Net54baseball.com Forums - some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

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)

- - some more red meat for all the N54 moralists (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=249960)

Eric-You may have meant it differently, but, at least to me, it came off sounding bad. If Brother A had a few beers while watching a ball game at home and Brother B was driving the kids to camp, were Brother A and B drinking and driving?

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge (Post 1738091)

Right, when Eric said "made off," it sounded like an accusation.

Some of the opinions people have are very enlightening - my eyebrows were raised in surprise during most of the reading! Fortunately Peter brought sanity to the discussion.

It was also interesting to read Dan's story, since this is something that can happen to any of us as collectors. I had a couple of unique items stolen two years ago and played scenarios in my head as to what would happen if I found them on ebay or in an antique store. I finally decided that since they were only worth about $300, I would forget about it and never look at anything on ebay that looked similar to either item - basically, I never want to see them again. They were probably stolen by crackheads who threw them out on the side of the road, as they would look like worthless photographs to such people. But thinking this through made me wonder how safe it is to buy high-dollar items - virtually anything could have been stolen at some point.

Small update on my situation. I heard from the Lincoln police today who told me they still can not locate the woman who sold the figures to me. I asked about what I should do with the items. They told me to continue holding them. They believe that because the guy was compensated with insurance that the figures could belong to the insurance company now but that insurance companies rarely ever try to lay claim to collectibles like toys. They are also checking to see if I fall under the same laws regarding pawn shops. If the original owner wants his items back he can pay me what I paid the lady for them, but since he was compensated he will then have to pay the insurance company what he valued them at. I suspect that since I haven’t heard a word from him that his Insurance company told him this already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge (Post 1738091)

You are correct, it did sound like I was accusing A as being an accomplice. That's why I wanted to clarify that's not what I meant.

But, I also understand firsthand the dynamics of family when it comes to these situations. That's why M returning the cards immediately created a situation whereby the brother doesn't suffer any consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by egbeachley (Post 1738106)

+1. Understand why M did what he did but not prosecuting the brother will never help the situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1738006)

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

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

Hi Chris,

That is all somewhat clarifying, but when you say you never definitively said you would not work with Mike on a resolution, you’re finessing the fact that all this happened almost eighteen months ago. How long was he supposed to wait before concluding you were comfortable leaving him with the loss?

Also, I just want to clarify to everyone here that Mike DID NOT ask me to post this information. He has been avoiding going public in the hopes that a resolution could be reached. But as I mentioned, it has been almost eighteen months and I had to conclude that neither B nor A was going to do anything for Mike.

Tim

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris (Post 1738075)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by timn1 (Post 1738175)

After reading through most of this thread it seems to me your friend should have waited before returning the cards until the issue had been discussed with all parties involved. Perhaps if the brother who stole the cards was informed a police report would need to be filed for insurance purposes, he may have found a way to get the money back where it belonged. Assuming he's not still addicted to crack.

With no proof or police report I don't think I'd be willing to issue a refund in a case like this for cards that are no longer in my possession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards (Post 1738141)

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.