How about some answers for this? Where are you Peter Nash?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

If I was to wager a ton of money on whether a major hammer falls first on the TPA's or Nash, all of my money is on Nash.

you would lose too.

i dont have any money but a gentlemans bet it is.

[slidekellyslide]

Define "Major hammer".

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

If they were stolen 30 years ago I would think the statute of limitations for the NYPL or the HOF to file a claim would have long since passed.

The statuate of limitations having passed means that the thief can't be prosecuted. The items, however, remain stolen property, and are always subject to return.

[packs]

Why do you think they don't try to reclaim the items? I thought I read somewhere that they don't want to admit they lost them.

[prewarsports]

Because they cant prove they were stolen.

[David Atkatz]

Of course they could prove they were stolen--if they wanted to.

[prewarsports]

Proving that they once owned them is not evidence of theft, it suggests it probably took place, but it is not proof. If you know something the FBI didn't uncover during their 3 year investigation with the NYPL I am sure they would love to hear about it.

[David Atkatz]

Nonsense. If the Library claims them, it would be incumbent upon the present owner to produce a chain of ownership proving that they were legally removed from the Library.
The Library, for whatever its reasons are, however, declines to claim them.

[ss]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Nonsense. If the Library claims them, it would be incumbent upon the present owner to produce a chain of ownership proving that they were legally removed from the Library.
The Library, for whatever its reasons are, however, declines to claim them.

Untrue. The library would have to present reasonable evidence of ownership and theft. If they cannot make this case to a reasonable standard, the current possessor/owner is required by law to present nothing at all.

[David Atkatz]

Proof of prior possession by the library, along with no evidence of legal possession--i.e., legal removal from the library--is evidence of theft.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Proof of prior possession by the library, along with no evidence of legal possession--i.e., legal removal from the library--is evidence of theft.

Is an invoice from an auction house proof of possession?

[David Atkatz]

Of course not. Proof of legal possession. Proof that the material was legally obtained from the library before being sold on.

[D. Bergin]

Everybody who's ever bought anything with a library stamp on it, has a lot of explaining to do, I guess.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Of course not. Proof of legal possession. Proof that the material was legally obtained from the library before being sold on.

The problem with most of these items is that they've been through multiple hands and I'm not sure how the museums go about tracking the thief down. That said, I believe that if you are in possession of an item that belongs to the library or museum it is your moral obligation to return it and then seek restitution from where you got it.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Even if a librarian sold the items, they are still stolen. In that case, stolen by said librarian.
I think there's ample proof of previous ownership. It's refusal to own up to incompetence that prevents the recovery.

If the monies went back into the libraries coffers, I don't really think it is..........and it would be impossible after all these years to prove otherwise.

As for the contention, nothing was ever deaccessioned, I think that's something else you can never prove. As much as you like to believe, an actual deaccession (I'm sure I'm spelling it wrong every time I spell it) marking is more rare then not. Most don't bother with it when they sell stuff off.

Yes, it's the NYPL, they hold themselves to a higher standard. I think that's a speculative assertion.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Everybody who's ever bought anything with a library stamp on it, has a lot of explaining to do, I guess.

That's right. There are numerous cases of rare document thieves being caught with caches of stolen documents from many different libraries. Most of the time, the libraries in question hadn't even realized said documents had gone walkabout. Guess what? The documents went back to the libraries, and the thieves went to jail. Library stamp was enough.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Nonsense. If the Library claims them, it would be incumbent upon the present owner to produce a chain of ownership proving that they were legally removed from the Library.
The Library, for whatever its reasons are, however, declines to claim them.

David, your writings make me think you are sympathetic to Nash's issues. Forget what he is targeting and going after for a minute. What are your thoughts on him?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's right. There are numerous cases of rare document thieves being caught with caches of stolen documents from many different libraries. Most of the time, the libraries in question hadn't even realized said documents had gone walkabout. Guess what? The documents went back to the libraries, and the thieves went to jail. Library stamp was enough.

Fine, when it's a clear cut case in a reasonable amount of time.


But by your logic, a library can sell something in a sidewalk sale in 1960, realize it's worth a fortune in 2013, and reclaim that item back into their holdings, based on a stamp that it once belonged to them.

[drcy]

In the expensive fine art world, they say keep your sales receipt because it turns out to be stolen, you legally get your money back from the seller. As an item may have been stolen a long time earlier, the seller may in turn get his money back from the person he bought it from. And so on down the line. Stolen items has long been an issue in the art world, and many buyers will expect you to demonstrate the provenance and legal ownership of a Picasso.

If an item was stolen, you can't legally buy or sell it. You may have paid $5,000, but you don't legally own it. This is why, as a buyer, you should be confident the item you are buying wasn't stolen. Stolen items do exist in the baseball hobby market.

I have no knowledge of the NYPL and its practices and if David says they've never gotten rid of stuff I have no reason to doubt him, but other libraries, schools and even museums do sometimes get rid of extra stuff. Museums have sales, often to get rid of extra stuff or because they're changing the museum's focus.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by drcy

In the expensive fine art world, they say keep your sales receipt because it turns out to be stolen, you legally get your money back from the seller. As an item may have been stolen a long time earlier, the seller may in turn get his money back from the person he bought it from. And so on down the line. Stolen items has long been an issue in the art world, and many buyers will expect you to demonstrate the provenance and legal ownership of a Picasso.

If an item was stolen, you can't legally buy or sell it. You may have paid $5,000, but you don't legally own it. This is why, as a buyer, you should be confident the item you are buying wasn't stolen. Stolen items do exist in the baseball hobby market.

I have no knowledge of the NYPL and its practices and if David says they've never gotten rid of stuff I have no reason to doubt him, but other libraries and even museums do sometimes get rid of extra stuff. Museums have sales, often to get rd of extra stuff or because they're changing the museum's focus.

+1

And said material is always clearly marked as such precisely for the reasons cited above.

[drcy]

One thing is the legal owner has to object for there to be a legal objection. Practically speaking. If your hometown library doesn't care anymore that you didn't return a worn Danielle Steele paperback forty years ago, then the library doesn't care.

Now, on the other hand, if it was a Picasso oil painting instead of a worn Danielle Steele paperback, they likely will care.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

+1

And said material is always clearly marked as such precisely for the reasons cited above.

You keep on insisting this, but no it's not...........and 30-40-50 years ago, I doubt it was either.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by drcy

One thing is the legal owner has to object for there to be a legal objection. Practically speaking. If your hometown library doesn't care anymore that you didn't return a worn Danielle Steele paperback forty years ago, then the library doesn't care.

Now, on the other hand, if it was a Picasso oil painting instead of a worn Danielle Steele paperback, they likely will care.

This seems to be the crux of the issue at hand. The items being dicussed on Nash's website are closer to the Picasso than the Steele novel (certainly in the eyes of the members of this board), yet for some reason the museums in question do not seem all that interested in creating legal objections in all cases.

[drcy]

I agree the Danielle Steele paperback was an extreme example. I didn't even say hardback.

That's why I went back added the Picasso example.

But my point was if the legal owner doesn't object, then the legal owner doesn't object. Nothing an uninvolved third party can do about that. You or I can't sue on the NYPL's behalf.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

You keep on insisting this, but no it's not...........and 30-40-50 years ago, I doubt it was either.

Yeah. I keep on insisting upon it.

Because it's true.

[slidekellyslide]

I bought a framed print at a garage sale that had our local library's markings on the back along with a pouch and a card that was last stamped in 1961...believe it or not you could at one time check out artwork from the library. I was curious about this item and if it still belonged to the library so I called them and they said they haven't checked out artwork for years. There was absolutely nothing stamped on this item showing it was deaccessioned.

[David Atkatz]

So? The last guy to take it out never returned it.

[slidekellyslide]

You could be right...I don't think it's even a point worth arguing. Clearly there are items missing from both the HOF and the NYPL that were stolen. I don't believe any of those baseball papers or photos were ever deaccessioned. I do however believe both of those institutions are not following up on it because they don't value it enough to go after it. They get stuff for free, they aren't going to pay lawyers to get it back. If the FBI gets it back for them they'll probably take it, but I doubt they spend 1/100th the time that we do thinking about the lost items.

[David Atkatz]

You're absolutely right, there, Dan!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I bought a framed print at a garage sale that had our local library's markings on the back along with a pouch and a card that was last stamped in 1961...believe it or not you could at one time check out artwork from the library. I was curious about this item and if it still belonged to the library so I called them and they said they haven't checked out artwork for years. There was absolutely nothing stamped on this item showing it was deaccessioned.

Dan, that's particularly true when the item is valuable - I know of a specific example where the item has library stamps, but nothing to indicate that it was ever deaccessioned. The library sold the items to a collector after acquiring a duplicate in better condition, the buyer then re-sold them. The original legal sale by the library definitely occurred. Out of curiosity, I traced it's history and verified all owners, including the library.

[travrosty]

I am of the opinion that the hof and nypl value 20k to 50k autographs enough to want them back. i also believe they dont want the publicity that goes along with admitting that these items slipped through their fingers, especially since new donors would want to be assured that their donated items actually stay in the museum or library.

So that is the reason why they dont go after them in my opinion. There is a price to pay in the form of bad publicity that they dont want to pay. Otherwise it wouldn't cost them anything to just admit they aren't interested in getting the items back, but they don't admit that. You can't get a statement out of them and that is per their damage control plan of defense.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Dan, that's particularly true when the item is valuable - I know of a specific example where the item has library stamps, but nothing to indicate that it was ever deaccessioned. The library sold the items to a collector after acquiring a duplicate in better condition, the buyer then re-sold them. The original legal sale by the library definitely occurred. Out of curiosity, I traced it's history and verified all owners, including the library.

And what Podunk library did that? Wasn't the NYPL, by any chance, was it? No, I thought not.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I am of the opinion that the hof and nypl value 20k to 50k autographs enough to want them back. i also believe they dont want the publicity that goes along with admitting that these items slipped through their fingers, especially since new donors would want to be assured that their donated items actually stay in the museum or library.

So that is the reason why they dont go after them in my opinion. There is a price to pay in the form of bad publicity that they dont want to pay. Otherwise it wouldn't cost them anything to just admit they aren't interested in getting the items back, but they don't admit that. You can't get a statement out of them and that is per their damage control plan of defense.

Bad publicity is probably a part of it, but these thefts happened a long time ago and it would be easy for them to say the procedures for looking at this stuff have changed and what happened then can never happen again. It wouldn't be too hard to reassure a potential donor that his items are safer than Burdick's were 20+ years ago...or that the Spalding collection is untouchable, "here are the scans you asked for."

I truly believe it's much more of a money, lawyer, hassle issue for items they do not value the same way we do. They don't have to pay a dime for the FBI to do their job and if they get them back, they'll take them, but they obviously aren't going to use any of their own resources to do it.

[shelly]

Gee, it really does sound like a novel. Someone should write it an expose on the librarys and the HOF.

[drcy]

Along the lines of what Travis said, I've heard where art galleries don't like to let it to become public that something was stolen, because it might make other hesitant to consign.

[Big Dave]

Personally, I believe Leon did a good job by posting this. With over 4400+ views, it has brought a lot of attention to Mr. Nash and his website, and thus, a lot more people reading it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Personally, I believe Leon did a good job by posting this. With over 4400+ views, it has brought a lot of attention to Mr. Nash and his website, and thus, a lot more people reading it.

And hopefully it will expose him as one of, if not the, biggest fraudsters in the history of our hobby. Him going after bad things is great but he should probably be doing it from a jail cell. In my opinion he is much worse than anything he has exposed. I think some of the people holding fraudulent 19th century memorabilia, which allegedly has no provenance before him, would agree. And for your reading pleasure another case below...I wish I had another episode, the audio court proceedings of Nash getting severely reprimanded by a judge. One of the most unusual things I have heard and quite entertaining. It made these court documents look tame.

[shelly]

Leon, did they ever arrest him?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by shelly

Leon, did they ever arrest him?

Not that I am aware of. It is/was a civil offense and I believe is very low on a priority level for law enforcement. I was told that about the only way this order would have been invoked is if he got caught, in that jurisdiction, for something else. But I am not an expert so don't know for sure. Also, in Nash's defense, I do believe that most, if not all, of that judgement has been paid back. But I know there are some lingering issues that really suck. Maybe if some of the people that are so cozy with him were holding 6 figures of fraudulent material, that allegedly came from him, they might feel a little differently. But then too, since its not them, maybe they just don't care. But because the person holding the bad goods is a good hobby friend of mine, I do care.

[travrosty]

Leon, please post all cease and desist orders that have been sent to you over the years. Do you consider all of them fair? You probably don't consider any of them fair. They are free to send, don't cost anything and prove nothing. Posting a cease and desist letter as proof of anything is pretty lame as you and many website owners get these from time to time. I don't care if you post it but it's not an indictment of anything as hundreds of website owners including you would have to be considered guilty and we all know these letters are as common as toilet paper, and are always printed and sent first before anything else because of the non-cost involved, hoping the website will copitulate.

[markf31]

Travis, the cease and desist letter is not an indictment of anything, you're right. That's what the judgment for fraud in the amount of $760,227.08 and the included warrant for arrest are for, those are the indictments against Mr. Nash.

You can't ignore the facts simply because they don't fit your narrative.

_____________
Mark Fox

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by markf31

Travis, the cease and desist letter is not an indictment of anything, you're right. That's what the judgment for fraud in the amount of $760,227.08 and the included warrant for arrest are for, those are the indictments against Mr. Nash.

You can't ignore the facts simply because they don't fit your narrative.

_____________
Mark Fox

+1..Travis ignores anything that doesn't support his argument or beliefs.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by markf31

Travis, the cease and desist letter is not an indictment of anything, you're right. That's what the judgment for fraud in the amount of $760,227.08 and the included warrant for arrest are for, those are the indictments against Mr. Nash.

You can't ignore the facts simply because they don't fit your narrative.

_____________
Mark Fox

then why include the cease and desist letter when the poster of such letter has had many of them sent to himself in care of this very website?

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by travrosty

then why include the cease and desist letter when the poster of such letter has had many of them sent to himself in care of this very website?

Do you have any comment about the fact that Mr. Nash has committed $760,000 worth of fraud?

Ken

[markf31]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Do you have any comment about the fact that Mr. Nash has committed $760,000 worth of fraud?

Ken

Ken, now that's just a silly question! 145 posts into this thread and Travis has yet to acknowledge or comment on the fraud charges that Mr. Nash himself claimed guilt to... why would Travis start now?

______________
Mark Fox

[Leon]

Originally Posted by travrosty

then why include the cease and desist letter when the poster of such letter has had many of them sent to himself in care of this very website?

Travis- I have received a lot of cease and desist letters. Your are correct, it goes with running a forum. Forget about the Cease and Desist I posted. How about the other two actions signed by judges? And since posting those I have learned that Nash STILL OWES Frazier close to $400,000. Yes, that is hundreds of thousands. Also, I found out he owes Lifson at least $100,000 but probably more. How can you buddy up with this guy and defend him when he is such a fraudster. And btw, my guess is that this thread gets more interesting soon. So please respond about those two actions Travis, there will probably be more coming.... Stay tuned....

[markf31]

Originally Posted by travrosty

then why include the cease and desist letter when the poster of such letter has had many of them sent to himself in care of this very website?

Because this isn't your normal cookie-cutter cease and desist letter, that's pretty obvious. This one includes specifics regarding the fraud that Mr. Nash was found guilty of and the details in part of Mr. Nash's inability, or more appropriately, his reluctance to cooperate in the efforts to satisfy the judgement against related to the fraud, almost a year after the included warrant for arrest was issued.

___________
Mark Fox

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by markf31

Because this isn't your normal cookie-cutter cease and desist letter, that's pretty obvious. This one includes specifics regarding the fraud that Mr. Nash was found guilty of and the details in part of Mr. Nash's inability, or more appropriately, his reluctance to cooperate in the efforts to satisfy the judgement against related to the fraud, almost a year after the included warrant for arrest was issued.

___________
Mark Fox

the cease and desist letter doesn't include specifics like that, read it. its just a ploy to misdirect. leon is still compiling his cease and desist letter to post and i am sure we will see them all here soon.

when people dont like what is presented on haulsofshame because it includes their buddies is embarrassing, they always try to go after the messenger.

[baseballart]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I am of the opinion that the hof and nypl value 20k to 50k autographs enough to want them back. i also believe they dont want the publicity that goes along with admitting that these items slipped through their fingers, especially since new donors would want to be assured that their donated items actually stay in the museum or library.

So that is the reason why they dont go after them in my opinion. There is a price to pay in the form of bad publicity that they dont want to pay. Otherwise it wouldn't cost them anything to just admit they aren't interested in getting the items back, but they don't admit that. You can't get a statement out of them and that is per their damage control plan of defense.

Travis

I can only comment on my own experience with the NYPL. When I saw an item years back on ebay with a "NYPL" stamp, I was concerned that it was unlawfully removed from the NYPL. I contacted counsel at the NYPL. He replied to me and indicated that the NYPL had reviewed its records and that the item had been indeed deaccessioned by the library, but somehow the proper stampings had not been entered in the book. As such, that particular item was not stolen from the NYPL.

He also added that if I came across other items where provenance was questioned, I could contact them again. I did not get the impression that things were "swept under the rug". It was quite the contrary and that he was indeed interested in being advised of items that had been taken unlawfully from the library.

Max

[travrosty]

thank you for relaying your experience. it's always good to hear all sides.