Net54baseball.com Forums - John Rogers Home and Business Searched by the FBI

Page 2 of 7

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)

- Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - John Rogers Home and Business Searched by the FBI (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=182435)

wonkaticket

01-30-2014 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjulmag (Post 1234341)

I am not a criminal lawyer so I know little about this. Are you saying that if a person feels another person has committed a crime, by filing a criminal complaint with the FBI he can compel the FBI to open a criminal investigation and, as part of the process, obtain a search warrant? That sets off a lot of bells to my common sense meter.

I agree Corey seems a little to easy to send the FBI on wild goose....you know :confused:

calvindog

01-30-2014 05:14 PM

Well, I wish John: 1) all the luck in the world with this investigation; and 2) that when he lies as badly as he did in the thread Wonka posted above that he's not under oath, subject to the penalties of perjury.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5489/1...eb4791b0_c.jpg

wonkaticket

01-30-2014 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog (Post 1234375)

Come on Jeff sometimes things just slip our minds lighten up. :D

Drives me crazy when I forget that I sell million dollar baseball cards....ughhh I promised myself I would stop doing that in 2014 I hope I can keep this resolution this time fingers crossed. :rolleyes:

slidekellyslide

01-30-2014 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylbry (Post 1234321)

"About a year ago, two of Rogers’ former employees pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud for diverting funds from customers to their own Paypal accounts. Christopher Jackson and Steve Roby also stole thousands of photographs from Rogers and sold many on eBay, according to government prosecutors.

Jackson received a 33-month prison sentence and two years of supervised release. He was ordered to pay more than $138,000 in restitution. Roby was sentenced last July to a year and a half in prison, a year of supervised release and $138,000 in restitution."

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...photo-archive/

I should have been clearer..I was wondering what the FBI took with them the other day...another article stated that it appeared to be baseball bats inside boxes.

wonkaticket

01-30-2014 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1234392)

I should have been clearer..I was wondering what the FBI took with them the other day...another article stated that it appeared to be baseball bats inside boxes.

Oh no I hope it wasn't those Ruth and Gehrig bats that he came out of the woodwork from his eBay listing. :D

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

01-30-2014 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny (Post 1234225)

It's true that Peter Nash is friendly with John Rogers. Nash said in court filed papers that John Rogers had agreed to contribute $10,000 for Nash's legal fees... The NY Daily News wrote an article about it, see link below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ite...morabilia-exec

When I tried to contact John Rogers to ask him why he was giving money to Peter Nash to defend his lawsuit, John Rogers had his attorney send me a cease and desist letter not to contact him.

I have a copy of an signed affidavit from John Rogers dated July 26, 2012 that he loaned approximately $166,200 to Peter Nash. The third sentence of the affidavit states:

"During the years of 2009 and 2010 I loaned approximately $166,200 to Mr. Nash. These wire transfers were unsecured loans for which no formal loan agreements or documents were executed between Mr. Nash, myself or my companies."

My wife and I have a Judgment against Peter Nash and Roxanne Nash. As of today the Judgment including the 8.5% interest amounts to approximately $500,000. I have a bunch of collateral from Peter Nash which would help pay down the Judgment but does Peter Nash give me any provenance or try to help me sell it, no. For example I have an Ed Delahanty Trophy bat that Peter Nash gave to me as collateral on the bat it says "Presented To Edward Delahanty Four Home Runs July 13, 1896". But Peter Nash has refused to help me sell it. Nash writes volumes about baseball memorabilia and goes into extreme details on his Hauls of Shame website but refuses to write anything about the rare memorabilia that he gave me as collateral.

You may want to contact a lawyer about Nash's refusal to help you sell the collateral. My thoughts, and I have never practiced in this area, are that there may be an action related to his interfering with your ability to satisfy the debt.

Again - I have not practiced law in this area.

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

01-30-2014 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benjulmag (Post 1234341)

I have practiced as a prosecutor. By filing a criminal complaint you are putting law enforcement on notice of the allegations. They will likely look into the allegations but cannot be compelled to pursue a search warrant.

WhenItWasAHobby

01-30-2014 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards (Post 1234402)

Best to my knowledge there was no search warrant when the FBI arrived to question the person.

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

01-30-2014 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby (Post 1234407)

Best to my knowledge there was no search warrant when the FBI arrived to question the person.

You don't need a warrant to talk to a person.

edjs	01-30-2014 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardSimon (Post 1234345)

Sounds pretty amazing that the FBI would be involved in a case involving $500, they usually do not act until there are lots of zeroes in the number.

I don't know a lot about the law, but I believe it is not the dollar amount that involves the FBI, rather the type of crime involved. When someone robbed the title and loan company by my house, all they got was petty cash. It was considered a bank robbery, and the FBI had to do the investigation over something like $50.

I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

01-30-2014 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edjs (Post 1234415)

That is correct. The FBI is charged with investigating federal offenses. The dollar amount would relate to the possible crime and not the jurisdiction of the FBI.

Sunny

01-30-2014 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards (Post 1234400)

Thanks for your thoughts I just may do that. During the lawsuit Peter Nash alleged that I destroyed Nash's present and future business dealings with John Rogers. What is that business relationship? It's a fact that Legendary Auctions sent Peter Nash's landlord money so he would not be evicted, but did you know that John Rogers is one of the owner of Legendary Auctions. I asked Doug Allen what percentage of ownership does John Rogers have in Legendary Auctions, Doug wouldn't tell me but he did confirm that John Rogers is part owner of Legendary Auctions. Doug told me if it wasn't for John Rogers helping out financially Legendary Auctions wouldn't exist. Doug Allen told me he's good friends with John Rogers and stays over Rogers house when he visits.

calvindog

01-30-2014 09:20 PM

The Big House?

slidekellyslide

01-30-2014 09:30 PM

Hmmm...Day 2 since this story broke and still nothing on Haulsofshame.

wonkaticket

01-30-2014 09:41 PM

I guess they could still arrange sleep overs...

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...d/Jails_3_.jpg

wonkaticket

01-30-2014 09:46 PM

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...s%20Corner.jpg

Hmmm…Coaches Corner….memorabilia….connected to a person known and accused for bogus memorabilia….loans money to said person…part owner of a major auction house…auction house pays rent of said person…auction house under investigation/trial for fraud….FBI warrants at your place of work…ehhh I’m sure it’s all just a big misunderstanding.

slidekellyslide

01-30-2014 10:03 PM

There's only one reason someone consigns something to CC...they know it's a fake.

Sunny

01-30-2014 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonkaticket (Post 1234473)

Very interesting, John Rogers consigned a Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig signed baseball to Coach's Corner. Now that says it all!

wonkaticket

01-30-2014 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1234477)

There's only one reason someone consigns something to CC...they know it's a fake.

Dan if that’s the case where would a guy like Rogers obtain such questionable merchandise to consign to Coaches Corner? It’s not like he’s connected or knows of anyone that could provide such merchandise, has business dealings with a person who could supply such items. Or even has been accused of supplying such merchandise to the market.I can’t seem piece this one together. :confused:

Hopefully the hard hitting investigative journalism of The Hauls of Shame headed up by hobby white knight Peter Nash can add this to “Operation Bambino” and his other deep investigative reports.

slidekellyslide

01-30-2014 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wonkaticket (Post 1234481)

I know, right? I'm biting my nails waiting for that hard hitting piece of journalism to come forth.

PS where did Travis Roste go? Anyone seen him around?

oldjudge

01-30-2014 11:30 PM

Coaches Corner? This is hilarious!
Question: when Rogers bought the PSA5 MC Wagner, if I am not mistaken, Doug was handling his phone bid at the live auction. Was that one Legendary owner dealing with another?

Exhibitman

01-30-2014 11:43 PM

Jay that is a good question.

What a mess. Is there no limit to the sleaze in collecting? At long last have they no decency?

Sunny

01-31-2014 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge (Post 1234509)

What’s this all about? Coach’s Corner praising John Rogers for a letter he wrote about a signed Babe Ruth bat they were selling. More shocking is that the signed Babe Ruth bat is made out to the actor Gary Cooper. “It is a one of a kind, also has a letter from famous John Rogers of Arkansas, and value is truly "priceless" on this HOF worthy item.”

Famous for what? Yeah right give me a break! See link below:

http://www.myccsa.com/Lot/235/babe-r...al-bb-bat.aspx

slidekellyslide

01-31-2014 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny (Post 1234550)

Didn't realize he was in the business of authenticating signatures...this is really getting interesting.

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1234551)

Didn't realize he was in the business of authenticating signatures...this is really getting interesting.

He is probably as good as the people who purport to be in that business. :D

slidekellyslide

01-31-2014 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1234552)

He is probably as good as the people who purport to be in that business. :D

No arguments from me on that, just surprised to see...really had no idea that John Rogers was mixed up with CC, and even more surprised to find out he's a partner in Legendary auctions.

Exhibitman

01-31-2014 07:54 AM

Maybe he is the criminal mastermind behind everything. Mastro shmastro, it was Mr Rogers' neighborhood.

prestigecollectibles

01-31-2014 08:01 AM

I don't get it

1 Attachment(s)

How are these crooks still in business?

slidekellyslide

01-31-2014 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prestigecollectibles (Post 1234561)

How are these crooks still in business?

Because everything they sell comes with an opinion. How is Morales still in business?

Leon	01-31-2014 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1234563)

Because everything they sell comes with an opinion. How is Morales still in business?

Precisely, because it is an "opinion" it's very difficult to prosecute, I believe.

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1234564)

Precisely, because it is an "opinion" it's very difficult to prosecute, I believe.

If it's a fraudulent opinion it's still fraud. If I know an item is not genuine, it makes no difference if I say "it's genuine" or "in my opinion, it's genuine."

Leon	01-31-2014 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1234576)

If it's a fraudulent opinion it's still fraud. If I know an item is not genuine, it makes no difference if I say "it's genuine" or "in my opinion, it's genuine."

Sure, all you have to do is prove it's a fraudulent opinion, no problem.

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1234579)

Sure, all you have to do is prove it's a fraudulent opinion, no problem.

And how is that any harder or easier than proving a statement of fact was made with knowledge it was false?

Leon	01-31-2014 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1234581)

And how is that any harder or easier than proving a statement of fact was made with knowledge it was false?

You're the one saying how easy it is, not me. And I am telling you that I have been told by the people actually doing the work that it's not easy. If it was then CC would be in hot water....(and maybe they are, I don't know)

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1234582)

You're the one saying how easy it is, not me. And I am telling you that I have been told by the people actually doing the work that it's not easy. If it was then CC would be in hot water....

I never said it was easy. I am saying that the language they use is not the reason it's hard, but rather that it's hard to prove a fraudulent state of mind.

steve B

01-31-2014 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1234576)

If it's a fraudulent opinion it's still fraud. If I know an item is not genuine, it makes no difference if I say "it's genuine" or "in my opinion, it's genuine."

As a serious question, rather than an argument type question.

With something like an autograph opinion is there no leeway for incompetence?
I could express an opinion about an autograph, and put it in writing. But aside from a handful of items I own, all cheap I'd be likely to be wrong. (Unless I'm sure it's bad because the item is too new to have been signed by that person)
So If I claimed something was good and it became an issue a lack of knowledge or skill wouldn't help?

I realize there's also a difference between someone Doing that as a business and someone selling random stuff.
Just like claiming incompetence wouldn't help if I fixed something wrong and someone got hurt.

Steve B

slidekellyslide

01-31-2014 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1234583)

I never said it was easy. I am saying that the language they use is not the reason it's hard, but rather that it's hard to prove a fraudulent state of mind.

Plus, the odds of getting a jury that knows anything at all about autographs is not good...Mr Morales taking the stand with his "FBI background in forensics" would probably make the average jury member star struck.

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 09:03 AM

In a private suit if I were defending you, I would claim that because you were not holding yourself out as an expert, the plaintiff was not entitled to reasonably rely on your "opinion" or that it was not material.

Leon	01-31-2014 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1234583)

I never said it was easy. I am saying that the language they use is not the reason it's hard, but rather that it's hard to prove a fraudulent state of mind.

I don't know about that. I think if you read one of CC's LOA's you would find a lot of verbiage making them not liable for their opinion. I haven't read one but I would bet they are pretty good at denying culpability.....

slidekellyslide

01-31-2014 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1234592)

I think it's quite obvious that as long as they've been running their bogus operation and the FBI hasn't already shut them down that it's been deemed not an easy task.

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1234592)

That's another issue. I haven't seen one either so can't comment.

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1234594)

I think it's quite obvious that as long as they've been running their bogus operation and the FBI hasn't already shut them down that it's been deemed not an easy task.

Given the amount of fraud that goes on in this world, it's obviously not an easy task to build a case that will hold up on a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Some get busted but most do not. And prosecutorial resources are scarce relative to the number of fraudsters.

barrysloate

01-31-2014 09:31 AM

Peter- here is something I don't understand, and maybe you can explain it: if I rendered an opinion on an autograph, and I got it wrong (I called a bogus autograph genuine) I agree that I could have simply given an erroneous opinion.

But if you gave me a thousand bogus autographs to authenticate, and I said all thousand were genuine, isn't there a tipping point where nobody would believe me? Wouldn't it at some point become obvious that I was committing fraud?

slidekellyslide

01-31-2014 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1234597)

CC and Morales are the most obvious fraudsters in the hobby at this time...I would think if what they were doing was easy to prosecute it would have been done by now. They're gaming the system.

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 09:37 AM

Barry, if nobody believed you then is it fraud? At that point your opinion wouldn't be material.

But where I think you meant to go is where I was going with this originally: that at some point there can be enough circumstantial evidence that a seller knows his opinion is false; and if a seller knows his opinion is false that's just as fraudulent as affirmatively stating the item is genuine.

barrysloate

01-31-2014 09:40 AM

I don't know what the threshhold is for fraud, but I understand your response. It seems like CC will go on indefinitely.

Peter_Spaeth

01-31-2014 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1234602)

CC and Morales are the most obvious fraudsters in the hobby at this time...I would think if what they were doing was easy to prosecute it would have been done by now. They're gaming the system.

Or living on borrowed time.

Sunny

01-31-2014 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunny (Post 1234225)

Hey John Rogers I have a great deal for you. I’ll sell you all of Peter Nash’s memorabilia that I have as collateral. You can call your buddy up Peter Nash and I’m sure he will give you the provenance of the memorabilia, after all you did loan him unsecured loans of $166,200, so it makes no sense that he wouldn’t give you provenance on this material. It would be a great deal for you and just think you would be helping your buddy out by paying down some of his debt. Remember my Judgment against Nash gets paid off first before you can get any of your money back from Nash.

Taking off a few items I have sold theirs approximately 60 items of Nash’s collateral I have for sale. Peter Nash puts a value of approximately $125,000 on this stuff. This deal would not include the Ed Delahanty bat that would have to be a separate deal. Make me an offer!

Runscott

01-31-2014 11:34 AM

15 posts and every last one of them relates to Peter Nash.

Seems like he owns you.

wonkaticket

01-31-2014 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Runscott (Post 1234643)

15 posts and every last one of them relates to Peter Nash.

Seems like he owns you.

Scott no offense I wonder how laid back you would be with having been physically threatened, ripped off for huge amounts of money, given questionable or fake items for collateral on debts owed. All from a guy who pretends to be a hobby sleuth and savior, while yanking his pud in cyberspace and pointing out the whims and legal troubles of others while taking the 5th on his own.

I don’t think Nash “owns” Robert, more like he “owes” Robert money…if anything.

I think poking Rogers is fair if he’s so keen on Nash, and so quick to consign “memorabilia” to Coaches Corner…LOL.

Just my two cents there needs to be 1000 more posts on Nash the hobby needs to know what this guy is.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:04 PM.

Page 2 of 7

Last »

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page