Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Your third paragraph is fallacious reasoning. There is clear hobby consensus, and even PSA's terms and conditions admit, that trimming and recoloring are unacceptable alteration. It's irrelevant that there are other things people don't agree on. Slippery slope fallacy. Assuming the evidence supported it, a jury could easily find that the knowing sale without disclosure of a trimmed card was fraud. There are detailed discussions of this by me and others from early in the scandal. I don't have the energy or motivation to find them.
|
What clear hobby consensus? There are some people that are all for restoration, and very many others that allow, or at least put up with, various other forms of alterations or doctoring. Hell, the very first card ever graded by PSA, and what is likely to become the most valuable card ever sold once again, next time it gets sold, is a known altered/trimmed card in a PSA 8 holder. What do you honestly think PSA would do should its current owner come back to them with the Gretzky Wagner, and ask that it be re-holdered?
We have been discussing for years how the grading standards and measures of TPGs are not the same, and how they keep changing over the years. All you'd have to do is grab different graded cards of different TPGs over the years, and show them to a jury for themselves to decide if what was graded as a 4 on different cards actually looks the same to them. And remember, chances of an actual card collector being allowed to stay on a jury by the defense is slim to none, at best. For criminal prosecution the standard is still to my knowledge " beyond a reasonable doubt". You, my friend, may be a little biased because of your own card collecting background and knowledge, and assume a jury will be of somewhat comparable thinking and experience. I'm going to guess they won't. And once they start hearing about all the different companies, graders, issues, etc., there are likely going to be a lot of doubts creeping into their minds.
I could go back and look for your own words in various posts, but let me paraphrase what I believe you yourself have stated in the past, knowing someone is guilty is one thing, but you can't always prove it in a court of law.
As I look at it, I'm afraid that the only way we may finally get someone convicted of a crime in all this fraud is if law enforcement and prosecutors can actually get someone directly involved in it to flip and testify against others directly involved. The participants that may, or may not, be involved in such fraud are not stupid though, and I doubt they would voluntarily turn on each other at this point. Unless they can get nailed for something else and only see making a deal with prosecutors as a way out by basically turning states evidence. As of now, it doesn't look like that is happening though.
Along those lines, I believe I remember reading elsewhere on this forum that Brent from PWCC was initially cooperating with investigators on the alteration/trimming fraud case. And then suddenly, he was not anymore. If actually true, that is a very interesting and intriguing development, don't you think? In potential cases like this, involving multiple companies and people, sometimes learning to say nothing is the best defense of all. There's an awful lot of truth to the old adage that ignorance (or at least the projection of such) is bliss!