Sorry, not at liberty to do so. BTW this is my last post on this forum.
Quote from steve46:
Hello Folks:
I am interested in this from a different standpoint. I am trained as a mechanical engineer, but the rest of my family, mother, father, brothers, sisters are in the legal profession. 3 judges, 2 lawyers. Talking with them I hear an almost unanimous opinion that it is the owner's constitutional right to serve as a forum for just about any kind of "expression" of opinion as long as it does not directly incite illegal activity. Although that line is not easily drawn, an example would be someone who decides to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. In addition, this website is privately owned, and as such, the owner is entitled to express his own view (also with the caveat that he may not directly incite illegal activity). The bottom line is that one may sue for just about any reason, but the chance of a litigant obtaining any monetary relief because a trader lost money responding to a scam offer is about zero. This "opinion" was obtained informally, and relates to US law only. While I am sympathetic to Mr. England's plight, I do wonder why he did not put more effort into a due diligence process before sending funds to such an obvious scam artist. If he chooses to pursue legal action, given the emotional nature of his comments, a good defense attorney would pretty much "bitch slap" him around the block (I apologize for the language). As the wicked witch said in Wizard of Oz, "what a world"... Regards, Steve46
Quote from steve46:
The bottom line is that one may sue for just about any reason, but the chance of a litigant obtaining any monetary relief because a trader lost money responding to a scam offer is about zero. This "opinion" was obtained informally, and relates to US law only. Steve46

Quote from TriPack:
Yes caveat emptor. Regardless of what others think of traderbrad's ethics, he has no contractual responsibility to give back any of the money.
Quote from WarEagle:
Tri, I would normally agree with you here, but Samson said he did not receive all of the course material (per Brad's admission that he did not get everything) and was booted from the chat room prematurely. That means he did not deliver product for the money. That is what I have a problem with. Had he gotten everything he paid for it would just be a lesson in buyer beware, but if not, its borderline theft.
Quote from WarEagle:
Tri, I would normally agree with you here, but Samson said he did not receive all of the course material (per Brad's admission that he did not get everything) and was booted from the chat room prematurely. That means he did not deliver product for the money. That is what I have a problem with. Had he gotten everything he paid for it would just be a lesson in buyer beware, but if not, its borderline theft.