The Truth About Ruth - Part 2 - Merge

[Palimpsest]

So- does anybody around here have any legal know-how? Cause after researching 'fraud' on Wikipedia, I don't see how this could be seen as anything else. She misrepresented herself and lied about her financial situation in order to solicit donations. She didn't always ask explicitly, but I do remember at least one post where she did ask people to donate- I think it was when she was getting ready for her 'big move'? I didn't go back all that far so maybe there were other posts where she asked for money, as well, even if she was vague about it.

Quoting from Wikipedia in case anybody else is curious about US fraud law--

"In the United States, common law recognizes nine elements constituting fraud:

a representation of an existing fact;

its materiality;

its falsity;

the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;

the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;

the plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;

the plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;

the plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and

consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff."

Thanks for asking this. I've been wondering too. I also wonder if many of these cases have been successfully prosecuted. Would it be a civil class action suit of many plaintiffs? If people have only donated small amounts they would probably just write it off as a lesson learned rather than prosecute by themselves.

Or is it a criminal case that would be filed in Federal court?

Any legal eagles care to comment?

I'm torn on this because I think factious disorders like Munchausen by Internet are genuine illnesses. On the other hand, unscrupulous people who are not ill can pull off major Internet scams too. I can't decide which category Ruth fits into.

I wish that someone could just take away Ruth/Possum's computer and Internet access so she can't do this again.

[OkToBeTakei]

Is there any real laws regarding this on the internet? There seems to be such fuzzy lines.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Just want to chime in and welcome back RHS! I really enjoyed your posts on the old board - hope you'll stick around!

[treemom]

I am just popping in here before I leave the us for a week on vacay, but I can vouch for nerdymomma's husband working for legal aid in a place that would have allowed him to check up on this.

I get no on has to believe me.

[treemom]

My husband does work at the legal aid organization that services NWA. Both treemom and PrincessJo can vouch for that if they wish as they have met both of us in person.

Yeah sorry, little late to the table on the vouching....but I vouch for her.

[nelliebelle1197]

I believe her! I was being paranoid. We are like one degree separated in people we know!! And I had just been reading an old Yuku RR thread in which got her head bitten off and wondering about her!. I was bad! I apologize!

[treemom]

I believe her! I was being paranoid. We are like one degree separated in people we know!! And I had just been reading an old Yuku RR thread in which got her head bitten off and wondering about her!. I was bad! I apologize!

Sorry. I am several pages behind...I just now got to that part.

It's the Internet. Doubt happens.

[Carla Bruni]

I would just like to point out that, TOU or not, there is a VERY GOOD REASON why RR's full name isn't being used here, and it has to do with the very real possibility that someone who looks to be innocent could have their very similar name dragged through the mud over this. Moreover, everyone knows how these threads go - two posts after revealing RR's name, someone would post "oh, and she was married to _____", who is another person who deserves none of this. Two completely innocent people, both with good jobs, would have their names tied to this. If YOU were one of them, would you want that?

I explained this to Oddeverything - I dig up dirt on people for a living. If a prospective employer of theirs were to come to me with an investigation request on one of these people (happens more often than you think) and their names were associated with this, I would HAVE to mention this if I found it. Even if I wrote that they likely had no involvement, that's still not information either of them would want in their files.

Forget me for a second, though - I know the industry lingo and can phrase it so that the suspicions are deflected. What if a prospective employer just Googles them, having ordered no outside screening? They may not even get to the interview stage, the suspicions alone would be too much to handle. Would you want that for yourself? The two people who could be affected have important, visible jobs. Let's not fuck up their lives.

To end on a dramatic note, remember Neda, the young woman who was killed in Tehran during the protests? Remember how the whole world printed off pictures of a DIFFERENT Neda and paraded them around? That Neda lost her university job and was forced to emigrate.

[Little Miss Alien]

I have to agree with CarlaBruni here. My ex partner's business collapsed quite spectacularly and he was slow to respond to customers and get them their final product (not great, but he was honouring his contract because he couldn't afford refunds).

One woman was particularly venomous and tried to stir drama online. She had had her product but despite my ex's best efforts to please her, including remaking her product several times, she wasn't ever happy. So she latched on to those who hadn't had their products yet and tried to whip them into a frenzy. She was only partially successful, but her attempts included posting online my full name, the town I lived in, where I had studied, what my degree was in, the organisation I worked for and my son's name, encouraging people to contact me for info. She'd managed to get all of this through the 'friends of friends' access on facebook.

Needless to say, I hit the roof. This was my ex partner who I was now apart from, and my son was only 3!!! I managed to get her banned from posting pretty quick and my info removed. I can't imagine what might have happened if I hadn't found out about it and info linking me to a failed business/potential rogue trader had remained online.

I understand emotions run high at times like this, but let's just focus on the perpetrator, and not any innocents around her who could be seriously damaged by being dragged into this.

[Pretzel]

Absolutely agree with Carla Bruni. There is no need to reveal the real name. I think FJ'ers have done a good job to uncover the major scam that is RR. But I think enough is enough. We can warn "the innocent" through other ways. There is a very fine line here between uncovering fraud and self-administered justice.

[Palimpsest]

I agree with the three previous posters.

[formergothardite]

I'm glad her full name isn't being used either. Innocent people could be hurt by doing that.

[nokidsmom]

I agree as well.

[Cran]

I still don't agree, also because, as shown in this topic, people start researching on their own, possibly coming to wrong results and implicating people who have absolutely nothing to do with it in the whole mess.

How easy it is to confuse the scammer with other people has been seen here.

[Carla Bruni]

I still don't agree, also because, as shown in this topic, people start researching on their own, possibly coming to wrong results and implicating people who have absolutely nothing to do with it in the whole mess.

How easy it is to confuse the scammer with other people has been seen here.

You're missing my point. If Random FJ Member decides to go google things on their own and comes to the wrong conclusions, implicating innocent people, those innocent people can't get hurt by it unless Random FJ Member decides to post about it somewhere else publicly (which I would STRONGLY CAUTION AGAINST). In other words, no one Googling those innocent people in the future will get a search result pointing to Random FJ Member's Brain. If, however, someone posts their names, those names will be associated with "scam", "fraud" etc in search results FOREVER *dun dun dunnnnnn*. No, but really, nothing ever leaves the internet.

[Curious]

Thanks for asking this. I've been wondering too. I also wonder if many of these cases have been successfully prosecuted. Would it be a civil class action suit of many plaintiffs? If people have only donated small amounts they would probably just write it off as a lesson learned rather than prosecute by themselves.

Or is it a criminal case that would be filed in Federal court?

Any legal eagles care to comment?

I'm torn on this because I think factious disorders like Munchausen by Internet are genuine illnesses. On the other hand, unscrupulous people who are not ill can pull off major Internet scams too. I can't decide which category Ruth fits into.

I wish that someone could just take away Ruth/Possum's computer and Internet access so she can't do this again.

IANAL and only play one when I'm covering my ass(ets) on FJ ;) However, I think that last step I've bolded is the kicker for fraud. I don't think anyone could claim they have damage due to the RR scheme. Making you jaded against donating to other people on the internet, would not qualify I don't believe. Most people have said they didn't donate anything that took away from their own families and it was small amounts over a period of time, other than a couple of people. We only have a small sample that have come forward, of course. I'm sure there are many people, even here, that donated and haven't come forward, just statically speaking for every person that comes forward x amount do not in any given situation.

[RealityTVRN]

I'm definitely not an attorney either, but Google searching seems to indicate that it's REALLY difficult to litigate fraud on the internet. One case went to the Illinois Supreme Court, and was dismissed.

www.thechicago-injury-lawyer.com/2012/0 ... eme-court/

[OkToBeTakei]

I still don't agree, also because, as shown in this topic, people start researching on their own, possibly coming to wrong results and implicating people who have absolutely nothing to do with it in the whole mess.

How easy it is to confuse the scammer with other people has been seen here.

So wait. What you and honeyinthesunshine and a few others want is for RR's supposed real name posted here?

Well why not post yours and your location. Better still ask Curious to do it. Because despite what RR has or has not done it is not the responsibility of the admin here to satisfy your curiosity. None of us really know if the other is on the up and up, I could be a 15 year old boy from Nova Scotia for all you know. Granted I have not tried to scam money but even if I did, the responsibility for that is on the individual who gave it. Most here who have given are not looking for some type of revenge , they wholly accept that they are good people who were duped, are annoyed about it, but take FULL responsibility for their own actions. It is not FJ admins job to protect their members from being naive. It is in their terms and conditions/rules that they will not post real names of members though. You wishing this to be one rule for one and not everybody is missing the point totally.

I do not understand this thinking at all.

So much of it appears just a dig at admin or FJ (read GOMI thread.)

EVEN if the name attributed to RR is real and she has indeed done all the things mentioned. There are still innocents who by association could be implicated if a google search led here, kids you know. NOW if it turns out to NOT be true multiply that a thousand fold. Why take that chance at all.

I may not like what she has done but rather than call FJ admin all up their own arse as has been said, the sensible among us I would imagine be grateful that they have the integrity not to act in certain ways to satisfy nefarious reasoning.

On that note if my name was ownership of this site, I certainly would not wish to have false information posted which could lead to personal liability for myself. But hey. Knock yourself out posting it anywhere you want it's a big web. Let me know how that works out for you. Not tempted huh? But it's OK to pressure others to do it for you.

[DonnaSmith]

Son of a bitch- I seriously responded to The World Is Roses blog as if it were real. It was late, I was tired, and I just picked a random post to read. Reading more of it this morning makes it obvious it is fake- but how did I not see that last night? I'm not saying I'm gullible, but if you told me I am Santa, I might believe you. Good thing I don't give $ online! I'd be broke!

[freedomjesusfootball]

Me too! I'll bring some chevre and a jar of kalamata olives.

Organic, of course.

From Azure, of double course! (tucks tail between legs, runs and hides from the Zsu-thread folks...)

I will call your Chevre and raise you some lox on rye crackers with schmear. With a bloody Mary, as it is before noon.

[thoughtful]

I could be a 15 year old boy from Nova Scotia for all you know.

What, you are not a scrawny newborn chicken?

I'm so disillusioned.

[Sobeknofret]

I can throw some asiago cheese bagels and cream cheese into the brunch. I can also bring the coffee pot and some good Tanzanian coffee. :lol:

[missbrooklyn]

Sign me up for homemade rugalach and a tasty lukshen kugel.

[Sobeknofret]

Sign me up for homemade rugalach and a tasty lukshen kugel.

Now, see, I haven't had a good kugel since my son left his Jewish school. It's terrible-- I miss the teachers *and* the food!

[OkToBeTakei]

What, you are not a scrawny newborn chicken?

I'm so disillusioned.

That's Steve. Leave him alone you meanie :penguin-no: