I looked at this CL ad which I think has been pulled cause I can't find it- for a beautiful 2003 500 SL- price of $4900. I email the guy and he response with this:

Hey,

I am selling this car because my unit will be sent back to Iraq and don't want it getting old in my garage. The price is low because I need to sell it before December 26th. The car is in great condition and runs great. No damage, no scratches, never involved in an accident. It is still available for sale if interested, price as stated in the ad is US $4900 The car is in New Rockford, ND; in case it gets sold I will take care of shipping.

I will ship it with DAS. I will take care of the shipping charges, like I said. I think I can have it there in 3-4 working days. I am a member of the Money Bookers protection program and using this service you will get a 3 days testing period after delivery.
During that 3 days testing period I will not be getting any money. I need to know if you are interested in buying it so I can ask Money Bookers to send you the details on how this works. If interested please include in your next email your contact info for Money Bookers (name, address and #) so we can get things started.

Thanks!


On 12/14/09, William McCue wrote:

Could send more pics of the car? Are you firm on the $4900 listed price?
Thanks
William McCue


How much more fun can I have with this guy or should I just drop it?

I sent this back to him... after googling new rockford

Wow you are in New Rockford? My cousin lives just off Highway 281!! Drop me your address and I'll send him over and to buy the car in the next day or two, whenever he does not have farm chores or work with Rosenberg Trucking.
Thanks
William

Note that although the large majority of the people featured here are the scammers themselves, sometimes they pay, or even threaten with violence, innocent people to pose on their behalf. Yet another reason to despise these evil people even more. As most of you have probably guessed, most of the names the scammers use are of course entirely false as well.
It should also be noted that scambaiters do NOT go actively seeking scammers of a certain skin colour. We only engage thieves who send us emails trying to steal from us. We do not target any particular type of person or country.

If you have the time ..continue. Here are some great Back-and-Forths between scam baiters and scammers. http://www.scambuster419.co.uk/farmer.htm

That is just plain mean to waste their valuable time. Scammers are people too.

I had a list of parts I put up for sale. Someone wanted to buy all of them. You want to buy the lot and you don't negotiate? BS. Oh, you are going to send me a cashier's check for OVER THE AMOUNT and send the balance to your friend in BFE? Sure. Fedex next day from Nigeria? NP. I got it and ran the tracking number and sure enough, Nigeria. I emailed the guy with the sad news that Fedex left the envelope in a bad area and it got soaked. NP, they would send me another check. WOW!! Exactly the same cashier's check? NO ****. Called him this time to tell him that the check was not honored by the bank and if he wanted, he'd have to send another one or a wire transfer to my bank account.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

From the link. I found this quite entertaining Problems with the memorandum of understanding
Sent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:06:28
Dear Bello,
I’ve spent most of this morning reading through that memorandum of understanding that Mr Mukolu sent to me yesterday, and I have to tell you that I’m not happy with it at all.
I’m not quite sure where to start... perhaps the easiest thing for me to do is to list my objections point by point.
Point 4
This states that we shall “utilize the subject funds by investing at least 50% of the funds in profitable business ventures...”. This wasn’t part of the initial agreement you outlined to me at the start; you were talking about a simple split of the funds.
To quote from your initial email to me:

“25% of the entire sum would be for you if you agree to take part in this profitable transaction, 70% for me and two of my colleagues, while the remaining 5% would be used to pay back the expenses that may be incurred during the course of the transaction by both parties”.

All this talk about investing 50% of the fund in “profitable business ventures” is news to me, and I’m not happy with it; I want my 25%, plain and simple, and I want to be able to do what I want with it. This point is unacceptable to me. Therefore, kindly instruct Mr Mukolu to strike it from the agreement.
Point 5
If point 4 is deleted from the document, this invalidates point 5. Strike it.
Point 6
All references to the funds mentioned in point 4 need to be deleted from point 6.
On a more serious level, the percentages outlined in point 6 do not add up; 70% for you, 25% for me, 5% for charity and 5% for “other parties who have contributed to the success of the transaction” comes to 105%! This is plainly ridiculous. I assumed that a barrister such as Mr Mukolu would have a basic grasp of arithmetic. Obviously I am wrong in this assumption.
Also, what’s all this talk of some of the money going to charity? That wasn’t part of the initial agreement at all. I don’t want the money to go to charity; I want the money to go to me. I don’t agree with charity, to tell you the truth; it’s nothing but a load of handouts for shiftless scroungers, if you ask me. If people can’t be bothered to work hard enough to earn a decent living, that’s their lookout. I don’t see why I should subsidise them.
After all, nobody’s ever given me a penny; everything I own, I own because of my own hard work and for no other reason (well, apart from the hundreds of acres of prime agricultural land I inherited from my father, but that’s beside the point). Kindly instruct Mr Mukolu to strike all mention of charity from this agreement. I’ll have none of it.
Point 7
Point 7 is invalidated by the removal of point 4. Remove.
Point 8
Point 8 refers to “patties”. Round here, a patty is a small pie or pastry. What on earth does this point mean? Why do we need to refer to pies and pastries in the agreement? Or is this just a crass spelling mistake on Mr Mukolu’s part?
Point 9
I don’t understand this point. Kindly ask Mr Mukolu to either reword it or to explain it to me. I’m not signing anything I don’t understand.
Point 10
Point 10 states that “any part or provision in this agreement may be altered or modified in future...”, but it doesn’t state how we are going to go about doing this. In my opinion, this agreement needs to state precisely what we need to do in order to modify the agreement. For example, if one of us wants to modify the agreement, will we have to obtain the consent of the other party first? I should think so. This needs to be made plain. Kindly instruct Mr Mukolu to reword this point to make it clear that mutual consent and agreement is required before any revisions are made in the future.
Point 12
What is “injunctive relief”? Please ask Mr Mukolu to explain.
The last sentence of this point does not make sense. Kindly ask Mr Mukolu to reword the point so that it does make sense.
On top of all this, Mr Mukolu has spelled your name incorrectly – TWICE – in the agreement. How a trained barrister could make such a gross error as this on a legal document is beyond me. My own lawyer, Welsby, has impressed upon me in the past that a legal document that contains spelling errors is as much use as a chocolate ploughshare.
How long has Mr Mukolu been practising law? In fact, are you absolutely sure that he is a trained barrister? Given the fact that his performance in this transaction so far has been nothing but a catalogue of cock-ups and given his appalling spelling, have you considered the possibility that he might in fact be a barista rather than a barrister? Why not ask the man to make you an espresso? If he makes a good one, I’d start to get worried.
There is no way I can agree to sign this memorandum of understanding until the points I have raised above have been addressed. Please forward my objections to Mr Mukolu and instruct him to make the necessary changes immediately, and tell him to send me a copy of the revised agreement as soon as he has done so. You might also like to suggest that the man buys a dictionary.
Given all of the problems in the document, it’s a damn good job I asked you to send me a copy. Do you think Mr Mukolu will be able to get a revised document to me later today?
Best regards,
Gilbert Murray