I'm not a prude and it didn't bother me particularly, but Jim Wade
was the general catalyst for my starting that thread. There was a complaint
and as a potential liability, not to mention the purpose and scope of the
forums is quality assurance and business systems - not pornography or
someone like Jim Wade using multiple e-mail addresses to establish multiple
identities and then 'creating trouble' - and I took action. This is the same
Jim Wade, an English citizen, who Chris Paris is referring to in a) above.
If there was a reason to ban someone from the forums, Mr. Jim Wade's actions
while using multiple identities in the forums and fermenting trouble, such
as getting arguments started between participants, this would be only 1 of
many potential reasons.
There is more slander in Mr. Paris' accusations than there is in my forums.
In the complaint you sent me, it appears the complaint is the online input
of Mr. Paris and as such it is an obvious attempt to paint the forums, my
site and myself through the use of words meant to inflame. I suggest Mr.
Paris provide evidence of these claims - especially that of 'religious
slurs'. That's so far out of the ball park that it is not funny. It has been
made very clear that religious or political content will NOT be tolerated.
The complainant states: (g) the contest may be illegal in many states or
countries outside of Ohio, but the site allows any person, from any country
or state, to apply... so long as they have not been banned by the site
owner. I am sure there are other aspects of local Ohio law the company is
in violation of.
Response: Well Chris Paris does a good job of cobbling together some words
here. What he appears to be asking for is that the Ohio Attorney General do
his work in asking for a general investigation. That is, he appears to be
asking the Ohio Attorney General to start a fishing expedition. I suggest
that if Chris Paris wants to 'widen the investigation', that Chris Paris do
so on his own time and if he finds cause for complaint he file his complaint
WITH EVIDENCE.
And again, Chris Paris brings up the topic of people being banned. Again he
is knowingly lying to the Ohio Attorney General's office in his complaint.
No one is 'banned' from the forums. Not even Chris Paris' friend Jim Wade.
General Comments: Mr. Paris has been upset with me for some time. It goes
back to when Mr. Paris was spamming a news group with what many of us
considered to be borderline fraud in promoting his company's "40 day ISO
registration program" (see http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1815 ).
Mr. Paris considers any discussion or criticism of his 'methodology' as
slander when one reads the posts in the thread as he charges here as "...the
site regularly engages in slander, libel, religious slurs, and other forms
of internet harassment;..."
This is really a personal vendetta by Chris Paris and to some degree Jim
Wade. The 40 day wonder thread ended and all was in the past. Then about a
month ago some remarks were made on another forum the ISO1Stop.com forums. I
won't say they were slanderous - but then I'm not a person who believes
lawsuits are the answer, particularly in revenge. But I did get mad and made
some comments. That episode is somewhat addressed in
http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8347
Basically what happened is someone - whom by the tone and such I believed to
'probably' be Jim Wade - came to my forum and, as I soon found out also
posted to the ISO1Stop forum, and started a contentious thread. On the
ISO1Stop forums Jim Wade and Chris Paris made - shall we say negative -
remarks about my forums and their content. I take pride in the site I have
had online since January 1996 (forums were added in June 1997 or there about
- see http://Elsmar.com/old_forum.html ). So, the needling started up again
So, what you have here is a disgruntled person whose business model is
sinking and he's not at all happy about it.
ABOUT THE 'CONTEST' - Is it really a 'contest'? What it is and why it is
As I sat here one night I was looking at the ASQ's website www.asq.org as
well as the Quality Digest site www.qualitydigest.com . We have a lot of
discussions in the forums and we have some very intelligent and experienced
people who visit. Many every day. There is a 'core group' of about 150
'regular' visitors. As I perused their web sites I was impressed by the
articles. We don't have that - or didn't - in the forums. I liked the idea.
In part I saw this as a good thing. My site is small. Last year I GROSSED
less than US$8000. It was mostly a good place to come, for the most part I
enjoyed it, I'm relatively proud of it so I tried to do different things to
make ends meet in paying to keep the site online plus have a few bucks for
myself. In December 2003 on the 22nd I tried Google's AdWords program and
started to see some decent income. To pay out US$150 for some good articles
wasn't a big thing. Basically, in wanting to emulate more 'official' sites I
decided to look for articles. But I couldn't afford to say hey - I'll pay
everyone who submits something. I'm not some big company. It's a one man
show - me. And considering a gross of less than US$8000 last year, it's
relatively obvious I'm not making a killing off the web site and make
absolutely no money off of reader submissions.
What I particularly thought amusing in Chris Paris' complaint was that he
entered this information:
#######################
Purchase Information:
Product or Service: n/a
Purchase Date: 6/1/04
Total Price: $0
Disputed Amount: $0
Amount Paid so Far: $0
#######################
Nothing was purchased yet Chris Paris puts in a purchase date.
This is not a product or service and Chris Paris has not bought or been
promised anything, nor is there any requirement to buy or do anything other
than to register in the forums which is necessary for identification of
individuals and to prevent people from causing trouble in the forums.
Chris Paris can submit an article if he would so like. If Chris Paris is so
aggrieved that he believes that he will submit an article and his article
will be rejected by 'devious means', I would be happy to PAY Chris Paris
US$150 every month that he submits an article just to be able to say I do.
That's how juvenile I think this whole complaint is. Just so we are all
clear on this, however, there is the assumption that what Chris Paris
submits is a serious attempt - as would be the case with any submission for
publication to provide a useful, informative quality assurance and/or
business systems related article. If Chris Paris submits nonsense, I surly
will NOT pay him. Chris Paris should ALSO read the Rules and Guidelines
thread - http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8476 - because Chris
Paris must understand that whatever he submits will be FREE OF COPYRIGHT TO
EVERYONE. I make no money on submissions, and have no claim of any sort to
them - they are PUBLIC DOMAIN. THEY MAY BE FREELY DISTRIBUTED WITH NO
COPYRIGHT CLAIM. This is true for every submission, even if the submission
is not voted as the best submission.
What does this mean? This means I don't make money off the articles
submitted and neither does anyone else. To categorize this as a 'CONTEST',
taken in context, is simply silly. This is not a "You MAY have won
$1,000,000!" scheme.
See: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8692
Marc T. Smith
Cayman Business Systems
8466 Lesourdsville - West Chester Road
West Chester, OH 45069-1929 United States
US Teleco: 513 777-3394
E-Mail: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/sendmessage.php
Internet: http://Elsmar.com
Forums: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/
*************************************************************
Neither the confidentiality nor the integrity
of this message can be guaranteed following transmission on
the Internet. Period. To believe otherwise is silly.
*************************************************************
On 6/8/04 9:39 AM, Nancy M. Woodruff at NWoo...@ag.state.oh.us wrote:
30 E. Broad St. 14th floor Dept 066 Columbus, OH 43215-3400
Telephone: (800) 282-0515 Telephone: (614) 466-4986 Facsimile: (614)
728-7583 www.ag.state.oh.us
June 8, 2004
Elsmar Business Systems
8466 LeSourdsville-West Chester Rd.
West Chester, OH 45069-1929
Re: Christopher Paris
Complaint #: 256873
Dear Sir/Madam:
I have been assigned to mediate the enclosed consumer complaint
that has been filed in our office against your company.
As you may be aware, two primary functions of the Attorney
General's Consumer Protection Section are to mediate resolutions to consumer
complaints and to bring companies into compliance with the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act (C.S.P.A.), Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C.) 1345.01 et seq.
and the Ohio Administrative Code (O.A.C.) 109:4-3-01 et seq.
After reviewing the consumer's allegations in the complaint, we are
most concerned with possible violations of O.R.C. 1345.02(A) and (B), which
specifically prohibits a business from committing an unfair or deceptive act
in connection with a consumer transaction.
Please note pursuant to O.R.C. 1345.09(A) and (B), the consumer is
entitled to rescind the transaction or either recover minimum statutory
damages of $200 per violation or treble damages, whichever is greater, if
these allegations are proven in a court of law. Additionally, the consumer
may be entitled to recover attorney fees.
Before we determine what action will be taken in this matter, we
would like to give you the opportunity to present your side of the
controversy and propose a compromise or possible manner of resolving the
complaint.
I would appreciate it if you would provide me with your written
reply within ten (10) days of receipt of this request so the complaint can
be resolved without further action by the Consumer Protection Section.
Description:
The proprietor of the website www.Elsmar.com is running an illegal prize
contest, the details of which can be seen here:
http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8476 In short, he will run a
contest each month whereby guests to his site can submit articles; he then
puts the articles up for "voting" and the winner gets $150. The violations
are that: (a) the proprietor, Marc Smith, has "banned" many individuals
from participation in his site, including the contest; (b) the site does
not address the age of contest entrants; (c) the site owner has indicated
he will send the prize money to countries currently on the US list of
international sponsors of terrorism; (d) the current technology of the site
allows administrators to alter poll results, by their own admission; (e)
the rules of the contest are not spelled out properly; (f) the site
regularly engages in slander, libel, religious slurs, and other forms of
internet harassment; (g) the contest may be illegal in many states or
countries outside of Ohio, but the site allows any person, from any country
or state, to apply... so long as they have not been banned by the site
owner. I am sure there are other aspects of local Ohio law the company is
in violation of.
Satisfactory Solution:
The AG's office must notify Elsmar that its contest is illegal, and the
contest must be shut down.
Marc Smith
Smith at Marc....@SpamCop.net wrote :
> Discussion at:
>
> http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8854
I have just been informed by Chris that the complaint against me was
rescinded on 28 June 2004.
That said, the 'war' is over.