[perezfan]

Just wanted to add...

The other slimy party is the person who donated the ball to the charity auction. Based on the story, the ball obviously contained some authentictor's marking (viewable under fluorescent light) identifying it as being "bad" and not having passed authentication.

When the original owner found out it didn't pass and got the ball back, he probably donated it to charity for the tax write-off (rather than taking a full hit). At least this way, he received some compensation.

I just hate to see the woman taking the hit here, when the person who donated it (likely knowing it was bogus) and the auction house were much more at fault. She is only guily of being naive (not a crime). They knowingly did something wrong, and are minimally guilty of negligence and deception.