Don't buy from 123Mountain.com

Can I buy a membership to the F Brem fanclub? Do I get 25% off 123mountain.Com merchandise?

Finally read this thread...my goodness. I generally stick to the main few, backcountry for online, REI for in store purchases to crush the soft 5.9s.

Thanks to all who kept thread slive, on topic, and informative and entertaining.

F Brem wrote:Dylan is correct. They didn't show up to the hearing. With several judgments now against them, lots of victims and people watching them, any new website that they may be launching in the future would be quickly reported. Here is the latest review on Ebay (within the last month) under their grivel-us account: Received only EMPTY BOX! Told -no refunds when dealer contacted Clearly a $3.7M judgment against them is not stopping them. Hopefully, the AG can work with Sweden and enforce the judgment there. If not, the scenario will repeat itself in Europe until they run out of countries to move to and are finally stopped for good.

Forget fines. These people obviously need to be in jail.

They are career criminals. They have done the same in the past, never bothered to show up in court and have been collecting default judgments against them through the years.

They may have gotten away once again by fleeing to Sweden who may not recognize default judgments overseas but we know that they will continue down the same path there.

They are also becoming bolder and are probably thinking they are above the law.
They will not stop which means they will get caught eventually. Crimes like these do go unpunished forever.

If the Swedish government determines that their actions are going against public interest, it may very well decide to enforce prior foreign judgments in addition to prosecute its own case.

Dylan B. wrote: Just based on the default judgment in the link, it does not appear that criminal charges were brought (in this case, anyhow). This is a civil suit to enforce Colorado's consumer protection laws, not a criminal charge, therefore jail is not an option in this case. Moreover, it is generally unconstitutional to convict someone of a criminal charge in their absence. A defendant has a right to be present at their criminal trial. If a defendant is not present, a warrant is issued, not a default judgment. It is possible--and I understand that some States do this--to have two proceedings going forward together, criminal and civil. If the defendant fails to show, a default judgment could be entered on the civil case, while a warrant is issued on the criminal. But I don't see any sign of that here; just a default judgment.

I'm guessing there is no way to throw someone in jail for not paying a civil judgement?

And how is fraud not a criminal offense?

Back to the top nudge ;)

Dylan B. wrote: Fraud can be a criminal offense. But this is a civil case. As far as I know, nobody has issued criminal charges. Criminal fraud is harder to prove than enforcing a civil fraud case. The elements are different, and of course the burden of proof is higher. Perhaps the State of Colorado felt they couldn't prove the criminal case, or that it wasn't worth the resources. Perhaps they knew that they could get default judgment and that the Goumas' family would leave the country, making them somebody else's problem. Ask the AG; they're public officials. Maybe they'll explain why they proceeded as they did. Ideally no. We did away with debtors prison (in theory) during the American Revolution. There are some ways that civil cases can result in incarceration, but they're supposed to be extraordinary remedies, and we should not be relying on them nearly as much as we do already. If the government wants to lock somebody up, we want them to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't want the government to be locking people up based on default judgments in civil cases--no matter how much these folks may deserve it. Violation of the injunction is probably a crime. The State could pursue that by filing criminal charges in a new case.

You would think they would make fleeing the country to avoid a civil judgement a criminal offense.

Have they started a new venture yet?

christopher adams wrote:Have they started a new venture yet?

Yeah, I want to buy some ice picks, I hear they have really good deals!

Dylan B. wrote:Dragging witnesses from all over the U.S. to court in Colorado is expensive and re-victimizes people by disrupting their lives.

I never ordered from 123Mountain, but if I was defrauded by an online retailer, I'd take joyful pleasure in traveling & testifying against them in court. It'd be better than a vacation.

Dylan B. wrote: The question is whether it's worth enforcing in this case. From the AG's POV, these people are gone and unlikely to come back and victimize the AG's constituents again.

Why wouldn't they come back, after the publicity and heat die down? I doubt that their ability to secure a visa has been red-flagged. Do they hold a US citizenship?

Anyway, just like some illegal immigrants come back after being deported, I don't see why they couldn't come back here and run their scams anew.

FrankPS wrote: Why wouldn't they come back, after the publicity and heat die down? I doubt that their ability to secure a visa has been red-flagged. Do they hold a US citizenship? Anyway, just like some illegal immigrants come back after being deported, I don't see why they couldn't come back here and run their scams anew.

Bingo! If terrorists can make up a fictional home town and post up all over Facebook about how they hate America before they shoot up an office, I doubt anything will prevent them from returning once the heat dies down. Our immigration laws are a joke, these people should have been tossed out long ago.

Pretending to be grivel on ebay and selling merchandise online (whether they have the items or not) is a violation of the injunction.

feedback.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISA…;userid=grivel-us&ftab=FeedbackAsSeller.

purchasing a new domain called grivel.us on May 16 (after the injunction) may also be a violation of the court order.

This may be why the judge applied a penalty of $2,500.000.00 to the default judgment.

They are also still posting on their twitter account and on their blog:

twitter.com/123mountaincom?…

https://123mountainblog.wordpress.com/

F Brem wrote:They are also still posting on their twitter account and on their blog: twitter.com/123mountaincom?… 123mountainblog.wordpress.com/

prohibit unlawful use:

Twitter wrote:Unlawful use: You may not use our service for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal activities. International users agree to comply with all local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content.

Instructions for reporting violations are here .

If you put a purchase on your credit card and feel the company did not deliver, call your credit card company and request a chargeback.

The burden will be on the seller to show that the delivered what was promised. It sounds like the can not do this in your case.

They own the following websites as well:

ski-gel.us/ and are violating the current court order by selling merchandise online.

goumas.us/: currently no live content

F Brem wrote:They own the following websites as well: ski-gel.us/ and are violating the current court order by selling merchandise online. goumas.us/: currently no live content

Looks like another attempt to rip off a legitimate brand, ski-angel.com, wonder how long this one'll stay up.

F Brem wrote:They are also still posting on their twitter account and on their blog: twitter.com/123mountaincom?… 123mountainblog.wordpress.com/

Apparently also violating Wordpress.com's User Guidelines :

Wordpress.com wrote:The following activity/material isn’t allowed on WordPress.com. Illegal content and conduct. Self-explanatory.

I can't find any really helpful instructions on reporting violations of this policy -- there are a lot of dead-ends in the wordpress.com support system.

in additional to ski-gel.us, he also owns ski-gel.com
statsinfinity.com/domain/U2…