Even the so called good guys...ugly hobby?

[Jim VB]

This whole thing seems like an ill conceived part of Kevin's business plan. If your stated goal is start a company doing authenticating work, you might not want to begin by writing about having duped prominent collectors.

[wonkaticket]

I have put some thought into how Kevin could get things by folks etc.

Kevin has reviewed cards for folks several people have claimed all was good with him etc.

But what if he had other plans for these cards he examined?

I'm also with Jeff really easy to put something out there Chan did it with the OP cards. It's easy to see what everyone's collecting interests are we make it public every day on here. An oddball Chase listed on eBay, a weird Type Card for Leon, a funky boxing item for Adam and so on.

Also there shouldn’t be a single collector after reading Kevin’s comments that shouldn’t be a little suspicious at the very least when reading Kevin's articles on his website especially the ones below...

http://www.alteredcards.com/flip.htm

http://www.alteredcards.com/flip2.htm

Why would anyone need to know how to forge a slip and or crack a slab without leaving signs of the slab being opened?

How is that good information to put out into the hobby?

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

How is that good information to put out into the hobby?

It's completely irresponsible.

It's one thing for him to create a passable fake flip as an example of how vulnerable the hobby may be, it's another to give instructions on how to do it.

Many people have slammed Kevin in the past for being about self promotion and not truly caring about the hobby. I believe this and his recent actions show they were right all along.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I assume the quote from Rob is authorized, but of course don't know for a fact.

Rob Lifson - President & Founder robertedwardauctions.com One of the most respected names in the hobby. Renowned for his ethics, integrity, experience and knowledge:

"I admire what Kevin Saucier is trying to do. He puts himself on the firing line even attempting to provide information to the public about card alterations. Some people don't like his work. It's not a very popular topic. The fact is card alteration is epidemic. Not everyone has to agree with Kevin about everything, and Kevin would be the first to agree with this. At the very least his work raises awareness among collectors; at the most his work has the potential to help save collectors real money. To those that suggest that Kevin is the problem, for even talking about card alterations and restoration and trying to educate the public about this serious issue - I say to them: the problem is that there are not ten Kevin Saucier's out there - learning, debating, comparing knowledge - and trying to help collectors avoid mistakes. I’m hoping he will continue in his efforts."

[calvindog]

Yeah, I wonder if Rob would stand behind that statement after reviewing Kevin's emails in which he admits fraud and targeting Net 54 board members? I'm guessing not.

Also, Peter, I'm curious: does Rob's aged testimonial somehow exculpate Kevin from his admissions in the email?
I'm certain not.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

Ditto in the civil context. It has a certain sound to it for a plaintiff's attorney...Cha-Ching! [sound of a cash register, for those who don't know].

[nolemmings]

Adam, you have to know that such admission, standing alone, is worthless. I mean how obvious is it that a Plaintiff would have to show that in fact his card was altered and that it is linked to Kevin in some fashion. Otherwise, the statement can be used to impeach credibility but so what--where is the cause of action if in fact no card was ever altered and then sold?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I shot JFK. Gonna convict me now? No, because my admission is meaningless. Same with Kevin's so-called admission.

[calvindog]

Man, one red herring after another.

First, Peter, surely you know your example holds no water. Claiming that you shot JFK out of the blue -- as you just stated -- is meaningless. Compare that to the circumstances which existed wherein Kevin made his statements: he was in the midst of a private email correspondence with Elkins which he assumed would never be disclosed. He's well-known as someone with great skill in altering cards. He expressed his disgust with Net 54 members. He doesn't just make a statement out of the blue about targeting Net 54 members -- he claimed he did it and it cost him some money. Clearly some additional information was disclosed about how and why he was making such a statement about past fraud. He then expresses disappointment that he was not able to defraud me. Elkins does not challenge Kevin's claim; apparently he believed it as well. Do all of these factors lend a little more credence to the possibility that Kevin either engaged in fraud or wishes to engage in fraud than if he had just blurted out a single declaration against penal interest with nothing more? Of course.

As for Todd's position, it would certainly make sense if we were in a court of law and the quantum of proof necessary to convict was a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. But we're not in a court of law and Kevin has not been indicted. Wonka did not come on here and claim that he had irrefutable proof that Kevin defrauded Net 54 members ("I have no proof Kevin did this"); he simply laid out Kevin's own words which were made when he thought no one was watching, and argued that this was information that the collecting public had a right to know as it would appear that either Kevin admitted he committed fraud and/or that he wished to target Net 54 members with his fraud.

As for the declarations against penal interest made by Kevin, the point of noting this is simply to demonstrate that in context,when someone makes such an admission it can be used quite powerfully to prove that they, in fact, did do such a thing. As I noted above, a recorded declaration against penal interest made in a private moment carries a lot more weight than a claim of "I didn't do it!" when the declarant knows everyone is watching.

Finally, the secondary issue here is whether or not Kevin actually committed fraud (most of us would agree that it would be very tough, but not impossible, for him to accomplish this the way he laid out in his email to Elkins (as I noted above such a fraud is "probably not a major worry")); the bigger issue is whether Kevin is capable of or desires to commit fraud against Net 54 members. That's where his private statements to Elkins cause such consternation. And if that is the ultimate question -- not whether he did commit fraud but whether he wishes to and is capable of committing fraud --well, suddenly the case against him looks pretty bad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jeff you are like dog with bone. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. And your last paragraph suggests all you are charging Kevin with is thought crime -- big deal. EDIT TO ADD BOB DYLAN LYRIC "If my thought dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine."

[calvindog]

Peter, you're hanging on by your fingernails now. I'm not charging Kevin with any crime. Thought crime? Hardly. Big deal? Maybe to you it's not. But it might be to anyone who thought to send Kevin a card or trusted him to be one of the good guys in the hobby.

[Potomac Yank]

I feel a lot of LUVVV in this thread.

Imagine if all that LUV energy was directed towards the ones that were caught, and proven guilty!

Outing a culprit should not be the crowning moment of the fight, but a step towards getting rid of the slimeballs.

Only when we decide to band together, will this Hobby/Investor community will go to another level. ... JMHO

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jeff be careful of declaring premature victories, after you declared a consensus on your private email position a number of people came on and said they agreed with me.

I find it interesting that you are quick to acknolwedge Kevin was lying in what he said he had DONE, but you nonetheless assume the statement accurately reflects his intent and state of mind in terms of a wish to defraud. Maybe the whole thing was just BS. Maybe he didn't mean ANY of it.

[nolemmings]

Jeff, I was speaking to Adam about a civil case, where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't care what the burden of proof would be--there is no case.

I want to defraud you. I wish I could defraud you. I know how to defraud you. I intend to defraud you. I take no action on any of these states of mind. Have you any case? No. Zippo, nada, zilch.

You claim the ultimate question is whether he wishes to and is capable of committing fraud. I disagree. First of all, he is clearly skilled enough and thus capable of committing the act of passing an altered card, and has been widely known to be so skilled long before this pasted email thread was made public, such that it adds nothing on that issue.

As for his motives and wishes, I too think we're looking at the thought police here. Be forewarned when dealing with Kevin--I get it. Will I ever deal with him again? I will make my own assessment of the card and the circumstances, and likely will deal with him. Will I look at him differently in light of his pasted email thread and its rather mean-spirited remarks? Yes. Will I treat him as a pariah, unworthy of any further contact? Nope.

[calvindog]

Peter, 100-15 is still a consensus.

And I hardly was quick to absolve Kevin of wrongdoing; I just claimed it wasn't the ultimate question here and not necessary to be answered definitively. The fact that he openly discussed committing fraud against Net 54 members is what is bothersome. His admission of past fraud just makes these concerns more acute.

And Todd, many people are capable of committing crimes. The ones that openly brag about it, discuss how they have done it and will do it -- when at the very time they present a different face to the world -- well, they're the ones to be a little more concerned of, no?

Ultimately John laid this out for the very reasons you noted: to keep it in mind when dealing with him and to get a more honest picture of Kevin. And comments made in private emails are often way more helpful in determining the true nature of someone rather than public pronouncements.

[Peter_Spaeth]

A commendable sentiment, but it ain't going to happen. We are all, myself included, too addicted. Stick it in a slab, with the right information on the flip, and unless it looks completely butchered we are going to buy it no matter where it came from or how little we know about the provenance. Will we catch people around the fringes like Chan? Sure. Will the mainstream card doctors pumping out a steady supply and feeding the auction houses be stopped? I seriously doubt it.

[calvindog]

Agreed. Fraud is rampant in this hobby and will be very tough to stop.

[daviddbreadman]

Peter I am surprised at you. Why are you wasting your time on this?

Surely as an attorney you know that all the persuading in the world won't change anyone's opinion. Its just going to harden the respective positions. Same for you Calvindog. Neither side here is going to admit the other is correct and has the better argument. This is a total waste of time and I'm not going to read it anymore. In fact, I'm tired of this board.

There is alot of valuable knowledge here to be had but its a shame there are so many egos here. I've never seen anything like it. (This statement is not directed at anyone in particular but if you feel guilty, you probably are)

[Peter_Spaeth]

The adversarial process is the best route to the truth I know.

[calvindog]

...and lawyers spend their days (and nights) persuading people. That's most of what we do. I mean, other than buying vintage baseball cards.

[Potomac Yank]

Gentlemen, I agree with what you're saying about fraud ... BUT!
If we continue the 1990 ostrich approach.
If we just get our satisfaction, and STOP after the outing.
If we let the slimeballs know that any number can play.
If we let them feel that we wont fight back.
They're going to continue, and grow in numbers.

Gentlemen, I admire, and respect the knowledge that you received at your Law schools.
Part of my knowledge was attained on the streets of Spanish Harlem.
One thing I learned, if you don't stand up, even if you stand alone ... you wont get any respect.

I'll be damned, if I'm going to allow a slimeball mess with my addiction.

[Exhibitman]

Potomac, I hardly consider the situation to be one of not fighting back. By outing the situation, John has placed everyone on notice of it. Until someone comes forward with a specific item that they suspect has been tampered by Kevin, it is all for discussion. If that person surfaces and decides to act on it, we have a whole different ballgame. As far as respect goes, it is irrelevant; validation by others is something craved only by people with insufficient self-esteem. Which is probably why you never hear highly educated, highly successful people whine about being disrespected yet you hear losers in prison who justify hacking someone to death by claiming they had been "dissed."

Todd, as far as whether Kevin's admission stands for anything, I may not have been clear but I did not want to be pedantic either. I assumed that it was understood that the context was one of a civil case being brought and going to trial. My point was that if I was representing someone in a case against a card seller who had stated that he doctored cards and foisted them on the public, the admission would be a very strong one, the sort of evidence that leads a jury to accept the opinion of the expert I retained to prove that the card in question had been doctored.

As far as fraud goes, yes, we have some in cards. As we do in most any other field where money matters. When we see it, we should try to correct it. Our best tool for that here is outing the scammer and letting everyone in on the dirty little secret.

[Potomac Yank]

Adam, I hear what you say, there is much validity in what you say ... But!
I think you've been away from NYC too long.
When I say respect, I'm not talking about respect towards one individual.
I'm talking about a potential scumbags mind set.
Right now, the potential slimeballs of the world know this.
They know that going after a score in cardboard land, is not that much of a gamble.
From past experience they know that if they give the money back, God will forgive them.

The respect of which I speak of is ... conveying to the lice that the people in cardboard land are NOT a forgiving lot, and that we will get their little asses.
Simply stated ... Tip Toeing Through the Tulips, never gets the job done.

If we succeed in getting through to a few scumbags ... It's a start.
When will we Start?

Stay well.

[nolemmings]

but, if not pedantic, then your comments were rather unncessary, were they not? I submit there is no legal scholarship needed to conclude that a civil or criminal case is stronger with a "confession" than without it. That's what we're talking about here, either a confession or nearly so.

You and Jeff wrap this situation up in legal terms and scenarios where a jury would be damning and the particular evidence of such strength that the case would be a lock. My point is there is no legal case and won't be when all you have is a so-called admission. IF the remaining 90% of your case were established--you know, tedious things like an actual victim, a specific card, and a connection with Kevin, then I agree the statement could be the final nail in the proverbial coffin. I think the non-legal term for that scenario is Duh. Without those other elements proved in the least, though, I think it's unfortunate to couch your comments in terms of how this would play out in court.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by daviddbreadman

There is alot of valuable knowledge here to be had but its a shame there are so many egos here.

David-

While I agree with this statement one thing I have found to be true.

You can not get a room full of the most knowledgeable people on a particular subject and not have a room full of egos. It just doesn't happen.

[Potomac Yank]

Adam, I hear what you say, there is much validity in what you say ... But!
I think you've been away from NYC too long.
When I say respect, I'm not talking about respect towards one individual.
I'm talking about a potential scumbags mind set.
Right now, the potential slimeballs of the world know this.
They know that going after a score in cardboard land, is not that much of a gamble.
From past experience they know that if they give the money back, God will forgive them.

The respect of which I speak of is ... conveying to the lice that the people in cardboard land are NOT a forgiving lot, and that we will get their little asses.
Simply stated ... Tip Toeing Through the Tulips, never gets the job done.

If we succeed in getting through to a few scumbags ... It's a start.
When will we Start?

Stay well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

They may not have the coffin but at least they have the nail.

[calvindog]

Todd, I disagree. I'm not wrapping this up in any kind of trial-ready scenario; my point about discussing admissions against penal interest are simply to note that normally such statements like Kevin's might not be admissible in a court because of the lack of reliability, i.e. hearsay. But because they are admissions against penal interest they have significant reliability because who would ever admit to the commission of a fraud in a private conversation? Traditionally, people do not lie when they admit to fraud. They lie to exculpate themselves from allegations of fraud.

And lastly, I'm curious about something. Have you ever discussed in a private email conversation the subject of altering cards and defrauding Net 54 members? And if not, do you know of anyone (besides Kevin and Elkins) who ever has? Anyone?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jim Crandell - PSA Hall of Fame Collector with over 25,000 graded cards, most in PSA 8 or better.

"In my opinion, Kevin is one of the top three card experts in the world. I will not buy a high-valued card without him personally inspecting it and rendering an opinion. If he has the slightest doubt it has been altered, I will not buy it!"

[calvindog]

Ok, Peter, that does it for me. Case closed.

Oh wait -- I thought Jim never sent Kevin any of his cards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would only be speculating.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Jim Crandell - PSA Hall of Fame Collector with over 25,000 graded cards, most in PSA 8 or better.

"In my opinion, Kevin is one of the top three card experts in the world . . . "

Just curious -- who are the other two? Any guesses?

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Adam

Just curious -- who are the other two? Any guesses?

Adam here are the top ten results according to a past Gallup Poll...

1. Chuck Norris
2. Barry Sloate
3. Kevin Sauicer
4. Bea Arthur
5. Jesus
6. Todd Bridges
7. The Guy from Mannix (Mike Conners)
8. Scott Baio
9. Santa Claus
10. Jeff Lichtman

Here's another Jim Crandall quote....

"You have a group of collectors on network 54 that do not like graded cards and in many cases the people that collect them. In their view, a fair amount of the cards are altered and those that buy them are buying plastic. On the flip side they believe they have the skills because they can feel the card outside the holder to detect alterations. Their knowledge next to Kevin is like a nursery schooler compared with someone who has a PHD."

[nolemmings]

Jeff, let me understand you. Your comments about admissibility of certain evidence--Kevin's statement--wasn't intended to suggest that any lawsuit should, would or could be filed here. It's just meant to show that the law will allow such statements because they are deemed reliable. OK.

So are you telling us that this initial statement of Kevin's, the one cut and pasted at the beginning of this thread, is inherently reliable? And that his subsequent disavowal and claim that he made it up is in fact the lie? We should or must believe the first and disregard the second? Because if so I do not believe many here see it that way--several are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt or chalk it up to poor judgment and bravado. Moreover, if you are right and the first statement is true:
"I have made sure that each already has or will have an altered card in their collection "
then I expect specific instances will surface--hell, everyone's on notice to go check their cards right now--and it will indeed blow back on or fall down on Kevin. My thought is let's wait and see if that in fact happens. I'm curious to know how anyone thinks that was done to them or even could have been done to them. I am certainly willing to eat crow if necessary, but right now I just think this thing is WAAAAAAAAAY overblown.

[calvindog]

Todd, I clearly stated many, many times in this thread that the claim that he had already committed fraud via the way he described is "not a major danger" or something to that effect. The part that troubled me was his stated desire to alter cards and defraud Net 54 members. That was bizarrely troubling, especially coming from a guy who claims to want the exact opposite with this hobby. And many, many people on the board would agree with this sentiment.

And you still haven't answered my question: Have you ever discussed in a private email conversation the subject of altering cards and defrauding Net 54 members? And if not, do you know of anyone (besides Kevin and Elkins) who ever has? Anyone?

[nolemmings]

I have no idea what your first sentence means--sorry. Please explain again how it is he has committed fraud.

I assumed your questions were rhetorical. I will not discuss with you the nature or content of any of my private emails, or by extension, list topics that I have not discussed in emails. This is simply none of your business. Similarly, my knowledge of other's people's email conversations, or lack of same, is a topic I have no desire to share.

[calvindog]

Great. Re-read the thread and you'll understand it. I only said it 19 times as did Wonka and many others.

And I've never discussed undertaking card alteration or the hope of defrauding Net 54 members to anyone. And like the very great majority of Net 54 members, I don't want to associate with anyone who does.

And this thread has really jumped the shark....

[wonkaticket]

Jeff you know what they say...

"You can lead a horse to water...."

If this was any other person on here they would be outraged by these comments.

It's very clear some folks are only happy after they get ripped off to be made aware of issues.

I cant make it any more clear this isn't a discussion of logistics of how Kevin could do what he said, lets leave that to an episode of Columbo.

This is a discussion that any person who is of a trustworthy nature doesn't make comments like the above. I will also say I'm a bit turned off by anyone who so defends said comments or shrugs them off as no big deal. People of this community should be outraged. Many folks welcomed Kevin with open arms to target any members of this forum because he has a beef with them is childish and silly regardless of if you think Kevin was blowing steam or really up to no good!

Also any business who has openly supported Kevin etc. should also beside themselves with these comments.

It's a signal flare to all be warned about Kevin thats all take what ever information you can from this, draw whatever conclusions you may.

Just be warned if you have any dealings planned with Kevin....take warning or go about your business and if all works out great...if not...well you own fault.

Cheers,

John

[Potomac Yank]

"There are eight million stories in our Naked City, and this has been one of them."

For those that are not familiar, the above was the sign off of one of the early police TV programs called The Naked City.

[Jim VB]

It's nice to see all the attorneys willing to work overtime, even if these are non-billable hours, but the reputation of Kevin Saucier won't be tried in Part 54. It will, instead, be tried in the court of public opinion on Net54.

Our standards are lower. Much lower. Even lower than those of Civil Courts. If you make a statement that you have defrauded members of a group and are proud of it, you will likely have a problem with that group going forward. If you further add that your main regret is that you were unable to rope in one particular member, you will definitely have a problem with, at the very least, that one member.

If you then come on the board and say "Just kidding!", some people may buy it. The majority won't.

[barrysloate]

What's especially troubling to me is that Kevin had become a part of our community, and often went to great lengths to make contributions to our knowledge of card doctoring. Some may remember his Net54 seminars where he showed everyone how cards were made and cut at the factory, and how to distinguish an original card from a tampered one. Unlike Patrick Chan, a shadowy figure who hid behind the anonymity of his website, Kevin was one of the guys, and while maybe not universally embraced was at least respected by nearly everyone for his knowledge of paper restoration.

But to see his email is really a form of betrayal. It's kind of the Bernie Madoff syndrome, where someone you thought you could trust turned out to be a totally different person.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Barry I suspect if there were more transparency in the business we would feel betrayed by a lot of folks we now trust.

[barrysloate]

Peter- you are probably correct.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I suspect if there were more transparency in the business we would feel betrayed by a lot of folks we now trust.

Peter,

You're probably correct, but please let me live in my little, isolated, paradise world, just a little bit longer!

[Peter_Spaeth]

You and me both.

[nolemmings]

"If this was any other person on here they would be outraged by these comments." Huh? Who is/was "any other person"? Please elaborate.

"It's very clear some folks are only happy after they get ripped off to be made aware of issues." Ridiculous.

"This is a discussion that any person who is of a trustworthy nature doesn't make comments like the above." Perhaps, maybe even probably.

"I will also say I'm a bit turned off by anyone who so defends said comments or shrugs them off as no big deal." And I'm a bit turned off by people who post private emails.

"People of this community should be outraged. Many folks welcomed Kevin with open arms to target any members of this forum because he has a beef with them is childish and silly regardless of if you think Kevin was blowing steam or really up to no good!" Childish and silly, yes. Add disappointing and upsetting. Outrageous? No.

"Also any business who has openly supported Kevin etc. should also beside themselves with these comments." That's your opinion.

"It's a signal flare to all be warned about Kevin thats all take what ever information you can from this, draw whatever conclusions you may." Except that we've just been told that we should be outraged, businesses should be outraged, and that you'll be turned off if we are anything less. IOW, let me tell you how you should or must feel, but in the spirit of altruism I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

"Just be warned if you have any dealings planned with Kevin....take warning or go about your business and if all works out great...if not...well you own fault." Same as it ever was.

[E93]

Originally Posted by Adam

Just curious -- who are the other two? Any guesses?

I think Baker is one of them. He continually praised him, though I don't think he thought highly enough of him to cross his cards to GAI.

Mike Baker may be a good grader when he wants to be, but there are so many questionable cards in GAI holders, that he either is not good at it, or something fishy was going on there. Are they still in business? Re-opening Monday?
JimB

[wonkaticket]

Todd, I’m done elaborating to you I have said my peace on this thing now like 10 times.

If you’re cool with Kevin and supportive of him and his so called lie to make Scott Elkins and himself feel better after the forum wasn’t a 100% in favor of his so called proof that Scott’s “underprint” was legit great knock yourself out guy.

Hopefully Scott Elkins is all better now Kevin and Scott go bowling this weekend mission accomplished?

I’m however not so cool with folks who pretend to be a supportive part of a community and privatively talk about having already defrauded members and have plans to continue to defraud other members of the same community that welcomed them just because he has an axe to grind.

I don’t support known card doctors bragging about screwing folk’s with doctored cards pretty simple policy for me.

It’s clear we disagree on this that's ok guy.

But I guarantee you Todd you won’t see any offline emails from me where I brag and lie to Jeff Lichtman to make Jeff and I feel better about screwing you with altered cards because we disagree.

Think about how ridiculous and farfetched that sounds.

I get upset at folks from time to time all people do…do I ever in an email admit to fraudulent and illegal acts to one person to make myself feel better about it…uhh no.

Cheers,

John

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jim I thought they had reinvented themselves yet again and were opening up in Iowa of all places? EDIT TO ADD As to how to reconcile what we all saw from GAI with Mike Baker's expertise, well, one could speculate.

[wonkaticket]

Iowa really?