the list (of criminals) is revealed

[earlywynnfan]

I've been thinking more about the "consignor/shiller" aspect of this list. I wonder if it's unfair to not have the entire auction's results in front of us while making judgements. Considering this list came directly from a piece of scum, isn't it possible he twisted it to make certain people look worse?

Let me give you an example:

I've always been into older game used bats, but I have a small budget. I like to put bids in on items I like when they're absurdly low, just as a way to watch. So it's no big stretch to assume I put 15-20 low bids on bats in each of these auctions. Usually, before the auction closes, I'll bump up my bids as much as I can, only to watch myself get blown away. Once a year or so, I'll actually win one!

Since the bat world is/was fairly limited at the time, let's suppose it's not a stretch to think that one guy consigned many of these bats. Thinking back to the biggest bat guy back then, a man I have nothing bad to say about, let's call him "Dave."

So in the records you will see many instances of "Ke.n Su.lik" bidding and not winning. If most of those items were consigned by "Dave," it would be very easy to create a partial list that only shows when Ke.n Su.lik has bid up--but not won-- items consigned by Dave! Especially when you DON'T list the items that I bid on from other consignors, nor do you list items I actually won and paid for.

Viola! Ke.n and Dave must be in cahoots as shillers!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I've been thinking more about the "consignor/shiller" aspect of this list. I wonder if it's unfair to not have the entire auction's results in front of us while making judgements. Considering this list came directly from a piece of scum, isn't it possible he twisted it to make certain people look worse?

Let me give you an example:

I've always been into older game used bats, but I have a small budget. I like to put bids in on items I like when they're absurdly low, just as a way to watch. So it's no big stretch to assume I put 15-20 low bids on bats in each of these auctions. Usually, before the auction closes, I'll bump up my bids as much as I can, only to watch myself get blown away. Once a year or so, I'll actually win one!

Since the bat world is/was fairly limited at the time, let's suppose it's not a stretch to think that one guy consigned many of these bats. Thinking back to the biggest bat guy back then, a man I have nothing bad to say about, let's call him "Dave."

So in the records you will see many instances of "Ke.n Su.lik" bidding and not winning. If most of those items were consigned by "Dave," it would be very easy to create a partial list that only shows when Ke.n Su.lik has bid up--but not won-- items consigned by Dave! Especially when you DON'T list the items that I bid on from other consignors, nor do you list items I actually won and paid for.

Viola! Ke.n and Dave must be in cahoots as shillers!

It's the government's list, which Doug published for whatever reason. His own list is also included in the same pleading.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's the government's list, which Doug published for whatever reason. His own list is also included in the same pleading.

OK, thanks. It's still incomplete, though.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's the government's list, which Doug published for whatever reason.

I have been wondering about this since the thread started. His lawyer filed the document as an exhibit (one of many) to his sentencing memorandum. I understand his desire to address the restitution issue, which was his reason for including it, but the list easily could have been filed under seal, so that it wasn't available for public viewing. What possible reason would Doug or his attorney have to make this public? Do you think they just didn't realize the storm it would create, or figured that no one would go digging through the exhibits and find it? Or was it an "I'm going to take everyone else down with me" mentality? Or something else? I certainly don't think it did the client any favors in the realm of public opinion by exposing the list.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

I have been wondering about this since the thread started. His lawyer filed the document as an exhibit (one of many) to his sentencing memorandum. I understand his desire to address the restitution issue, which was his reason for including it, but the list easily could have been filed under seal, so that it wasn't available for public viewing. What possible reason would Doug or his attorney have to make this public? Do you think they just didn't realize the storm it would create, or figured that no one would go digging through the exhibits and find it? Or was it an "I'm going to take everyone else down with me" mentality? Or something else? I certainly don't think it did the client any favors in the realm of public opinion by exposing the list.

I have the same bewilderment. My cynical view is that he wanted to take others down, but I don't know. He could not possibly have thought it would go under the radar.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have the same bewilderment. My cynical view is that he wanted to take others down, but I don't know. He could not possibly have thought it would go under the radar.

who cares why..i think everyone (non shillers) will agree they are glad its there

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

who cares why..i think everyone (non shillers) will agree they are glad its there

Well my point wasn't whether people are glad it's there (which I am). My point was just that it was very curious that this document just now gets released publicly many years into the case, and that it was released by Doug's own attorney. The timing is just interesting, and I was wondering out loud what the strategic advantage might be of that particular course of action.

[Bliggity]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have the same bewilderment. My cynical view is that he wanted to take others down, but I don't know. He could not possibly have thought it would go under the radar.

It's just so hard to say. I know that when I file sentencing memoranda or similar documents (yes, I'm a defense attorney, everyone fire away!) I wouldn't necessarily share the specific documents with my client ahead of time for him/her to review, although they would of course know the substance of what I was doing. And I'm sure that not many of my clients, even the more sophisticated ones, would understand how the federal filing system works or realize that something like that could be downloaded online and disseminated immediately. So perhaps it's just a case of attorney inadvertence in filing something publicly that he probably shouldn't have, and that Doug didn't specifically know about ahead of time. But there are many possibilities.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bliggity

It's just so hard to say. I know that when I file sentencing memoranda or similar documents (yes, I'm a defense attorney, everyone fire away!) I wouldn't necessarily share the specific documents with my client ahead of time for him/her to review, although they would of course know the substance of what I was doing. And I'm sure that not many of my clients, even the more sophisticated ones, would understand how the federal filing system works or realize that something like that could be downloaded online and disseminated immediately. So perhaps it's just a case of attorney inadvertence in filing something publicly that he probably shouldn't have, and that Doug didn't specifically know about ahead of time. But there are many possibilities.

Dan yeah anything is possible but that's a pretty big thing to have done inadvertently for an experienced attorney in a case where many filings are under seal. If I had to bet I would bet that Doug wanted it this way.