the list (of criminals) is revealed

vintagetoppsguy · #1 01-28-2016, 04:14 PM

What's the over/under on thread views here?

nsaddict · #2 01-28-2016, 04:21 PM

There are 3 shillers listed that currently sit on the board of experts at PSA. If someone were to post this on the CU boards, how long would it last?

bobbyw8469 · #3 01-28-2016, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's the over/under on thread views here?

And how about this being a Net54 exclusive???? Not a peep about this across the pond!

ALR-bishop · #4 01-28-2016, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

And how about this being a Net54 exclusive???? Not a peep about this across the pond!

Someone started a thread, but it just refers people over here

Yoda · #5 01-28-2016, 05:22 PM

Just when I thought that the Mastro Mess was beginning to move slowly to the back burner, with Bill inside and Doug soon to go, but now we have more sordid details and, horror of horrors, actual names on both sides of the equation. The Dark Side rules tonight. Yoda

MattyC · #6 01-28-2016, 04:23 PM

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards?

Would also be great to know if any of the names involved have since become affiliated with/employed by other Auction Houses?

ullmandds · #7 01-28-2016, 04:25 PM

this is quite the shit storm that's just getting started!

Stonepony · #8 01-28-2016, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ullmandds

this is quite the shit storm that's just getting started!

I have contacted 2 auction houses of which I currently have high bids. I respectively asked, that if the consignor of these lots appears on this list, to please retract my bids. I offered my understanding that this may exclude me from participating in further auctions. This list is a tiny tip of a huge iceberg. I hope it tips over, irregardless of what may happen to the current valuation of our collectibles.

bunst · #9 01-29-2016, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards?

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

Peter_Spaeth · #10 01-29-2016, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunst

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

Yes, Dave Forman is the owner of SGC, he may also be President but I am not sure. He and his brother Steve are identified on the list in several places.

ADDED I have not looked up the lots so I don't know the answer to the second part of your question.

Stonepony · #11 01-29-2016, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, Dave Forman is the owner of SGC, he may also be President but I am not sure. He and his brother Steve are identified on the list in several places.

ADDED I have not looked up the lots so I don't know the answer to the second part of your question.

Yes it looks like they shilled each other's lots right and left. I welcome a response.

Bicem · #12 01-29-2016, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunst

Has this been answered? It's a long thread so I may have missed it.

Yes, according to the document, Dave Forman (SGC owner) and his brother Steve Forman shilled each other's auctions on many occasions, including high grade SGC cards. The example below was consigned by Dave, shilled by Steve, and actually won by Steve... looks like he got stuck with it.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=70524

Here's one that was consigned by Steve, and shilled by Dave, and won by Greg Bussineau.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=74170

There are many, many other examples.

JEFF PR|ZNER

byrone · #13 01-29-2016, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicem

Yes, according to the document, Dave Forman (SGC owner) and his brother Steve Forman shilled each other's auctions on many occasions, including high grade SGC cards. The example below was consigned by Dave, shilled by Steve, and actually won by Steve... looks like he got stuck with it.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=70524

Here's one that was consigned by Steve, and shilled by Dave, and won by Greg Bussineau.

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...entoryid=74170

There are many, many other examples.

JEFF PR|ZNER

Who's the real hobby villian...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=113951

MattyC · #14 01-29-2016, 08:43 AM

And here I was, utterly oblivious to the fact that SGC really stands for:

"Shill, Get Cash."

Thank God baseball cards are such happy and pure things, in and of themselves, that the enjoyment they bring trumps and outshines that odious list.

Iron Horse · #15 01-29-2016, 08:46 AM

Seems to me that SGC should pack it up.
How can a grading company not only grade their own cards (likely over grade) then list them in auction and the shill their own lots.
It's bad enough when an individual does it but a grading company????
Ruben Baghdassarian

Dpeck100 · #16 01-29-2016, 08:56 AM

And people are worried about the grading company that has 90% market share going out of business.

SGC has less then 3%.

If any of these revelations are a death sentence for a third party grader it glaringly obvious that it's the company that's owner is caught up in this mess.

How unreal. You grade the cards, you sell them through auction houses and you enhance the price with illegal bidding.

Haha

You can't make this stuff up. We might be seeing these fellas in an episode of American Greed.

If I had a large amount of funds tied up in SGC cards this would make me sick to my stomach.

ksabet · #17 01-29-2016, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Horse

Seems to me that SGC should pack it up.
How can a grading company not only grade their own cards (likely over grade) then list them in auction and the shill their own lots.
It's bad enough when an individual does it but a grading company????

+1 Agreed! I am not sure why but I feel 100x worse knowing that the head of a TPG would do this. Auctioneers are like mechanics...I try to find the ones who will rip you off the least, but the heads of SGC?!?! pretty ridiculous.

bn2cardz · #18 01-29-2016, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattyC

Is Forman the same one from SGC? And can anyone see if those shilled lots were SGC cards? ?

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

Dpeck100 · #19 01-29-2016, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

Just means he is an equal opportunity profiteer.

bn2cardz · #20 01-29-2016, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Just means he is an equal opportunity profiteer.

The hypothesis that came to mind as to why the Formans had some cards they didn't cross to SGC prior to selling were:

1) They couldn't bump it to SGC because it was trimmed and were worried about their "guarantee".

2) The pop report with the other graders made the card look rarer than their pops would.

3) So they could have deniability that they showed preference to their cards

Dpeck100 · #21 01-29-2016, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The hypothesis that came to mind as to why the Formans had some cards they didn't cross to SGC prior to selling were:

1) They couldn't bump it to SGC because it was trimmed and were worried about their "guarantee".

2) The pop report with the other graders made the card look rarer than their pops would.

3) So they could have deniability that they showed preference to their cards

Sounds pretty logical to me.

I wonder if SGC's move to Florida was planned after they new this bombshell was coming out.

xplainer · #22 01-29-2016, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Sounds pretty logical to me.

I wonder if SGC's move to Florida was planned after they new this bombshell was coming out.

No, just happened the same week.

When the news broke about the move, someone on here questioned if the company was being sold. That might be holding more water now.

xplainer · #23 01-29-2016, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

The hypothesis that came to mind as to why the Formans had some cards they didn't cross to SGC prior to selling were:

1) They couldn't bump it to SGC because it was trimmed and were worried about their "guarantee".

2) The pop report with the other graders made the card look rarer than their pops would.

3) So they could have deniability that they showed preference to their cards

Thinking like a criminal there...and probably right.

bn2cardz · #24 01-29-2016, 09:26 AM

.double post.

Shoebox · #25 01-29-2016, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Here is a list of all the shilled lots consigned by Steve and Dave. Most are SGC, but there are some PSA and GAI.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...pub?output=pdf

The head of SGC is involved in nearly 30 lots that were shill bid with approximately 2/3 of the card graded by his own company.

PSA has members of its Board of Experts appear as shill bidders.

Maybe no one else goes to jail after Bill and Doug but there are certainly a lot more than just one auction house getting sh#t on them over this.

conor912 · #26 01-28-2016, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

What's the over/under on thread views here?

>25k

Beastmode · #27 01-28-2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

>25k

Here's 25001.

I'm surprised so many folks are surprised. In-house proprietary auction houses make little sense from a financial perspective and can be easily manipulated by the AH. Shilling is probably still rampant on the ones that are left. You can't even see the bidders, which is the first clue as to what is going on there.

E-bay has already spent billions building this software platform; and they do all the maintenance, upgrading, hardware, security, power, cooling, etc; for pennies. Does E-bay have shilling? of course. But at least I have some information to review in bid history to make my own assessment.

Lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

martyp · #28 01-28-2016, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beastmode

Lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

I totally disagree with this statement. I bid within my budget and I am on the list as a victim of shilling. Just because you do not pay more than you are willing to does not mean that you will not pay more than you should have if the auction was run fairly.

SteveMitchell · #29 01-29-2016, 04:24 PM

Beastmode offers some good advice (see boldface and enlarged type for added emphasis). Perhaps not "never" but certainly "rarely" will one be a victim of shilling, if followed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastmode

here's 25001.

I'm surprised so many folks are surprised. In-house proprietary auction houses make little sense from a financial perspective and can be easily manipulated by the ah. Shilling is probably still rampant on the ones that are left. You can't even see the bidders, which is the first clue as to what is going on there.

E-bay has already spent billions building this software platform; and they do all the maintenance, upgrading, hardware, security, power, cooling, etc; for pennies. Does e-bay have shilling? Of course. But at least i have some information to review in bid history to make my own assessment.

lastly, and it's been beat to death, stay within your budget and be patient, and you will never be a "victim" of shilling again.

pokerplyr80 · #30 01-29-2016, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveMitchell

Beastmode offers some good advice (see boldface and enlarged type for added emphasis). Perhaps not "never" but certainly "rarely" will one be a victim of shilling, if followed.

[/size][/b]

The main point I have seen others try to make is that even when following this advice, one can still be a victim of shilling if what they end up paying is higher than it would have been without the shilled bids. Just because you are willing to pay that amount, or would have paid more, doesn't mean you're not a victim. Plus the bar is set that much higher the next time the same card comes up for sale.

nolemmings · #31 01-29-2016, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

The main point I have seen others try to make is that even when following this advice, one can still be a victim of shilling if what they end up paying is higher than it would have been without the shilled bids. Just because you are willing to pay that amount, or would have paid more, doesn't mean you're not a victim. Plus the bar is set that much higher the next time the same card comes up for sale.

Exactly. It should not be that hard a concept to understand. That being said, I do not get very bothered if I win an auction at or below what I was willing to pay, even if shilling is shown. That does not mean I find it acceptable behavior to shill, however--far from it.

Shoeless Moe · #32 01-28-2016, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by conor912

>25k

in 1 day

Peter_Spaeth · #33 01-28-2016, 05:08 PM

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction, particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would let him bid using my ID. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if the bid from my account won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and the bid from my account was high bid, even though Ron had hoped the set might go much higher and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Stonepony · #34 01-28-2016, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My name appears on the list of "shill bidders" on one transaction where my friend, Ron Goldberg, was the consignor. I don't view myself as a shill bidder, nor do I believe Ron did anything inappropriate. I have no doubt that some of you will disagree, and candidly I have shared this with a few people I respect a lot and they come out different ways. In any event, these are the facts.

In 2007, Ron had a valuable but relatively low demand oddball set (one of the Red Men sets). At some point he was talking to Doug and Doug asked if he would consider consigning the set. Ron said that he would but that because it was an oddball set, he was reluctant to do so unless a reserve could be placed on the auction., particularly since one of Ron's lots had sold well below his expectations in a previous auction. Doug said that he would not place a formal reserve, but instructed Ron that he could achieve the same result if he had a friend bid the reserve amount. Doug insisted, however, that if the friend won the auction, Ron would have to pay the buyer's premium.

Ron then asked me if I would bid for him. After thinking it over, I agreed. My thinking at the time was that Ron was not going to consign the set anyhow without a de facto reserve (so that there really was no scenario of a no reserve auction where someone could have won the set for a pittance), and that because Ron was going to have to pay the buyer's premium if I won, the result would be the same as if I paid for the set and then flipped it back to Ron.

As it turned out, Ron's fear was correct and nobody outbid me, even though Ron expected the set to go much higher than my bid and in fact sold it for 20k more eventually. So he paid the premium and the set was returned to him. It worked out exactly the same as if there had been a reserve, or higher opening bid. No victim. Nobody "run up." To be clear, Ron had no idea who else had bid or whether they had placed a top all. I am pretty sure, by the way, that many of the lots identified by the government as allegedly involving shill bidding (including multiple lots consigned by other Net 54 board members whose names have not been mentioned yet) are of the same character. Some, on the other hand, doubtless are lots where Mastro and Allen knew the top alls and bid them up themselves, or told the consignor.

I understand there are different ways to view the transaction. We have, in fact, debated this issue before at least in the abstract. I understand the other side, and have no doubt many of you folks will vilify Ron and me. So be it. I have nothing to hide. And apologies for the delay in posting, but I needed to verify the facts with the consignor.

If you are going to vilify Ron, by the way, please be sure to include the other board members identified as consignors on multiple lots, it would be very unfair to single him out.

Thanks for posting the explanation Peter. I understand, and see how things can happen. That was 2007. I think you'll agree that everyone now is edgey and ready for zero tolerance

Peter_Spaeth · #35 01-28-2016, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonepony

Thanks for posting the explanation Peter. I understand, and see how things can happen. That was 2007. I think you'll agree that everyone now is edgey and ready for zero tolerance

Yes, and after discussing this with some people I respect, I do see the gray area.

sflayank · #36 01-28-2016, 05:25 PM

well peter admits to being a shill...how nice
so he believes theres nothing wrong with making the public believe the value of that item is what he bid when in fact there was no one willing to actually pay that price...ie the most anyone person was willing to pay lets says is 1800 and he puts in 2000...but the 1800 bidder actually would have won the lot for 1200 as the 3rd bidders hi bid was only 1100...and he doesnt see anything wrong with that....if your consignor friend ron wants at least x dollars then he should consign it to an AH that will start the bidding at x dollars...this is nothing more than artificially upping the perceived value in the eyes of the public...but theres nothing wrong with that....hmmmmm

Buythatcard · #37 01-28-2016, 05:39 PM

This list just shows 2007-2008. Can you imagine what the list would look like if it included all the years that Mastro was in business? You know that it doesn't end with Mastro. I am sure that this is still going on within many AH's today. I am not saying that the AH are involved but there must be shilling done by individuals that have a connection with the consignor.

I have won 21 items from Mastro between 2005-2009 for a total of $34,000. The list shows that I was shilled only once in 2007 on a lot of 38 Colgan Chips. It makes me wonder how many other times they shilled me.

1952boyntoncollector · #38 01-28-2016, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buythatcard

This list just shows 2007-2008. Can you imagine what the list would look like if it included all the years that Mastro was in business? You know that it doesn't end with Mastro. I am sure that this is still going on within many AH's today. I am not saying that the AH are involved but there must be shilling done by individuals that have a connection with the consignor.

I have won 21 items from Mastro between 2005-2009 for a total of $34,000. The list shows that I was shilled only once in 2007 on a lot of 38 Colgan Chips. It makes me wonder how many other times they shilled me.

theres also the issue the other way....maybe if you not bid that top bid..someone else was prepared to bid the exact amount as you in that bidding slot so they didn't bid it because you already beat them there.....hence they would of been the underbidder as well to fill up all those shill bids up to your winning bidding slot......just saying its not like if all the shill bidders disappeared the lot would of been won every time at the amount the apparent 'winning bid' the victim was going to pay free of shilling....basically whatever the amount they calculated the victims lost...the real amount would of been lower..but yeah I know its like I a thief saying he stole 3,000 and not 5,000 that the homeowner claims was stolen (and told the insurance company)

By the way when is someone going to post a picture with a bunch of people holding pitchforks with something funny stated on it.....you net54 guys are good at that stuff

buymycards · #39 01-28-2016, 05:24 PM

Peter, the only reason that no one was "run up" is because it happened that there were no bidders. If there had been bidders, you would have run them up.

asoriano · #40 01-28-2016, 05:26 PM

...you gotta love this dirty hobby.

Peter_Spaeth · #41 01-28-2016, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buymycards

Peter, the only reason that no one was "run up" is because it happened that there were no bidders. If there had been bidders, you would have run them up.

As I thought of it, if Ron had not consigned the set at all, or if there had been a reserve or an opening bid at the reserve level, nobody could have won it for less than one bid above mine anyhow. So your hypothetical is not real, as I see it. But as I said, I do understand there are other ways to look at it.

Steve D · #42 01-28-2016, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I thought of it, if Ron had not consigned the set at all, or if there had been a reserve or an opening bid at the reserve level, nobody could have won it for less than one bid above mine anyhow. So your hypothetical is not real, as I see it. But as I said, I do understand there are other ways to look at it.

Here's my take:

If there had been, say, a $2,000 reserve on the lot, and the highest bidder bid $1,500, everyone would see that the set did not meet the reserve. This could be attributed to either the reserve being set too high, or there just being low interest in the set at that particular time. As it happened, a "shill bid" was placed for $2,000, to match the "unstated" reserve. This led people to believe the set had sold at that price. This is the lie, that the set sold, when it actually did not; and this is where, in my opinion, the main problem lies. It results in false price information being released to the public, and a false value being placed on the item. The set may later exceed the value that was falsely reported at that time, but there is really no way of knowing what effect the false info had, even if there are years between the auction in question, and the actual later sale.

The safest and best way to proceed is to set a reserve (if desired), and let the bidding determine if the reserve is realistic (at that particular moment in time). Then at least, if the item does not sell, the public has accurate information to use, in later placing a value on it.

Steve

Peter_Spaeth · #43 01-28-2016, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve D

Here's my take:

If there had been, say, a $2,000 reserve on the lot, and the highest bidder bid $1,500, everyone would see that the set did not meet the reserve. This could be attributed to either the reserve being set too high, or there just being low interest in the set at that particular time. As it happened, a "shill bid" was placed for $2,000, to match the "unstated" reserve. This led people to believe the set had sold at that price. This is the lie, that the set sold, when it actually did not; and this is where, in my opinion, the main problem lies. It results in false price information being released to the public, and a false value being placed on the item. The set may later exceed the value that was falsely reported at that time, but there is really no way of knowing what effect the false info had, even if there are years between the auction in question, and the actual later sale.

The safest and best way to proceed is to set a reserve (if desired), and let the bidding determine if the reserve is realistic (at that particular moment in time). Then at least, if the item does not sell, the public has accurate information to use, in later placing a value on it.

Steve

The consignor obviously would have preferred a reserve, as it would not have cost him thousands of dollars not to sell his set, as it turned out, but he was told the option was not available. So he took the instruction of what was then still a mostly highly respected auction house as to an alternative. Sure everyone can sit in judgment now. Whatever.

Vintagefun · #44 01-28-2016, 05:29 PM

CU Thread...Poof. Not sure why. Disappointing.

ALR-bishop · #45 01-28-2016, 05:31 PM

....in two shakes of a lamb's tail

1952boyntoncollector · #46 01-28-2016, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

....in two shakes of a lamb's tail

nah was more than 5 nanoseconds

Jeff1970Red · #47 01-28-2016, 05:31 PM

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

Peter_Spaeth · #48 01-28-2016, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I have owned it, unlike anyone else so far who is on that list. I disagree with your opinion, as I see it this was not at anyone else's expense, please see my response to Rick.

Stonepony · #49 01-28-2016, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

Per forum rules, your name please

Leon · #50 01-28-2016, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff1970Red

There is no gray area...you attempted to help a friend at the expense of others. Own it and move on.

For the moment I am not saying anything except that your full name, and everyone posting in this thread who makes any comment per the rules, needs to put their name in their post (if not easily found by your sig line etc)....per the rule in bold letters at the top of every page. It's not that important though. If anyone doesn't want their full name in their post then they can edit their comments out. Otherwise I will be putting names in posts per the rules at my leisure

.......thanks to all

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
my top secret want lists being revealed	sflayank	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	5	01-07-2016 02:13 AM
my top secret want lists being revealed	sflayank	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	12-31-2015 11:59 AM
Autograph News Live - criminals or just cowards?	Michael Frost	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	186	10-25-2013 11:36 PM
criminals and heroes of the t206 set	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	19	01-11-2009 08:03 PM
secret want list revealed dealers will kill for this list	Archive	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	08-18-2008 11:06 AM