Except it wasn't a private email that was published; it was an email that was released by Elkins to someone other than the sender.

Did Kevin authorize it to be released? If not, he still has an expectation of privacy which HE did not waive.

an analogy
 

I write something to my lawyer, in confidence. The lawyer breaches the privilege and forwards it to a third party. The third party, knowing the original communication was intended to remain confidential, nevertheless publishes it without my permission. I have no right to be POd at the third party, as well as my lawyer?

Teddy; you are da man
 

I knew I had heard something like that.

Rich

And as for e-mail messages
 

Some day I'll tell you about the time when a work email I sent internally was accidentally forwarded to the card company person to whom I basically said was sending his cards via a back door.

That made for a real fun day at work; I spent the next 3 days on the phone apologizing for a comment I made that was forwarded. I never again put such a comment in an e-mail.

I won't mention names since this is a modern card and all parties have moved on

Rich

Double Post

I'm certainly not trying to argue with a lawyer, but....:)

I feel that the rule about posting private emails is much like laws we have on our books protecting citizens privacy.

In 99% of cases the law (or rule in this case) is for the protection of the good people. 1% of the time the law protects the bad people. But for the betterment of the majority we can't pick and choose when we use the rule.

Except that it Kevin's email was not a privileged communication between an attorney and a client and thus does not deserve the protection you describe.

A better analogy would be the issue of the disclosure of psychiatric records of a victim/witness in a criminal case. They are obviously protected from disclosure to a defense lawyer -- unless the records bear on the witness's state of mind or credibility -- and then they are fair game, the point being that the defendant's right to cross-examine trumps any privacy rights of the witness. Similarly, as Leon argued here and most would agree, the revelation of Kevin's stated claim of defrauding Net 54 members by releasing altered cards into the hobby trumps any pseudo-privacy right he might have.

I prefer a set of rules to a set of rules that can be broken when someone decides it is appropriate to break them.

Like the rules of evidence and all the hearsay exceptions? Or the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? Or any zillions of laws which contain loopholes for public policy reasons, i.e. for the greater good of the community?

In those cases the rule itself sets forth the loophole. Not so here.

We could have a new forum rule. No posting private emails except when it is for the greater good. That would work.

Well, but this is a vintage baseball card chatboard in which the community at large sets the rules. And consideirng we're all in agreement that fraud in our hobby is bad and exposing it is good, the consenus was that it was important that the email be released and Kevin exposed.

Also, this forum is not actually a democracy; Leon runs it and runs it according to how he sees fit.

Edited to add: Perfect, Peter. Now let's apply that rule retroactively. :)

I started by saying I expected I would be in the minority on this, but I doubt I am the only one and that it is otherwise a consensus.

True -- I suspect you, Kevin and Elkins think alike on this issue. You're definitely not alone, you're correct.

Lol.

We both need to find a hobby or something. :)

I consider myself an impartial third-party in that I know none of the persons involved. My gut feeling is that the comment made by Kevin was solely bravado and not meant as fact.

But I'm not 100% certain. Hence I lean towards Peter in that a rule against the posting of emails is a good idea. So I guess we have a minority of 4.

Could the situation with Kevin have been addressed without posting the actual email?

I know it wouldn't have had the same "Wow" factor, but could we have gotten to where we are now without it?

Well, 3; I'm not sure Elkins gets a vote here. :)

I'll support that!

I am an outsider here. No one ever responds to what I say but here is the bottom line. I know neither party. You cannot take a private email literally. You have no idea of the intention of the writer. And for any person to post a private email publicly is done so in a biased manner to forward their own agenda. I say this without agreeing or disagreeing with the consensus take on the email as proffered here. As a matter of point, its inappropriate and misleading. One has no idea what is in the head of the person and the motives of the person typing the email at the time it was typed.

A short story: I work at an office where instant messages are monitored by a female worker for content. A close male friend of mine and I were joking about an episode of "The Apprentice" a few years ago. There happened to be a lot of female bickering in that particular episode. This female "monitor" not knowing my relationship with him and our joking manner took great offense when I (truly) jokingly typed to him that "women don't belong in the workforce" and she took me literally as an outside observer.

Separately, after returning from the potty and typing to him that I was so impressed with my creation that I had the duty to and decided to leave it for the next caller, did I really do this even though I typed it?? Only I know.

Tim great question! By the way great post on the T206 "Doves"!

I thought about that the problem is that Kevin has been so Secret Squirrel in the past I thought what would I accomplish with a phone call? I mean what would his answer be?

"Kevin I have this email I was CC on so are you defrauding net 54 members that you dont like or were you just talking out of your you know what?"

What would his answer be to that...yes Wonka I'm running a whole scam here's how I'm doing it...LOL

I really wrestled with this feel free to ask one of the many other forum members and Leon who I ran this by prior to posting. I openly asked should I do this?

I know Kevin has folks send him cards from this forum and I don't know who he's dealing with off line so in the end I felt folks should be aware. If it was trash talking and pure lies...uhh ok dont buy it but whatever.

But I stand behind my gut feeling that it wasn't purley a lie and even if it was there's always a little truth in lies..IMO

Cheers,

John

P.S. Mental note never attend a holiday mixer with attorneys. :)

Ordinarily I wouldn't be in favor of posting emails, but when it's for the benefit of the hobby that the information be shared I think an exception should be made. Of course at the same time, I'm glad that I don't have to make the call as to where the "benefit of the hobby" line gets drawn. :eek:

David,

My agenda was clear to let you know of Kevin's agenda. :mad:

Funny none of you guys had issue with Chan's private emails being posted all which were really cryptic not in your face like Kevin...It's clear you guys only care after you get ripped off then it's ok for me to notify I will make a note of that. :confused:

“Our secret - I have never sold an altered card but for those few "true asses" on 54, I have made sure that each already has or will have an altered card in their collection (some more than one)....it will be their guess as to which one. I'll tell them exactly that some day. Again...I didn't make a penny (it actually cost me) but well worth it .” Kevin Saucier

Cheers,

John

Meet my wife...Morgan Fairchild.

:D

Agree with Spaeth, again
 

and don't know why, since he's a Boston guy :) Not real comfortable with any of this, but disclosing the e-mail is up there on the discomfort list. It's not a legal question of privilege at all--there is none, at least as relates to private dissemination. I still find it rather disquieting.

DISCLAIMER: I reserve the right to edit and erase, as I just watched Joe Nathan gag away a rare Twins road win in the 9th. Good thing I love the Yankees too, or someone would pay, and I don't mean the 12 (now far less than 12) bottled soldiers who have done their dury.

Yeah, I'd say disclosing the email makes me less uncomfortable than reading Kevin's admission that he altered cards and defrauded Net 54 members. That made me closer to nauseous.

I know one thing....never, ever email Scott Elkins. Anyone reading his forum, excuse me..."blog" over the last few days can see that he will post everything from private phone call conversations to emails.

And since I know you're reading this Scott, I don't hate you...I don't even know you. I do hate your other hobby, and your inability to grasp what is wrong with that.

well
 

imagine my surprise that you take that stand, Jeff, and that you couch it in terms of sarcasm. I assume there is room for disagreement here, and that others have a right to their opinions, but I have no great faith in that assumption either.

Todd, imagine my surprise that you'd take my serious comment and presume the worst. i was being serious; reading Kevin discuss targeting Net 54 members with fraud was sickening -- especially when he stated that he was disappointed that he didn't defraud me. Was that supposed to make me happy?

And who said there is no room for disagreement? Has this thread been shut down just because some people disagree with the fact that Kevin's private admission of fraud was revealed?

Mark VL
 

I agree that in most cases, disclosing someone else's email is bad form. But if it is done to expose a crime or something nefarious and damaging, then I think judgment has to be exercised---and it was. Good. Generally speaking, of course I prefer that my private emails stay that way. But I try to remember not to send anything in an email that I wouldn't be willing to be seen by everyone at my workplace--or across the internet, for that matter. If I always lived up to that principle, it would make all my emails relatively boring. But it would also give me an incentive to be a more accurate and clever writer.

Let me go on the record....

If you admit to a crime or hint that you will be working on even more crimes and you send that on into cyberspace. If said email ever hits my inbox with my name attahced to it it will be made of public record for everyone to see either on here or I will make my own site to share the information with the collecting community.

If you email me call me names, say I have funny hair, you hate Leon or Jeff or belong to dirty websites...I will never post or let anyone know as that does not belong on this board.

Really pretty simple dont be a crook dont lie about being a crook and your emails are 100% safe....

Some of you guys amaze me I guess in the future I'll wait untill you get ripped off....then I'll pop up oh by the way funny thing a few years ago I knew about this....LOL


John

Wonka

You have funny hair? wow

http://www.thefunnyworld.com/wp-cont...hair_day_2.jpg

Max please dont post personal pictures! :rolleyes:

I've stayed out of this thread for several days, and it hasn't been easy.

I know none of the parties involved, so I have no preconceived bias. From several years of reading, I had always assumed Kevin was one of the "good guys" in the industry. I also assumed that wonka was a sarcastic, part-time rabble rouser (much like me, but with much, much, much, better Photoshop skills, so I was envious!)


I no longer think that of Kevin and I have a new found respect for John.

First off, John did not post any "private emails." The private email existed only between Kevin and Scott. Once it was forwarded to others, and eventually John, it was no longer private, but very public. If anyone has a problem with posting private emails, take it up with Scott. He breached that confidence.

Secondly, if someone puts in writing, that he has defrauded members of this board, and enjoyed doing it, we deserve to know. We applaud the "outing" of bad sellers from the BST. We trumpet the naming of bad sellers on Ebay. We trip over ourselves to discuss bad practices at big auction houses. Why should we look the other way when someone laughs at making board members fools?

Any chance we can backtrack and get PSA and SGC to label slabs as part of the "Kevin Saucier Collection?" It might save all of us some problems in the future.


Wonka, I'll email you privately concerning your bad hair and dirty web sites.

Uhh Jim I thought we agreed we wouldn't mention the sites...:rolleyes:

Jim very well said thank you so much!

That's on my business cards....from here on out! :)

upon reflection
 

Jeff, I apologize--I didn't realize the reference to someone whose card was apparently "wished" to be altered was yours--I simply didn't follow the links because for whatever reason, it didn't matter to me who had been singled out. I can now understand your position much better.

I still do not like the pasting of private emails, corroboration of which I believe to be immaterial. I think it could have been handled differently and better, but whatever. That's the way I see it, and as long as we (the board as a group) can agree to disagree on that, then I'm OK with it.

Open to how you think it could have been handled better?

well John
 

at first blush, I believe I would have contacted Kevin directly with my "evidence" and asked for if not demanded an explanation. Depending on what he had to say, and assuming I was unsatisfied, I'd like to think I would (at most) tell him as much, and mention that I planned on disclosing the gist or content of the emails in front of the board, still not posting it verbatim. Perhaps there was some context or explanation that escaped me or that would lessen my outrage at what I first had been told. In short, I would likely give him at least one and likely more than one opportunity to explain himself to me privately before ever exposing the exact words of what supposedly had been said.

Todd that's a fair and good response.

I had thought of that but Kevin had been so dishonest within the rest of the email which for the record I didn't post on here because it did not have any direct bearing on the disturbing comments he had made in Sept of 2008.

In the end I really doubted getting a straight answer from Kevin which as of this evening Kevin has reinforced that thought in my mind.

Once agian his story has been tweaked. On the other board it wasn't just a comment made in the heat of anger at all of us. It was a premeditated lie in order to make Scott Elkins feel better that someone was getting revenge on the net 54 crew for comments directed at Scott and Kevin during the underprint thread. So he admitted to fraud being an innocent man to make another person feel better about some chicken jokes?

You know something else Todd I was so disgusted by the comments and the rest of the email I really didn't want to even be associated with him in any way verbally or via email.

After weeks of eating and breathing scammers and pouring over emails from guys like Chan I saw a clear reason to post this IMO.

But to be safe I ran this by many folks and all but one was supportive.

Todd I hope you understand where I'm coming from?

Cheers,

John

I think the vast majority here are with you Wonka
 

Since no one is denying the genuineness of the email itself, the question isn't whether Kevin wrote it, it is whether or not Kevin was lying when he wrote it. IMO, doesn't really matter because either way his credibility is shot: was he lying then or is he lying now?

As far as the propriety of discussing it here, I am all for the "outing." Flatly stating that you have cheated N54 members is far worse than the whispered allegations of impropriety in bidding at Mastro or even the generalized admission of "preparing" cards that Doug Allen made; it is specific evidence of a fraudulent act, not just a generalized suspicion.

As for what happened, we will likely never know. My experience in 19 years worth of suing and defending fraud cases is that direct communications from the alleged scammer before he knows he has been caught are the strongest and most damaging evidence of fraud, other than the once in a blue moon actual admission in cross-examination. There is simply no reason to lie when there is no inkling of being caught. If I was pursuing a lawsuit on behalf of a customer of Kevin's, this email would be Exhibit #1.

Wonka I think you did the right thing.

Even given your credibility from recent work on the Chan situation, you outing Kevin without the email to back you up wouldn't have had the same impact and more than likely would have been reduced to a he said/he said situation.

And since the email (whether a lie or not) claimed to defraud Net54 members, it had to be brought to the boards attention.

Tim
 

Your last post is exactly what I thought when telling John I thought it was ok to post the email string. Had this just been between, and involving, 2 board members then most likely I would have asked for it not to be posted.

Imagine if it wasn't a lie and board members DID get scammed? Then it would have been partially my fault for not allowing the information out. The scales weren't full tilt to one side but the pendulum swung to the side of outing, for me. The rules are staying the same though. Private emails ordinarily shouldn't be posted on the board. This was extraordinary. I do check with others on these things to get opinions and the opinions I got swayed to letting the email be posted. Some will disagree with my decision and that is ok. I can live with it. Heck, around 10% of the board thinks the old board was better? That's ok too....though I wish those 10% liked it more.

Who said it wasn't a lie? Oh, right: Kevin.

A recorded declaration against penal interest made in an unguarded, private moment is a pretty tough piece of evidence to deal with in a criminal case as juries almost universally find it believable. A self-interested denial after being confronted with the admission? Rarely believed.

Has anyone here bought a card from Kevin? Traded with him? Sent him cards to review? On its face, his statement seems to me utterly implausible, and therefore in all likelihood a lie, nothwithstanding the general validity of what Jeff says.

The part of his admission which was arguably implausible was his claim of targeting collectors with his altered cards (though with me, a properly advertised interesting Hal Chase card wouldn't require much pushing); his excited interest in defrauding Net 54 members? Utterly believable and not implausible.

Thought crime?

I just met John at the last Philly show.
I had a lot of info on the T206 Museum and Chan, and was talking to Mckee about it. Dan hooked me up with John and he helped me prove my information was right.
I had this email we are talking about and was not sure to let it be posted. I was thinking we should let Leon & Jeff know. Later it was sent to John and posted. If years later something bad with altered cards and Kevin comes out-I would not be good. Also the people sending Kevin cards now should know & other 54 members targeted. This email was received less than 24 hours before it got posted.

note to self- listen to John and be glad he isn't a Chan-we all would be in serious trouble or at least our collections would be