User talk:24.166.188.91

Your edits to Franchising

You've been putting up lots of good words, but no citations. Without them, the content will just be reverted. Please see WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and WP:V so that your efforts are not wasted.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that putting up something, then putting (fact) after it isn't really good enough. If you have a reference, but aren't sure how to properly format it, you can either (if it's a web ref) put it inside single brackets - such as [http://franchisingfacts.com/example/article.html], or, for web or print refs, put the citation inside <ref></ref> tags. Don't worry about screwing up the format inside the reference - if it's clear what you're trying to do, someone else will fix it. (Just make sure you close single brackets and ref tags, or it can blow up the whole article.) For help with the ref tag citation templates, see WP:CIT. Argyriou (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as discussed above, I've had to revert your changes. When you put content in, it is essential that you identify the source. As Argyriou says, other editors will help format the reference citations if necessary, but there has to be something in your edit that identifies where the content comes from.LeadSongDog (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing amok

You have just got to start sourcing your edits or stop this wholesale editing spree. Unless you can provide credible sources per WP:RS for the edits you made at Franchise consulting, I will remove them. Again, I will help source these edits to recognized news agencies, but right now, I don't get any indication that you really care for anything other than doing your own thing and going after people getting in your way. What is up with all this? Flowanda | Talk 07:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Franchise Consultants, under the new rule, will have a blank check to use the Internet to sell franchises and these consultants have no fiduciary duty to clients, as do attorneys. I will research and try to find some source but common sense tells yhou that a franchise attorney, who specializes in franchising, is the only real protection for those looking for a franchise. My intent is to do good and to stop the sale of duds to the public =====Federal Regulatory policy now allows for the sale of duds to the public that are eligible for SBA Loans. I don't think this is good fiscal policy and I don't think it is democratic to sacrifice "marks" to franchise consultants and to predator franchisors who sell duds to the public with immunity and impunity under the status quo of franchising.

CJKC ---27 Dec 07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-27T13:06:29 (UTC)

Your post at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Franchising

I've replied there. As it appears that you don't read or reply here on your own talk page, I'll spare myself further effort here until that changes.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat new to computer research and not skilled on the computer but I was trying to make the point that you have absolutely no source to indicate that a franchise is less of a risk than an independent business. This is a very misleading heading that should not appear in this article and yet you keep putting it back in. Why? Where is your source for this "lie" that the people who want to sell franchisors keep resurrecting when they sell franchises to the public.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.188.91 (talk • contribs) 2007-12-27T12:21:16 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion. It makes civil debate possible. Please consider registering a user name. While not essential, it does help in many ways. It's free and easy. Just click on the "create account" in the top right corner of the page.

I've no wish to keep reverting your edits, but WP has three key policies that all else flow from. First among these is that content MUST be verifiable as described at WP:Verifiability. Second is WP:No Original Research, in other words, use only information that can be found elsewhere in quality sources because an encyclopedia is not the place for original research, it's an edited compilation. Taken together, all this means that as contributors, we must cite reference sources in accordance with the citation policy at WP:CITE so that a reader will be able to check the validity of sources.

To your point above, if you check, you will find I haven't at any time disagreed with you about content of the article. In fact I'd change the para you refer to myself, taking out the unsupported assertions. In the meanwhile, I'm just trying to address the need to provide references for new content AS IT IS ADDED so that future editors don't have to stand on their heads to find out where a statement came from (or if in fact it was original research). If in the process of reverting your additions I also reverted a deletion that was inadvertent. I'll look back and see if I can understand how it happened.

It really is worth taking the time to read the above policies, at least for flavour even if you don't want to learn them just yet. LeadSongDog (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it appears that entry originated with an edit by another user. I've now asked that user to cite references:here. We'll see what develops.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Winona Ryder

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Winona Ryder. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Winona Ryder. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tags

Simply adding "citation needed" is not considered sourcing. Please read the information above about citing. Also read WP:CITE, and ask for help if you're still confused. Ward3001 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced personal opinions

You have been asked repeatedly to stop adding unsourced information and personal opinions to Wikipedia, which you have completely ignored. Accordingly, you are now being warned to stop:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Winona Ryder, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Winona Ryder, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your wsrning. I will try to source my material whenever possible and have tried to explain my position on the Discussion page. Am I not allowed to say that the criminal case of Winona Ryder and Shoplifting and the California Appeal to the United States Supreme Court were before the respective courts at the same time and that The United States Supreme Court cvame down with their reversal of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in April of 2003 after Winona Ryder was found guilty of felony larceny in the Los Angeles Court and sentenced in a nationally televised appearance in the California Superior Court in December of 2002. This is fact! Am I not allowed to indicate that in the coverage of Winona Ryder's trial, there was no mention of the California Civil Recovery Statute for Shoplifting by any of the newspapers? I thought that Wikipedia was about sourcing "truth" for the people.

CJKC

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". That is a core principle of Wikipedia. Regardless of whether something is a fact, it needs a citation. That's especially true with biographies of living persons. You can say anything reasonable if you cite a reliable source.

Equally important, you are not supposed to insert your own opinions, analyses, and interpretations into articles, unless you have published it in a reputable source, and even then you need to cite it. Just as one example, your statement "her public trial ... served as a warning that "shoplifting" is treated as larceny under law" is your opinion, and not necessarily a fact. I could conclude that her trial was simply a routine trial that is conducted thousands of time each year for shoplifters, but that's just my opinion. Other examples of violations of Wikipedia's core principle of neutral point of view:

• "damaged her image in the view of the public"
• "the beautiful Heddy Lamar"
• "poster girl for government"
• "she was a messasge to the public from government ... that they were willing to spend the money to prosecute her as an example"

And those are just from the Winona Ryder article. You've also done it in other articles.

There are reasons editors gave you several warnings above, and there are reasons they directed you with blue links to policy pages. You really need to read Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia has some flexibility for new users, and you're not expected to master all the guidelines overnight, but after repeated warnings you need to make some effort to adhere to the policies that have been pointed out to you. And if you don't understand something, ask for help before editing an article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant information

Please do not add redundant information to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Winona Ryder. Ward3001 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not redundant or irrelevant information and without an indication that there was year-long publicity and a nationally televised sentencing of Wynona Ryder for her jury conviction of felony larceny and misdemeanor, you are providing incomplete information to the readers that does not reflect the true picture of what happend in "famous cases" and why "famous cases" are prosecuted and why they make the papers, etc...

Please try to be fair and not dedicated to your own agenda which is to protect Wynona from the truth? or what?

CJKC

Did I say it is irrelevant? No. I said it is redundant, because (if you will look) the shoplifting incident is discussed below your edit. It's not needed twice. And if you'll also notice, another editor reverted it after you re-added it. And where did you get the idea that you can read my mind by assuming I am trying to "protect Wynona" (your misspelling, not mine) simply because I want you to follow Wikipedia's policies about verifiablity, original research, and netural point of view. And here's another policy that you just violated: No personal attacks. Ward3001 (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Shoplifting

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Shoplifting. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to shoplifting, you will be blocked from editing.

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to shoplifting. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Argyriou (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sections and headings

Please be careful not to randomly place comments in a section that has nothing to do with your comments, as you just did to Talk:Winona Ryder. For no apparent reason, you made comments about Woody Allen, insurance problems, and legal stuff related to her shoplifting right at the beginning of the GA Review section. And in the process, you destroyed the header for that section. It's a simple matter to look before you decide where to start typing. Ward3001 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Doczilla (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making the correction on the Woody Allen comment wherein he said he couldn't get insurance on Winona in 2003 (because, of course, of the negative publicity of the year long trial.) I am trying to be neutral but, of course, it is difficult because I do believe that it is so obvious that Winona Ryder was set up as an example so that The Supreme Court could reverse the 9th Circuit and the status quo of shoplifting and civil recoveries for shoplifting would not be disturbed. I have tried to add the Mark Klaas interview with Larry King where he expressed his displeasure with Winona's attorney because I think it is significant. Mark Klaas had just recently found out from me about the Civil Recovery Statutes and how this subsidy for the retailers would, of course, have a bearing on the need of the state to preserve the status quo of shoplifting and the law. It was because of Polly Klaas that the 3-Strikes Law was passed in California but he is a good friend of Winona's and she was a good friend to him and he could see that the matter of the state Civil Recovery Laws should have been brought up in her trial and in the Press and Media ---as a possible reason why the Prosecutor singled out Winona at this specific time to put on a show trial for the public and wouldn't offer her a plea bargain as in the other 5,000 shoplifting cases in California.

If you look at the dates of the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal ----Nov. 2001 --Winona's Arrest Dec 2001, The US Supreme Court agrees to hear California Appeal to 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruling in April 2002 ---The DOD implements civil recovery for shoplifting on troops with Press Release in March 2002--Winona is publically sentenced after a jury trial in a nationally televised Superior Court Appearance in December of 2002 for felonies for shoplifting ---The United States reverses the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 5 to 4 decision and protects the status quo of APPREHENDED shoplifting case law as petit or grand larceny and the status quo of civil recovery across the nation is not disturbed and the status quo of the DOD civil recovery Administrative Fee for $200 for shoplifting and the criminal sanction in the federal magistrate courts is not disturbed----and the status quo of the California 3-strike laws of California are not disturbed.

Final warning

You have been warned repeatedly about policy violations, and either you don't want to abide by Wikipedia's policies, or you are incapable of understanding them. Accordingly:

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Doczilla (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

Hello, 24.166.188.91. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your disruptive editing. The discussion can be found under the topic WP:ANI#24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs). Argyriou (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. nat.utoronto 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I really hope you will use this block time to read Wikipedia's policies that have been pointed out repeatedly above. If you continue with your same patttern of editing after this block expires, your next block will be longer, and eventually you could be blocked indefinitely. Ward3001 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me. I find this editing very complicated. I see you have edited out my comment that Winona Ryder's attorney requested that her confession obtained for "civil recovery purposes" be suppressed. This was in the original appearance before the court where her attorney complained that the security personnel had lifted her shirt and her skirt and where the judge told her to be silent, etc.. This is a public record. Apparently, she was told about the Civil Statute for Civil Recovery and made a confession for this purpose to the city-licensed security personnel before she was criminally charged with the felonies by the LA Prosecutor. This would mean that the Jury would have never been informed of the "civil recovery process" and the lack of Miranda warnings by city-licensed security personnel.

CJKC --1/15/08

I didn't edit it out. Someone else did. But here is the point that you don't seem to comprehend (for reasons I find quite baffling), even though it has been explained repeatedly: DON'T ADD INFORMATION WITHOUT CITING A SOURCE. Repeat: DON'T ADD INFORMATION WITHOUT CITING A SOURCE. And especially, DON'T ADD YOUR OPINION without citing a source. What is it about those words that you don't understand, because I can try to express it in simpler words, or give more detail, if necessary. And for about the tenth time, read thoroughly and completely all of the blue links above. Ward3001 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My purpose is to inform that "shoplifters" who are detained/arrested outside of final checkout points will generally (with RARE exceptions) be disposed of by the initiation of a city ticket or arrest and/or a civil recovery demand. While city-licensed security personnel do not have to give Miranda warnings when they approach the suspect outside and do not ask direct questions or make accusations, it is their intent to either initiate a criminal citation and/or a civil recovery under the civil statute of the state. Amateur shoplifters make voluntary statments to these licensed LP personnel when they asgree to accompany them back to the Security Offices of the retail establishment, and these statements can be used against them in the courts, etc.. This is justified from the standpoint that the Miranda warning only has to be given when the suspect is informed of the arrest but isn't this disingenuous when it is the intent of the licensed undercover retail police to initiate arrests or civil recoveries? In Winona Ryder's case, apparently the security initiated a civil recovery demand to which she agreed (confessed) and then they initiated a criminal arrest for larceny, in which her attorney asked that the "civil recovery" confession be suppressed. Would anyone agree to a Civil Recovery Demand and confess if they knew they were going to be criminally prosecuted for the same event? Just trying to throw some light on this subject matter. The law belongs to the people and is meant to serve the people. Certainly, those suspects who are permitted to pass final checkout points without paying for merchandise, etc. and without being asked to pay for the merchandise should be warned when they are stopped outside that anything they say will be used against them, and they should remain silent and immediately call an attorney if they are going to be charged with larceny shoplifting on a city ticket or be arrested by the city commissioned police. If ONLY a civil recovery is going to be initiated by the store, this, of course, is not necessary because it is only a CIVIL matter and if the suspect wants to pay a civil recovery on demand or agree to pay the civil recovery, this is in the best interests of the retailer and the suspect. Perhaps! this is what the Legislatures had in mind when they passed these Civil Recovery Statutes ----but when the statutes were being used together with criminal prosecutions and abused, they had to get out here and defend that they the licensed LP Retail Personnel (double agents of the retailer and the city) had the right to initiate both a civil recovery and a criminal prosecution. Won't this have to be straightened out. What about the equal protection of the laws?

CJKC 16 Jan 08

Once again, all of that is well and good, IF YOU CITE SOURCES. Ward3001 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have looked for the actual transript that was on the Internet wherein Winona's Attorney and the Judge talked about the suppression of the Civil Recovery "confession" but, apparently, it has been removed from the Internet. I'm not sure whether or not the Los Angeles Superior Court is a Municipal Court that keeps records of its original hearings Many of the municipal courts are not courts of record and are not required to keep pre-trial hearings, etc.. but I read this just a few days ago and now it is GONE! I have searched for two days, now! In this transcript, her attorney told the judge that the security guard had lifted Winona's shirt and she volunteered that he had looked under her skirt, as well. The Judge then cautioned Winona to be quiet and in the last page of the "orange" transcript that was up on the Internet, he and Winona's attorney exchanged words about suppressing the "civil recovery" confession. The complete transcript was not posted but I assume the civil recovery agreement/confession was suppressed and this is why Winona was able to plead "not guilty" in her jury trial?

I assume there is no way to indicate under "Rights" that there are no warnings given by city licensed security guards when they arrest/detain shoplifting suspects outside of store premises but certainly you can see that this is unfair. Case law and practice permits these LP Retail Undercover Police to initiate probable cause arrests and/or civil demands because the City has given them the power of arrest outside of store premises, and this is their intent, but yet the suspects who are first offenders are not warned and they volunteer and incriminate themselves in voluntary statements that can be used against them in the courts. The licenced LP undercover police who are paid agents of the retailer use their agency with the City Police to arrest/detain and their agency with their employer to be excused from the constitutional "intent" of Miranda warnings. The subsidy for the retailers is obvious. But, can this all be justified by the cities as "deterrence of shoplifting" that is in the interests of the people? It is the States who gave the Cities (through administrative rule) the authority to license security guards to keep the peace and to protect private property --but was it premaditated that the "power of arrest" would be sold to secret police --those who would wear no uniforms and display no badges. The purpose of the uniform and the badge is to deter crime and warn of authority.

The lower courts --those used most by the people -- should not be complicit in denying due process rights to those who come before them because public policy has granted the subsidy of civil recovery statutes together with the sale of the people's "power of arrest" to the corporate retailers of America. Because the practice of Civil Recovery and Criminal Prosecution is a mixed bag in the United States, the equal protection of the laws is not given to those who can't afford to pay civil recoveries. Do you think that the Legislatures intended the Retailers to use both civil and criminal sanctions? Or, did the cities and the retailers just get together to use "process" and the "law" after the Civil Recovery Statutes were passed by the State Legislatures? Do you think that democracies can survive when public policy is developed behind the backs of the masses? If you had a garage sale or a yard sale and you saw someone conceal one of your items offered for sale and then look like he/she was leaving, wouldn't you say "Hey ---did you forget to pay me for the "whatever" that you have "wherever" on your person? Or, would you wait until they got in their car and then block them from leaving and detain them forcibly if they wouldn't come back and talk to you? Would you then NOT let them offer to pay for the item and detain them (forcibly, if necessary) until you could call the police. Would the police come to your house to arrest this garage or yard- sale thief?

Does the end justify the means? Does Wikipedia care? Do you care? I am just trying to expose what has happened to those who read Wikipedia and I don't understand why you want to stop me. I understand that only that which can be verified should be posted but why don't you help me verify some of this. I am not very skilled in the use of the computer ---I can't even find out whether there is any "history" that I could look into to find the transcript of the conversation in court ---but will ask one of my children when I have the opportunity ---and see if I can find it in my history???? My eyesight is failing as well.

Thank you for allowing me to post "The History of Civil Recovery"

CJKC 16 Jan 2008

Try The Smoking Gun website for specific court documents related to celebrities. Regarding shoplifting, in most (all?) states, every citizen (or every person) has the legal power of citizen's arrest, which makes it perfectly legal for store security to arrest someone and turn them over to police, using some level of reasonable force. Recovery in civil judgements is separate from punishing criminals for crimes, and does not constitute double jeopardy. I suggest you educate yourself about the law, and look up law journal articles and court cases regarding these issues. And no, I don't care if a security guard roughs up some punk stealing from a store. Without security of private property, civilization is impossible, and I'm rather attached to civilization, myself. Argyriou (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me also suggest that you not edit articles that you feel such emotional involvement with until you get others' opinions on the talk page. To hint (rather boldly) that Wikipedia or an editor does not care simply because we are trying to prevent Wikipedia from opening itself up to a lawsuit for inaccurate information suggests that your zealous involvement in the issues clouds your judgment about what should be included in an article. Please step back, take a few deep breaths, post your suggested edits on the articles' talk pages, and wait for others to react. You clearly have placed your personal agenda over the best interests of Wikipedia, and with that frame of mind you don't need to be editing Wikipedia. There are reasons Wikipedia has rules and guidelines, and no matter how much you wish for Wikipedia to be your soapbox, it cannot be and will not be. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Argyriou! I found the 10-14/02 hearing in which the Judge sustained Mr. Garagos' objection to Ms. Rundle offering two civil demand notices that Winona Ryder signed. Can I now indicate this is my source for the comment in the "Discussion" Section of the Article or can I indicate this is the main Article under "Rights" or "History". Did you know that Civil Demand, Inc., a California Corporation who makes civil demands on behalf of Corporate Clients indicated on the Internet, the following, I quote: "The Appelate Courts in Montana and Nebraska has held that if the store seeks a civil penalty and a criminal prosecution and the suspect has in fact paid the civil demand, then double jeopardy applies and he cannot be criminally prosecuted." This makes sense, of course, because both the criminal and the civil sanction against shoplifting is possible because of laws passed by government, and the "civil recovery" statutes are a government subsidy of the American Retailers.

CJKC 17:29, 16 January 2008

There you go again

I've had it with your unsourced edits. DON'T ADD INFORMATION WITHOUT A CITATION. Repeat: DON'T ADD INFORMATION WITHOUT A CITATION. One more time: DON'T ADD INFORMATION WITHOUT A CITATION. Do it again and you'll be blocked, this time for more than 31 hours.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Winona Ryder, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The information I added is from the 10-24-02 Pretrial Hearing Transcript and has a bearing on what happened to Winona Ryder in her shoplifting case. She was more or less forced into a jury trial because LA would not plea bargain with her and a jury was her only opportunity to avoid a felony conviction. The fact that the licensed LP Personnel did not Mirandize her but induced her to sign the Civil Recovery Demands and then initiated a criminal arrest by the LA Commissioned Police put Winona between a rock and a hard place. Do you want me to cite the source of the pre-trial transcript when I put this back into the article, or what? Why would anyone sign a Civil Recovery Demand if they thought they were then going to be criminally arrested andprosecuted for the same event? What is wrong with the truth? Apparently, LA wanted a "show" trial and a "guilty" verdict from a jury and they knew they could get one if only the "law of the case" came before the jury. While Winona's attorney indicated in his remarks that there was a conspiracy to "get" Winona by the guards, he didn't give the jury any reasons as to why the State and the Loss Prevention Industry might want to protect The Civil Recovery Stastutes and the legitimacy of the Criminal Prosecution of Defendants for Larceny shoplifting based on the probable cause evidence gathered by city-licensed undercover retail police who permit suspects to exist store premises so that they can be arrested for completed larcenies and be served with civil demands from the corporate retailers.

CJKC ---18:35, 17 Jan 08

---