REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I don't know whether he was wrong or not. Your friend said he was wrong.

The bottom line is this: You were trying to sell a stolen card--a card to which you did not have good title. Nash informed you of that fact, and that led to the card being returned to its rightful owners--the public library of my home town.

Thank you, Peter.

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.

That's right, Leon. It was never in the NYPL collection. You just decided to donate it to them. And the NYPL stamp was there by... magic? You did not have good title, regardless of what you--or your lawyers--might claim. The stamp proves it was--and remains--library property. When you learned of the stamp is irrelevant in proving title. I must take you at your word that you didn't know it was library property. But that does not change the fact that the card indeed was.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's right, Leon. It was never in the NYPL collection. You just decided to donate it to them. And the NYPL stamp was there by... magic? You did not have good title, regardless of what you--or your lawyers--might claim. The stamp proves it was--and remains--library property.

You can say whatever you want to but it won't make it so and won't change the facts. I am most likely done with this thread. It's really a moot point as what is done is done. I am happy with the way it all turned out in the end. Thanks for your opinion. Have fun with your fraudulent friend....

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

You can say whatever you want to but it won't make it so and won't change the facts. I am most likely done with this thread. It's really a moot point as what is done is done. I am happy with the way it all turned out in the end. Thanks for your opinion. Have fun with your fraudulent friend....

The fact is the card belonged to the NYPL. The evidence--the library stamp--proves that. The lack of other records--assuming there are none--still does not negate the fact that the card was stamped. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Be "done with the thread" all you want. But there isn't a person here who doesn't believe the card is NYPL property.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The fact is the card belonged to the NYPL. The evidence--the library stamp--proves that. The lack of other records--assuming there are none--still does not negate the fact that the card was stamped. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Be "done with the thread" all you want. But there isn't a person here who doesn't believe the card is NYPL property.

I concede it might have been theirs, there is just no proof beyond an almost illegible mark. You can't change those facts either. Maybe you should ask your good friend Pete, who was wrong about it already. You do trust him right? Birds of a feather I guess.... LMAO..

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

I concede it might have been theirs, there is just no proof beyond an almost illegible mark. You can't change those facts either. Maybe you should ask your good friend Pete, who was wrong about it already. You do trust him right? Birds of a feather I guess.... LMAO..

"almost illegible mark"?

are you still disputing that it is NOT an nypl mark on the back of that card?

If you are not disputing it, why say 'almost illegible mark', why not just say an NYPL mark, because that's what it is.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

I concede it might have been theirs, there is just no proof beyond an almost illegible mark. You can't change those facts either. Maybe you should ask your good friend Pete, who was wrong about it already. You do trust him right? Birds of a feather I guess.... LMAO..

If you concede it might have been theirs, then it is not a clear title, it is a disputed title.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.

it has a nypl stamp on the back and they never had it?

Their letter to you, which you posted, said thank you for RETURNING it to the nypl. you can't return it if it was never there in the first place.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by travrosty

it has a nypl stamp on the back and they never had it?

Their letter to you, which you posted, said thank you for RETURNING it to the nypl. you can't return it if it was never there in the first place.

I made my mind up to get rid of it at that point so didn't contest the letter. Had I not accepted that letter and wanted to keep the card I would still have it....and have it forever or until I sold it if I wanted to, just like the other one that is still out there. I had good title to it until I gave it to them. But with what I do in the hobby I felt I should give it to them to end the controversy.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

I made my mind up to get rid of it at that point so didn't contest the letter. Had I not accepted that letter and wanted to keep the card I would still have it....and have it forever or until I sold it if I wanted to, just like the other one that is still out there. I had good title to it until I gave it to them. But with what I do in the hobby I felt I should give it to them to end the controversy.

If you have clear title like you are stipulating all along, then what's the controversy?

A lot of people choose to 'get rid of' 80,000 dollar cards. i don't believe you could have sold it without possibile liability down the line if the person who bought it from you was ordered to return it to the library. They could have charged back to you claiming you knew it was nypl property being told by a field agent himself according to you on a tape in which every time you uttered the word NYPL, it was in hushed tones. As well as cleverly devising a description at auction which describes it as 'possibly being a library mark' as the first option of what the mark on the back might be.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

I had good title to it until I gave it to them.

A court decides who has good title. Not you. Not your lawyer.
And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there.

Give it up, Leon. No one supports you on this. You're all alone.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

A court decides who has good title. Not you. Not your lawyer.
And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there.

Give it up, Leon. No one supports you on this. You're all alone.

Your ignorance is mind-boggling. But my spelling isn't very good .

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

Your ignorance is mindboggling.

I don't see anyone standing up for you. I don't see anyone--anyone at all--who's willing to state he doesn't believe the card was NYPL property.

And that's not mind-boggling at all.

[w7imel]

I have only been here a year or two but as a newcomer to this site just have a few basic questions.......Is all this bantering back and forth serious or is it just the boys "busting etch others balls"? I realize the subject matter is serious but at at the end of the day are you guys still friends?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I don't see anyone standing up for you. I don't see anyone--anyone at all--who's willing to state he doesn't believe the card was NYPL property.

And that's not mind-boggling at all.

I too would like to know who thinks the card was NOT NYPL property.

And as for Leon saying he accepted the wording on the letter in order to return it and didn't want to dispute the wording of the letter that says "thank you for returning the card" implying that returning means it was theirs in the first place.

Leon, YOU POSTED THE LETTER! There was nothing to refute or correct because you didnt have to show the letter to anyone!

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

A court decides who has good title. Not you. Not your lawyer.
And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there.

Give it up, Leon. No one supports you on this. You're all alone.

Truly amazing,

Doctor David Atkatz now controls the court of law as evidence in his statement "And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there". How would Doctor David Atkatz have any clue what the court of law would decide unless he had insider information or had some sort of control over the judge. Tell us Doctor, how do you know what the court would decide...? I will say Dr. Atkatz, you are good - you are really good.............. Your powers.... wow

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Truly amazing,

Doctor David Atkatz now controls the court of law as evidence in his statement "And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there". How would Doctor David Atkatz have any clue what the court of law would decide unless he had insider information or had some sort of control over the judge. Tell us Doctor, how do you know what the court would decide...? I will say Dr. Atkatz, you are good - you are really good.............. Your powers.... wow

Shawn, you are an ass. We get it. But do you have to prove it over and over?

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Shawn, you are an ass. We get it. But do you have to prove it over and over?

Dr. Dave Atkatz,

My point was proven much earlier (by you) when I reeled you in - hook, line and sinker because you felt the need to defend yourself against the absurd & ridiculous comments I made about you being tied in with Petey Nash... I truly chuckle at it... By you defending yourself against my insane comments lends zero credibility to anything you have to say, much less anything the "pop goes the weasel" has to say. You missing the boat is semi "LOL"... Also, your lack of the English language is quite telling... My wife, and shall I say my children resort to foul language & curse words due to a lack of up-bringing and adolescence. Some may find it hard to take you serious unless you speak more intelligible...

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

Truly amazing,

Doctor David Atkatz now controls the court of law as evidence in his statement "And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there". How would Doctor David Atkatz have any clue what the court of law would decide unless he had insider information or had some sort of control over the judge. Tell us Doctor, how do you know what the court would decide...? I will say Dr. Atkatz, you are good - you are really good.............. Your powers.... wow

Sorry but ive been reading this whole post and one thing ive noticed is you keep getting ignored...lol...k carry on