So that was my thinking, except that M should let his name be known because if the story is true, he's a real honest guy. Maybe we all chip in $5 each to make him whole on his $2,500 to $5,000 for being a good guy.

These are good questions
 

And I don’t know the answers. I’m not sure M knows either. In situations like that, you are pretty much at the mercy of what people are telling you. And those trying to do the right thing , like my friend, are often at a real disadvantage.

I may be slow to the party but I have found out who B is. I will unequivocally never deal with his company again regardless of what happens from this point forward.

Agree
 

Obviously I am willing and eager to name those involved, but won’t do so until I can talk to my friend. He is dealing with a serious family issue at the moment so it may not be right away.

Heck, I wanted to come out on this years ago. M was trying to allow everyone time to do the right thing. He asked me not to post so I didnt back then. I will say the B wont get my business either. That includes their ebay auctions and the National. B was more worried about keeping his profits which was a big percentage than taking them back from M. He also said he should have known they were hot as he barely paid anything for them.

I thout a claim should have been made and insurance get involved, which then they would require a police report.

I wonder if A reported the return of the cards to his insurance carrier who, as I understand the scenario, had previously paid for the loss. If that is accurate, the carrier has title to the cards, not A IMO. He doesn't get to keep both the cards and the money he was paid for them because that's, at a minimum, betterment. I also agree with Peter that an there is an action for breach of warranty of title. When you sell something you impliedly warrant that it is yours to sell. These cards evidently weren't his to sell.

I don’t know whether A had any insurance. You may possibly be conflating my narrative with the one added to the thread by Dan Bretta,who did make mention of an insurance claim. See post 27 above.

Im glad this is finally being put out and talked about. M didnt deserve this and once contacted and told of the hypothetical issue:D myself I returned a card that belonged to A. That was the end of my involvement in this and I always wanted to know more and see M made whole in some way or another. And with A never coming on this board and thanking M for all his hard work on this matter stood out to me as very peculiar. I mean has he even posted once since all this transpired?

Ah, OK. Sorry.

Could M go after the brother for his purchase price plus the lost profit? Or would the whole thing have to follow the chain backwards.

I think M has to go after B, because it's B who wronged him, selling him cards to which he did not have title.

Edit to add B should give M his money back, take it as a loss, and get a better lawyer. :) Or at least work out some accommodation that leaves both innocents satisfied.

I too have found out and am with Jay

Fascinating reading. Sometimes I wish I dealt with more expensive cards and other times I read a thread like this and am glad most of my cards are inexpensive.

Sure would love to know who these people are, especially B..... If you know and wont say, I respect that, but please stop posting that you know and wont do biz anymore because its like telling a secret in the face of us who don't know!! Thanks'

Ryan

So the brothers got the cards and the money.

Sounds like a good scam on the brothers behalf.

M whoever you are, bit props and respect. B, hopefully gets outed
I don't want to give my $$ to him, please share his info so we can all play the good guy. I understand the slander aspects, but if its all true there is no wrongdoing.

I had a similar situation at my brick and mortar. Police were involved, was asked to return Goods and was glad to do so. Police informed that original owner had been compensated by insurance but I was still to give the property back. I asked original owner to compensate me for my original expense since he had already been paid. He refused. I asked the police if I had any recourse they advised since there were no identifying marks or tracking information on the item, such as registration number. It was my judgment to keep or return to the original owner. Since he had already been compensated, I opted to keep the item. Police belt I was doing this original owner wrong, however I differ in that opinion.

I know it's a different situation. However, M is a true hero in the hobby. I would gladly spend my money with him.

No, won't do that but we will walk over to the dealer's table I purchased it from, get a refund of my money and return the card to him and then the two of you can sort it out...

And if the dealer refuses, then what?

I believe if the insurance company paid the claim, they are the new owner of the items... not unlike totaling a car, insurance pays the claim and they take the car...

I think that's right because most insurance policies will have what's called a right of salvage provision.

I'm aware of all the A, B & M parties as others on the thread are. My understanding is that A wouldn't press charges against the brother so he gets off scott free. My thoughts are maybe M should have given the cards to someone to hold in escrow until A, B & M could figure something out (my undertstanding is another dealer is also between the brother and B).

Without holding the brother accountable, who's to say this won't happen again and put dealer D and collector K in the mix too? A's REAL beef should have been with his brother and sounds like nothing ever happened there unless I don't have all the story. In addition, looks like B, M and the other dealer between the brother and B should have somehow shared the misery three ways, maybe? I don't know.

Not sure how, especially at a card show, or how these guys buy groups of cards and collections of cards that you can fully insulate yourself from buying stolen merchandise. I know when I've sold stuff to dealers at shows no one's ever gotten my ID nor in few cases paid with a check. Seems like it's a perfect situation for moving stolen goods..........a shame for all in the loop really. I'm sure B has lost a LOT of business based on their actions as well.

Tom, how can you say B has lost a lot of business when most of us don't know who B is?

For those of you in the know, good for you. For the rest of us it's caveat emptor.

Then we trade contact info and you file a police report.

I would think that the dealer once confronted with an officer questioning why said dealer is buying/selling stolen items (fencing?) at a show he might be more agreeable to refunding the purchase and giving the card back to you. He can then file is own report and insurance claim against the thief if he knows who it is..

Otherwise might be an embarrassing situation among a crowd of his peers at the show, endless gossip and a possible starring role on a new net54 thread.

If I had to give over the item, I would get a receipt from the officer and if a credit card purchase call the card company and cancel the sale. If cash I would not let it go and follow through the process as I am not going to take the hit as all I did was buy an item from a dealer who presented it as conveyable title...

As I said - I will post the name of the dealer IF
 

my friend gives me permission to do it. If he doesn't, then I would point out that there are ways for smart people to find these things out - I can't tell you myself, but many other people do know...

The insurer who pays out typically has a subrogation right--it steps into the shoes of the insured for purposes of pursuing the person who caused the damage. Most personal articles policies also have language expressly transferring rights to damaged or recovered items to the insurer if payment is made to the insured on the policy.

I have no compunctions about naming the dealer, except I can't recall his name. I know he sets up at the National and has a wife who is very visible as part of the business. She is usually at the table over-dressed for the occasion, which in the case of a card show means she is usually wearing female clothing without visible scars, tattoos or a fanny pack.

As for the case itself, I see it this way:

I don't believe in 'moral' when it comes to commerce: there is legal and illegal.

Virtually no jurisdiction allows a thief to pass good title to a stolen object (there are a few bona fide purchaser laws in Texas for example that might allow it in certain circumstances, but this all went down in states that aren't run by moonbats). Doesn't matter how remote or how many times it is resold, title to the card is no good and the actual owner can recover it. Think of it this way: I steal the Mona Lisa and sell it to you and you can resell it a hundred times to a hundred different purchasers...doesn't mean the end buyer owns it because I never owned it; the lady goes back to Paris if the French authorities come a knocking. So, M never acquired good title to the cards because the dealer never had title to them because he purchased from a thief. The actual owner has the right to go into court and demand that M return his cards or pay the value of them. IMO, M did the right thing but he also did the thing that any decent attorney would have told him was the thing he would be compelled to do if push came to shove. M has a right against the dealer (what the heck is his name?) for what Peter already alluded to--breach of an implied warranty of good title to the merch. The dealer has the right to sue A's junkie brother for the cost he is out. A also can sue the brother and perhaps the grandparents for allowing the known junkie-criminal access to the cards in the first place.

I don't know the people and the details of this story, but just realize that normal and legal practice is to give refund to a person who was the direct buyer. Period. With stolen items and a chain of ownership, refund/return is given down the line of owners. It is very problematic giving refund to someone who wasn't your buyer-- especially if you don't know them. At the very least, there had better be good proof that the items were stolen.

In other cases, I find it problematic when the people on hobby boards criticize a big auction house or dealer refuses to refund years later to someone who never bought the item from them. If the hobby expects this and does not expect the refundee to provide significant proof the items were stolen and of the chain of ownership, the auctioneer or dealer could theoretically be giving out refunds to multiple people on one item. I've heard a big auction house say "I've never sold anything to this person and have never met him. Why should I be handing him over money?"-- which is a reasonable (and legally correct) argument.

As mentioned, A's main beef and source of getting money back is with his brother. And, at the very least, if he expects money back from the third or whatever generation buyer, he'd better have insurance claim papers or police report to prove the items were stolen.

If the parties want to cut a deal and do things differently because they think that's the right thing to do, that is fine and acceptable, but legally M never owed refund directly to A. That's not to say A does not get a refund or the cards back, but this is not the way the law says it is to be done. Judges often say (to the effect) "You have a legitimate case, but you've sued the wrong person."

When the police or the feds recover stolen property from its current owner, innocent or not, they don't say to the current owner, please go return the item to the person you bought it from and get a refund. They take it.

And do (or should) list that downstream buyer as an additional victim

And if I learn who B is, he'll lose my business as well

I am not aware of the players in this scenario BUT as one half of a well known set of brothers (along with Rhys) on this forum/hobby I just don’t want anyone to think we are “A,” or even “B” for that matter.

Don't worry Rhett: you guys aren't well known at all ;)

So, I refreshed my recollection and I believe the mystery dealer hails from Louisville KY and has the same last name as the drummer from The Jam.

Is the drummer related to the infamous Red Sox player that had the ball go between his legs, which ultimately cost them the series?

Based on recent posts, that's why M shouldn't have just given A the cards right away. B doesn't feel compelled to even rewind his profits and A doesn't feel compelled to file a police report.

Now how is M going to even pursue damages with the brother? Not even sure he can since the brother and M didn't deal directly.

M clearly put what was right above his wallet. But he does, I believe, have recourse against Chris. Of course for the amount involved and depending on where he lives a claim may not be practical.

I have no idea if he is related to David Ortiz. :)

I love that we just got a Jam reference; well done Adam, great band! It's a crying shame they disbanded as early as they did.

lol

I never thought I would see a reference to the Jam on here. All Mod Cons, eh?

Maybe. But maybe not since the brothers got the cards and the money and there is no police report for M to even reference in a case against B.

I suppose B can say "what stolen cards? Just because A said they were stolen doesn't mean it's true"

Except that B already has acknowledged to M that he knows (now) they were stolen and relied on his lawyer as a reason not to refund. I suppose B could lie about that too, in a hypothetical trial.

sweet Jam reference indeed
 

because I'm not that quick, I have only gradually grasped the point people have made about the dealer not even being willing to give up his profit. i think it's important enough to be underlined.

for those who are similarly dim, look at it this way:

dealer buys items for $1000, quickly resells them for $4000. (these amounts are hypothetical.) shortly thereafter it's discovered that the items were stolen. all legalities aside, shouldn't the dealer at the very least offer to refund the buyer $3000???? that would lessen the sting for the buyer considerably, and yet in doing so the dealer has not actually lost a penny relative to where he was before the whole thing started.


the more I understand, the more angry I get about it. in this case the dealer seems to have decided that the risk to his reputation is less important than keeping someone else's money which (if i am reading earlier posts correctly) he has no basis for considering it to be his! in the first place!!

do we want someone like this in our hobby?

Tim-The dealer has already been outed (post 82). No need to be cryptic any more. I'm surprised he has not come on the board to defend his actions.

Alright guys, I am B. A lot has been said in this thread and I would like you to hear the entire story, as well as, voice my opinion.

First, I regret the way this entire deal has transpired. Over the past year, actions that I thought were going to happen never have (meaning A actually pressing charges against his brother)

I will keep other parties names incognito, they can chime in if they prefer.

Sometime during the Spring of 2016 a collector, we will call him T, walks into a card shop in West Virginia (I believe it was WV). He meets another so called collector while in the shop. We will call him the thief. The thief tells T that he and his father collected for many years, his father recently passed and now he is interested in selling their collection. I was told the owner of the card shop only dealt in modern cards and allowed the two to discuss a sale/purchase. Long story short, T purchases cards from the thief.

T holds on to the cards for some time then decides to sell some/all to a shop in Cincinnati . The shop owner, we will call him S, is a very knowledgeable dealer who has been around for many years. I have been dealing with him for over 10 years. S purchases some cards from T. S doesn't have a lot of local cliental to sell obscure tobacco cards so he calls me to see if I have interest. I tell S that I know a collector/dealer who may be interested.
At this point I call M and ask if he is interested, he is, and we make a deal. I mail M the cards and he mails me a check.

At this point 3 different collector/dealers have handled these cards. All of us have done some research and valuation of the cards. I can say for a FACT, I did not get these cards at a steal by any means. I purchased these only to help out a collector and then sold the cards to M for a 10% markup.

Fast forward a few months to the 2016 National in Atlantic City. A comes running up to me saying his collection was stolen and M has some of his cards for sale at his table. A asks me where I got the cards, I tell him I bought them from S. I proceed to call S to find out who he bought them from. He tells me he bought them from T. I happen to know T a little so I ask S for his phone number and call him. T then proceeds to tell me he bought them from the thief, the brother of A. At this point everyone involved; myself, M, S and T had no idea we were handling stolen cards.

Myself and T discuss what has happened. I contact S again and discuss with him as well. We all agree to have M hold the cards for safe keeping until we can discuss with authorities on how best to proceed. Although M & I know A, the other parties do not know if this is a hoax or if the cards were really stolen. They want A to press charges against his brother and then they will disburse the monies to appropriate parties. I tell M what has been discussed by the others involved. M makes the decision to immediately turns the cards over to A.

I spent the next day or two at the National discussing the theft with A and try to help him the best I can. I provided him all the parties contact info, gave him names of other shops in the area, as well as, a few local collectors who may have purchased cards from the thief. A tells myself and M that he will be pressing charges against the thief. While he did end up filing a incident report, to the best of my knowledge, a lawsuit or charges were NEVER filed against his brother, the thief.

I was never advocating to hold the cards hostage. I never wanted to keep stolen property - I simply wanted A to actually prove that these cards were stolen by pressing charges against his brother.

M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.

After reading this thread it seems many different opinions, both legal and personal, are being tossed around.

Here are some FACTS that you have not been privy to:

I did offer M the profit that I made off the deal which was 10%. If M wants me to post my most recent correspondence with him I gladly will.

I never lawyered up, I simply asked advice from a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer. I was not trying to cut off communication with M, he never replied to my last email.

I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.

I never firmly stated to M that I would not work with him in some way.


This has been a terrible situation for all parties involved. I reached out to A and never received a response. To me A has disappeared, the thief has gotten off with everything and now M and I are caught in the middle.

I sure wish M would have just communicated with me personally without bringing Tim into this. I understand that Tim wants to help his friend, but he has caused confusion, as all the facts have not been stated.

I am not sure what Jay Cee is suggesting, I certainly was not having a sleezy conversation with my wife about this. I was upset and unsure how to handle this, considering it was within a few hours of discovering this has happened. To state that publically is complete BS.


M call or email me to discuss or if needed, feel free to make this as public as Tim has.

That's for sure, but Paul was burnt out by that point and looking to go more in the blue-eyed soul direction anyway. I couldn't believe that the same guy who did In The City was the guy who did My Ever Changing Moods, but artists evolve. I didn't expect to see Elvis Costello jamming with Burt Bacharach either.

So now it appears as though B never had ownership of the cards. He just facilitated a transaction between S and M with a small fee. Acting as an agent I believe.

Still looks like the brothers made off with the cards and the money. And still looks like M shouldn't have jumped the process because now no charges were filed.

Chris-I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what proper legal protocol is, but I would think that you should make a full refund to M. You should then go to S and get a full refund from him. S should then go to T and get a full refund from him; at this point T is out his purchase price from A's brother and he should sue him for that sum and press charges. At that point, since A supposedly has not pressed charges, he can acknowledge the theft to the police or reimburse T, at which point T would have no further damages and might drop the case.

Eric-I know A. I am fairly certain he had nothing to do with the theft. Also, although it appears that Buckler was effectively a conduit, if M made payment to him I would think legally he had taken ownership and conveyed ownership of the cards (ie he owned them) although such ownership may have been for a minimal amount of time.

To clarify, I wasn't stating that as a deal or agreement on both brothers part. It's just how it ended up.

The sleezy convo I over heard was you talking to another guy in the isle by your showcase. I was the guy looking at the Cobb postcards which your wife was helping me, as she was working the booth. I had to go look at shiney stuff in your booth, to eves drop better as I know you didnt know who I was. I was there for ten minutes and your wife asked me if I wanted to see anything else and I said I was good. Dealer M knows everything I heard. Glad you came on the Thread Chris.