Report: #356979

Complaint Review: GOLDLINE

  • Submitted: Tue, July 29, 2008
  • Updated: Sun, October 12, 2008
  • Reported By: oakland pk Florida
    1601 Cloverfield Blvd S. Tower
    Santa Monica, California
    United States of America

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Rip-off Report Investigation:

Editors UPDATE: Positive Rating and Recognition has been given to Goldline International for its Commitment to Excellence in customer service.

Rip-off Reports investigation of Goldline International uncovers an ongoing commitment to client satisfaction. This means clients can expect that Goldline will always work towards finding a mutually satisfactory resolution to complaints or concerns. Goldline listens carefully to client concerns and sees them as an opportunity to learn and become more efficient as a company in the products it offers.
One top Goldline executive stated to Rip-off Report that Goldlines clients are a precious resource and it is committed to responding to any client concerns. Another company executive confirmed to Rip-off Report that Goldline strives to provide exemplary customer service to its clients.

Some of the other things Rip Off Report learned in the course of its investigation: Goldlines business began in 1960 when it offered precious metals and storage services to clients seeking to acquire gold and silver as part of a diversified portfolio. The company has grown to more than 250 employees and handles over 50,000 individual client transactions each year. Goldline believes it exemplifies best practices for the industry.

Rip-off Report has confirmed that Goldline takes client concerns very seriously. Goldline has a dedicated team of customer service professionals to assist with any issues that may develop. Rip-off Report was pleased to learn that Goldlines approach to business is focused on its pledge to client satisfaction.

Goldline International recognizes that complaints posted on Rip-off Report (true or not) are issues that need to be addressed and if handled correctly can be valuable learning opportunities. With the feedback generated by Rip-off Reports Investigation Goldline continues its commitment to positive client experience.

In summary, after our investigation, which included discussions with Goldlines executives, Rip-off Report is convinced that Goldline International has been and is committed to providing precious metals and rare coins to satisfied clients.

Read more about Goldline Internationals Commitment to Excellence and Total Consumer Satisfaction and why consumers should feel safe, confident and secure when doing business with a member of Rip-off Report's Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program. ..yes, a long name for a program that does a lot for both consumers and businesses alike.

Read about Rip-off Report Corporate Advocacy Business Remediation & Customer Satisfaction Program,..A program that benefits the consumer, assures them of complete satisfaction and confidence when doing business with a member business. this program works.

GOLDLINE ,GOLDLINE scam fraud goes to US Attorney in Florida Santa Monica California

Bill McCullum
Attorney General State of Florida
The Capitol PL-01
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Dear Sir,

I seek an interview with a lawyer Assistant of the U. S. ATTORNEY's office at 500 E. Broward Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, Fl. 33394 as soon as possible concerning MAIL FRAUD to explain my case and move the prosecution of GOLDLINE of Santa Monica forward.

Charges of MAIL FRAUD by GOLDLINE of Santa Monica

The Mail Fraud Statute (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1341) TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 63.

# 1341. Frauds and swindles

# 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television

# 1345. Injunctions against fraud

# 1346. Definition of scheme or artifice to defraud

# 1349. Attempt and conspiracy

The False Representation Statute (Title 39, United States Code, Section 3005)
501.2077 Violations involving senior citizen or handicapped person; civil penalties; presumption.
(2) Any person who is willfully using, or has willfully used, a method, act, or practice in violation of this part, which method, act, or practice victimizes or attempts to victimize senior citizens or handicapped persons, and commits such violation when she or he knew or should have known that her or his conduct was unfair or deceptive, is liable for a civil penalty of not more than $15,000 for each such violation.

I accuse GOLDLINE of Wire Fraud. Wire fraud is an act of fraud using electronic communication. Black's Law Dictionary 687 (8th ed. 2005). This electronic communication can be via wire, radio, or television. 18 U.S.C. 1343 (2007).

The Supreme Court has "several times observed that the wire fraud statute has a long arm, extending to 'everything designed to defraud by representations as to the past or present, or suggestions and promises as to the future.'" Pasquantino v. United States, 125 S. Ct. 1766, 1784 (2005) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 313 (1896)). But the Court has also noted that an "incautious reading of the statute could dramatically expand the reach of federal criminal law, and we have refused to apply the proscription exorbitantly." Id. (citing McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 360 (1987)). In short, there is some recognition by the Supreme Court that given the statute's broad applicability, "a sweeping expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction in the absence of a clear statement by Congress" is discouraged. Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 25 (2000).

Despite the Court's warnings, however, the wire fraud statute has been applied to a wide range of activities, as well as having been applied in conjunction with a wide range of other criminal statutes. See Pasquantino (statute used to prosecute U.S. citizens for smuggling cheap liquor into Canada); United States v. King, 590 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1978) (statute used to prosecute individual in scheme to sell herbicide); Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (defendant charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud violations); United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant charged with wire fraud and mail fraud violations); United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2000) (defendant charged with wire fraud and RICO violations).

18 U.S.C. 1343 (2007).
The Crime
Under section 1343, it is a crime for a person who has devised or intends to devise a scheme or artifice to
- defraud, or
- to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent
- - pretenses
- - representations, or
- - promises
- to transmit, or cause to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication, any
- - writings
- - signs
- - signals
- - pictures, or
- - sounds
- for the purpose of executing the scheme or artifice. 18 U.S.C. 1343 (2007).

Much like the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1341, it is simpler to say that wire fraud consists of devising a scheme or artifice to defraud and then using the nation's telecommunications networks to carry that scheme out.

The Punishment
A violation of section 1343 can be punished by
- a fine,
- imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or
- both.

If a violation of section 1343 affects a financial institution, the pu nishment will be
- a fine of not more than $1,000,000,
- imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or
- both. 18 U.S.C. 1343 (2007).

Case Law Interpreting Section 1341
The essential elements of a violation of section 1343 are fairly simple. To sustain a charge of wire fraud under section 1343, the government must prove two things: 1) the existence of a scheme to defraud, and 2) the use of wires for the purpose of executing the scheme. See United States v. Andrade, 788 F.2d 521, 527 (8th Cir. 1986); United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1171 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. Cen-Card Agency, F. Supp. 313, 316 (D.N.J. 1989).

Recently, however, a "materiality" requirement has developed. A matter is material if "a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence" in determining a course of action, or "the maker of the representation knows or has reason to know that its recipient regards or is likely to regard the matter as important" in determining a course of action, even though a reasonable man might not. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 22 n.5 (1999) (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 538 (1976)). The court explains that based "solely on a 'natural reading of the full text,' materiality [is] not an element of the fraud statutes." Id. at 21 (1999) (internal citations omitted). However, because a statute is presumed to incorporate common-law understanding of an issue when it is codified, and fraud required a material misreprese ntation in the common law, "under the rule that Congress intends to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it uses, [the Court] cannot infer from the absence of an express reference to materiality that Congress intended to drop that element from the fraud statutes." Id. at 21-23. Therefore, materiality is a requirement.

Recently, the Supreme Court has noted that the "object of the fraud" needs to be money or property "in the victim' hands." Pasquantino at 1771 (quoting Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12, 26 (2000) (interpreting the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1341 (2000))). In Pasquantino, "Canada's right to uncollected excise taxes on the liquor petitioners imported into Canada is 'property' in its hands. This right is an entitlement to collect money from petitioners, the possession of which is 'something of value' to the Government of Canada." Id.

Scheme to Defraud
There are many different types of fraudulent schemes. In Pasquantino, the scheme was to import liquor into Canada without paying excise taxes. Pasquantino at 1770. The wire fraud statute was employed because the defendants, in Buffalo, New York, had used the telephone to call a Maryland "discount package store." In Carpenter v. United States, the fraud was committed by a writer of a newspaper financial column who deprived the newspaper of its right to exclusive use of information prior to disclosing it to the public. Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 25 (1987). The use of wire services provided a "sufficient nexus with the scheme" to justify using the wire fraud statute. Id. at 24. The words "to defraud" in this case take on the meaning of appropriating "to one's own use of the money or goods entrusted to one's care by another." Id. at 27 (quoting Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181, 189 (1902)). In United States v. Rybicki, 287 F.3d 527 (2d Cir. 2002), the wire fraud charges were "based on [the defendants] practice of making payments through middlemen or expediters to insurance company adjuster in return for more favorable settlements in personal injury lawsuits." Rybicki at 259.

18 U.S.C. 1346 (2007).
Section 1346 merely states that the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to defraud another of the intangible right of honest services. Section 1346 was enacted to counter the Supreme Court's decision in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 360 (1987). See United States v. Sawyer, 239 F.3d 31, 39 (1st Cir. 2001).

According to United states v. Rybicki, 287 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2002), the elements necessary to establish the offense of honest services fraud are:
1) a scheme or artifice to defraud
2) for the purposes of depriving another of the intangible right of honest services
3) where it is reasonably foreseeable that the scheme could cause some economic or pecuniary harm to the victim that is more than de minimis and
4) use of the mails or wires in furtherance of the scheme. Rybicki at 266.

The enactment of section201346 has greatly complicated statutory analysis of the wire fraud statute. "While the legislative history of 1346 seems to indicate an intention to resurrect the pre-McNally case law relating to the deprivation of intangible rights by use of the mails," some case law has determined that "pre-McNally cases construing the prior statute are not binding, and that the new offense was defined by statute, not by pre[-]McNally judicial decisions." United States v. Adler, 274 F. Supp. 2d 583, 586 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (interpreting the mail fraud statute). In short, the effect of section 1346 remains to be seen, but there is general acceptance of the notion that "convictions under 1346 that involved schemes which the defendant breached or induced the breach of a duty owed by an employee or agent to his employer or principal that was enforceable by an action at tort" must be upheld. Rybicki at 264.

George W. BUSH
The President's Leadership in Combating Corporate Fraud
The Administration continues to pursue an aggressive agenda to fight corporate fraud and abuse:
o Exposing and punishing acts of corruption
o olding corporate officers and directors accountable

Protecting small investors, pension holders and workers
o Moving corporate accounting out of the shadows
o Developing a stronger, more independent corporate audit system
o Providing better information to investors.
nbsp; Since the exposure of the corporate fraud scandals, the President has taken decisive action to combat corporate fraud and punish corporate wrongdoers.

In February, the President announced strong, effective pension reforms to protect America's workers. The President outlined a comprehensive proposal to remove obstacles to savings and toughen protections of retirement assets. The House took quick action and approved the President's reforms on a bipartisan basis. To date, the Senate leadership has not brought pension reform to the Senate floor. Nonetheless, the President was able to incorporate several of his initiatives into the corporate governance bill he signed in late July.

to Improve Corporate Responsibility and Protect America's Shareholders," based on three core principles: information accuracy and accessibility, management accountability, and auditor independence. Following the President.s proposals, the SEC took decisive action to implement the "Ten Point Plan" to improve the quality of corporate disclosure and the accountability of executives and auditors. The SEC proposed rules and adopted policies consistent with all ten of the President's reforms.

I accused GOLDLINE online to the FTC, Attorney General of Florida and California in October 2007, and the USPS June 23, 2008 and now herewith report to my local US ATTORNEY. I have offered ample evidence and where to get written sworn statement corroboration but n o information or report of progress has passed between the Attorney General of Florida, the office of the US Attorney and me.

A prior instance of FRAUD brought forth and prosecuted on many levels by a Missouri senior citizen couple against GOLDLINE which resulted in a CONSENT ORDER Missouri Case No. AP-06-24 with a $39,000 fine levied was also submitted. This coupled with the many complaints about fraud in indicates that the scam was not a one-time affair but a systemic GOLDLINE authorized procedure. This also proves the proper prosecuting venue is in FLORIDA, the COMPLAINANT'S home State.

Under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014, it is a federal crime to commit fraud using a wire communication that travels in interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C. 1343 reads as follows

Fraud by Wire, Radio or Television (Wire Fraud) -
1) having devised, or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or
2) for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises
3) transmits, or causes to be transmitted, by wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce,
4) any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing the scheme or artifice
shall be or imprisoned for more than 20 years, fined or both.

The USPS INSPECTION SERVICE or an appropriate Investigative agency assigned by the Chief of the Criminal Division should=2 0include as one of their planned strategies to send investigators to get sworn statements from the people mentioned as GOLDLINEs employees when and where the mail fraud and other fraudulent infractions against the elderly in the formal complaint took place
1) Ross, Clinton former GOLDLINE employee
2455 S St Andrews Pl, Apt 432
Los Angeles, CA 90018-2047
(323) 732-3554
2) Lee, JC former GOLDLINE employee
2461 Santa Monica Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90404-2138
(310) 315-1818
3) Gershon, David

GOLDLINE employee
Los Angeles, CA
Home phone (213) 413-8821
On Thursday April 10th 2008, I heard on radio for the first time "Buy at Goldline, there are no high pressure salesmen, they are not allowed" Of course this is ex post facto and the word now is omitted because historically all complaints on RIPOFFREPORT.ORG and the Missouri Consent Order Case No. AP-06-24 mention high pressure salesmen and the 20 gold Swiss franc. Goldline's agent consistently, deceitfully and forcefully urged client John Quirindongo, a 75 yr old senior citizen and others that the 20 gold Swiss franc coins, a foreign product, would be a better investment than client's current in May of 2006 USA platinum 1oz eagle investments.

John Q
ft lauderdale fl 33334

954 xxx xxxx
All victims of GOLDLINE in in the matter of the 20 gold Swiss franc should be interviewed. Their names should be gathered from GOLDLINE in DISCOVERY prior to legal action and sworn statements be taken with special attention to questions of MAIL FRAUD, wire fraud, the 20 Swiss gold franc, an imported foreign coin, high pressure GOLDLINE salesman illegal methods, sales, purchases and the preponderance of violations against a senior citizen.

All pertinent and related investigations leading to Federal Court prosecution should commence with all deliberate speed due to my advanced age of 75, sight impairment and health conditions that severely limit my mobility.

I also submitted online a timeline and documentation of the ugly scam with specific dates and names in DIARY form with documents on RIPOFFREPORT.ORG written totally unedited as I uncovered the deceit and the failed mediation with GOLDLINE to make me whole developed. The timeline proves that GOLDLINE committed Fraud a civil or criminal wrong. Fraud by GOLDLINE included intentions to deceive, including statements, acts, concealment's, and omissions involving a breach of legal duty, trust or confidence by concealing the fees of the 20 gold Swiss franc which resulted in monitory injury to me who as a first time buyer senior citizen justifiably relied on GOLDLINE to be truthful.

You have fraud when someone:
1) Lies to you to maximize their profit
2) Conceals from you important downside negative information such as fees using in this case a high pressure salesman and a talking points flier
3) You justifi ably rely on the lie or concealment because of their expertise
4) You are hurt one way or another because of the lie or concealment
GOLDLINE did all this and used the US MAIL wire transfers, the Internet and public carriers such as Fedex in the commission of their grand larceny felony fraud crime.

Published Internet BLOG of GOLDLINE felony fraud
google ripoffreport then in ripoffreport search oldline Oakland
Or copy and paste

I submitted to all an illegal GOLDLINE 20 Swiss franc promotion flier which was and still is delivered by Fedex that is designed to deceive consumers and included is a critique of the GOLDLINE flier pointing out misleading wording and deceitful behavior which was also used by high-pressure GOLDLINE salesmen.

oakland pk, Florida
Is this Ripoff Report About you?
Ripoff Report A business' first line of defense on the Internet.
If your business is willing to make a commitment to customer satisfaction Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation? Fix it the right way. Corporate Advocacy Program™

Set the record straight: Arbitration Program

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/29/2008 12:02 PM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 Consumer Comment

Hot dam John, go gettum!

AUTHOR: Lee - (U.S.A.)

Words to live by whether you are a senior citizen or not---"If the hustle is from Ft. Lauderdale or Las Vegas, put both hands on your wallet and flee as fast as you can."
Respond to this report!

#2 Author of original report

Burden of Proof Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

Burden of Proof Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court
In Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), the United States Supreme Court stated: There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' For support, the Court cited 9 John H. Wigmore, Evidence 2486, at 275 (3d ed. 1940). In Keyes, the Supreme Court held that if school authorities have been found to have practiced purposeful segregation in part of a school system, the burden of persuasion shifts to the school to prove that it did not engaged in such discrimination in other segregated schools in the same system.

I submit that GOLDLINE defrauded not only me. Now the burden of persuasion shifts to GOLDLINE to prove that they GOLDLINE did not defraud many including Dr. Kyung Park of Los Angeles and others who published similar complaints online against GOLDLINE in GOLDLINE must explain the fraudulent 20 gold Swiss franc flier and the Missouri Consent Order Case No. AP-06-24. GOLDLINE must explain why others found in DISCOVERY who will be uncovered because all points to a widespread ongoing and longtime nationwide scheme conspiracy will also complain of fraud. They were defrauded but are not computer literate, died of old age or didn't know of their only defense and perhaps were not computer literate at that time. They are in GOLDLINE's old files waiting for their story of GOLDLINE fraud to be told to reveal similar illegal felony scams by GOLDLINE. Some defrauded clients mediated but were treated unfairly receiving much less than their initial investment which in my case was the platinum 1 oz eagle or a standard gold bullion purchase which is the customary standard investment advised by honest precious metals brokers to first time buyers.
Respond to this report!

#3 Author of original report

GOLDLINE scam and the Supreme Court

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court
In Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973), the United States Supreme Court stated: There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.' For support, the Court cited 9 John H. Wigmore, Evidence 2486, at 275 (3d ed. 1940). In Keyes, the Supreme Court held that if school authorities have been found to have practiced purposeful segregation in part of a school system, the burden of persuasion shifts to the school to prove that it did not engaged in such discrimination in other segregated schools in the same system.
I submit that GOLDLINE defrauded not only me but many including Dr. Kyung Park and others who published similar complaints online against GOLDLINE in including Missouri Consent Order Case No. AP-06-24.
Respond to this report!

#4 Author of original report


AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

Definition of Fraud
All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated.
Source: Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th ed., by Henry Campbell Black, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.
Criminal and civil frauds differ in the level of proof required. For civil cases that burden is a reponderance of evidence. In criminal fraud the standard beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under common law, three elements are required to prove fraud: a material false statement made with an intent to deceive (scienter), a victims reliance on the statement and damages.
Respond to this report!

#5 Author of original report

false GOLDLINE rebuttal

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

GOLDLINE employee Lisa Weedman wrongly accuses me of EXTORTION in a rebuttal to the Better Business Bureau. Extortion (Black's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition) is defined as: "The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right."
I am using the LAW to right the wrong of GOLDLINE fraud which I document meticulously and is documented by a GOLDLINE fraud Consent Order and many others that have been defrauded by GOLDLINE and documented in Lisa Weedmans bogus rebuttal to the BBB contains 2nd and 3rd hand hearsay, false innuendo, spin and downright lies Nowhere does GOLDLINE address my assertions and not one sworn statement from any particulars mentioned in my affirmations of multiple FRAUD by GOLDLINE
Respond to this report!

#6 Author of original report

GOLDLINE scam comes under the purview of the long arm statute

AUTHOR: John - (U.S.A.)

The long-arm statute authorizes a state to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, as long as the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with federal due process requirements. MAIL FRAUD, wire fraud, Internet advertising, Email and telephone may come under this statute. Businesses that send faxes, make phone calls, or mail documents to commit fraud may now be sued in Florida for claims of fraud, negligence or other wrongful conduct arising out of their long-distance commercial activity, under a far-reaching recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court.

The complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of Floridas long-arm statute, section 48.193, Florida Statutes (2002), i.e., whether defendant performed any of the acts delineated in the statute. Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So. 2d 499, 502 (Fla. 1989). If such facts are alleged, the next inquiry is whether sufficient minimum contacts are demonstrated to satisfy due process requirements of the United States Constitution. Id. Factors that go into determining whether sufficient minimum contacts exist. Taskey v. Burtis, 785 So. 2d 557,t559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Respond to this report!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.