you know, I was in Atlantic City when you had teh first dinner but didn't come because I really didn't know anybody. I am not sure about Cleveland but I will be at the Baltimore one in 2010. I will also be set up with my partner , Ted Z. at Philly. I look forward to hanging out and talking cards.

I am not going to say anything else about Scott-I will be talking cards with the 54 members.

There are a hundred reasons why Elkins is the most vile degenerate in our hobby and only reasons 1-9 can be found in his insane 'forum' where he is the only member (except when he occasionally invents friends). It's no coincidence that he has been kicked off every board he has ever been on -- and yet it's always someone's fault but his own. Threats of violence, actual violence, fraud in our hobby -- Elkins is proud of it all. How he has time to partake in so many fine ventures is impressive; woops, I forgot: he's disabled.

All I can say is that due to my work I have been around plenty of people despised by society and I have to say that none have been as truly nauseating as Scott Elkins. And trust me, that says a lot.

When I was reading this thread I came to the very same conclusion as leon.

I'd never live in one of those; they're tornado magnets. How many times have you ever read a news story about how a tornado devastated a neighborhood of million dollar mansions? Now how many times have they shown a picture of trailer trash picking through trailer trash after a tornado busted up their trailer park?

I have always said, if I ever become a Mayor of a city, I will build a decoy trailer park on the outskirts to attract all the tornados that come through the area, thus keeping my city safe!

I don't remember the reasons
 

But I heard a really good explanation of why tornados "pick on" trailer parks. If someone could find said explanation; Jim's tounge-in-cheek solution actually makes sense for the public safety.

Rich

I've always said that there are two kinds of people who live in Trailers,
those who have to in order to reach their goals in life,and those who do because they have reached their goals in life.:)

I have had a very few select folks in cyberspace hint that I was a bit hard on the beaver if you will in regards to Kevin and this issue.

For the record I would like to make my point clear incase anyone else feels this way...


I will make this simple and clear as I think I have spent way too much time on this. My job is not to provide a detailed report to you that Kevin is up to no good that’s for you to decide based on what was said. This is not Chan or an FBI deal two totally different animals.

People will take what they will from his awful comments and let’s be honest here that was some pretty messed up stuff he said let’s not put icing on a turd and call it cake.

My stance is I’m not going to sit on information in which a known card doctor is bragging about fraud to a targeted group regardless of what the public opinion of him may or may not be. If that makes me a bad guy in your eyes so be it.

I would guess I'm not on Chan's Xmas card list this year either...

Sorry good guy or not. I have zero tolerance for scammers real or fantasy land liars doesn’t matter.

However you want to spin it it’s not cool and it’s not what we should expect from anyone. Especially someone with the outspoken nature that Kevin has against this very practice…extremely hypocritical to say the least and potentially criminal!

The point is simple make folks aware, it’s your call what you do with the info.

Time will tell if it was a monumentally mean spirited stupid lie or something far far worse.

Cheers,

John

John, you've got no reason to explain your motives as you were not the one caught discussing altering cards and defrauding Net 54 members -- Kevin was.

Rich Klein....et al
 

My understanding why tornadoes strike trailer parks is that trailers are typically constructed of metal.
A thunderstorm powerful enough to develop a tornado contains a very high electrically charged potential
that generates severe lightning. The lightning will take the path of least resistance to ground and the
storm will track on this path. This path can be a river or it can be metal structures on the ground.


TED Z

agreed
 

I agree with Jeff. No need for you to apologize John. You are not the one making false accusations, and using a past tense of fraudulent acts, in a private email to a friend. (I am still trying to understand that one?)

It has also been protested to me that a private email was allowed to be shared on the board. For the record- Anytime I can help our Net54 family by breaking one of my rules I will gladly take the heat. Each situation is different and I treat them that way. I was also told by the person that protested that a lawyer had contacted them about the email issue. I responded that I am quite sure fraud is a criminal act but sharing a private email probably isn't. I also let that person know that I did not personally share the email (though I applaud it) and I am only liable for what I say, as is everyone. best regards

In my opinion
 

This may go against the prevailing view, but I don't like the notion of reproducing private emails, even with good intentions. Not only does it seem to me to violate the privacy of the sender, but it is very easy to misinterpret what is said in such communications or at the very least take them out of context. It IS a rule here for a good reason in my view.

Peter, you might have a decent point if it were Elkins who posted the email: clearly Kevin meant for his discussions about committing fraud on Net 54 members to remain private between the two of them. Once Elkins released it to others, what obligation did John have to keep it private? And surely Kevin's stated desire to defraud Net 54 members trumps any privacy interest of his.

Plus I'm sure the many highly trained lawyers who post on Net 54 would be rushing to Kevin's side to file a lawsuit if such a claim existed. But of course we both know that won't happen.

Finally, Kevin came on here and gave his explanation so all's well that ends well. I would suggest to Kevin that instead of whining about his private email being splashed here for all to see he should probably come up with a better explanation as to why he felt it appropriate to write about his glee in defrauding Net 54 members -- and his disappointment over not defrauding me.

to be clear
 

I don't think there is even a ghost of a legal issue. Whether it is right is another matter.

See my paragraph one just above.

For the record I was asked to be sent this email from Elkins he had Dan McKee forward on his thoughts about something and he just happened to foward on this email to me.

This email was addressed to me not sent under the table....

I am sure all of us have said things in emails that, if taken out of context and published on message boards, would not make us look pretty. This is not to excuse Kevin (although I continue to be highly skeptical he actually did anything along the lines he was speaking about) but to make a broader point that I don't think people should publish private emails, even if their intentions are good.

I am not condemning John by any means, I understand this is a matter on which people have legitimate differences of opinion, I am merely stating my own.

The entire email string was revealed; nothing was taken out of context.

In this particular case, sure, but that doesn't change my view of the wisdom of the rule (which this forum has) against publication.

And I quote
Things you can not post about

Personal information about people including but not limited to: Phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, etc, unless given permission ...Personal emails should not be posted on the board.

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

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.

Formula X??? LOL
 

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?

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.

from kevin's website
 

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."

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.

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].

C'mon now
 

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?

admissions
 

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

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.

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."