The real truth about Peter Nash

[Peter_Spaeth]

PS at a very high level, negligent conduct normally wouldn't give rise to equitable estoppel as I understand it, there has to be some sort of intentional conduct by the party inconsistent with its present claim. Also reliance by the other party is typically required which wouldn't seem to be the case here.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

PS at a very high level, negligent conduct normally wouldn't give rise to equitable estoppel as I understand it, there has to be some sort of intentional conduct by the party inconsistent with its present claim. Also reliance by the other party is typically required which wouldn't seem to be the case here.

Maybe this better defines it. "Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage."


.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nah, you need INTENT to disadvantage someone for that to apply. And you need a duty to have acted. Since we are in google soundbite land:

Estoppel by silence is also sometimes called estoppel by inaction, estoppel by standing or acquiescence. It is not just staying silent, but doing that with an intention to bring harm to someone.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nah, you need INTENT to disadvantage someone for that to apply. And you need a duty to have acted.

So you are saying, You don't have a duty to act when told you are being stolen from? And then 20+ yrs later it is ok for you to act and disadvantage a third party? Please help me understand that.

OK, I see the intent to harm.....but it is beyond my GED education to argue further.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

So you are saying, You don't have a duty to act when told you are being stolen from? And then 20+ yrs later it is ok for you to act and disadvantage a third party? Please help me understand that.

I am saying I don't know enough about the facts of what happened 20 years ago to make a legal assessment, and for now, my presumption is that the NYPL is still the owner and is not estopped to claim ownership. You have stated conclusions. Post the facts, and we'll see where it goes.

[david_l]

Originally Posted by Leon

David, From what I have been told by reliable sources I believe the NYPL committed gross negligence many (20?) years ago in not trying to get their stuff back while it was being sold at auction or a lot of this could have been prevented. When they chose to look the other way, to me, it made the future issues their own and not anyone else's. I should add, otherwise I agree with you, when things can be proven they were stolen they should be returned.

Leon, I respect you as a person and it's obvious you're a smart and caring guy. I also appreciate you directly responding to me even though I'm sure this is a subject you're sick of reading about on the forum. I have a fundamental difference of opinion on this though. The following post is not about you or your experiences but rather just my opinion on the subject and some posts I've seen here.

IHHO..

A lazy employee or understaffing does not constitute negligence. More importantly, the NYPL collection is a public collection. No matter how long anybody filibusters or how many times an item is sold, an item removed from the NYPL will never actually belong to anyone but the public. You can possess this property, sell or trade it, but in the end you will always just be possessing stolen poperty at the expense of the greater public and the community you spend so much time participating in. If history, knowledge, and community is important to us we should be enthusiastically returning these items to the public and we should be praising those that do. I'm not trying to villainize anyone. We all love this hobby and sports history but anybody possessing items from a public archive is explicitly hurting the community, both present and future.

It is true that many items in an archive are uncatalogued and may never be viewed by researchers. It's true that some archive employees may potentially be lazy or self serving. These are merely hollow justifications though. You never know what a researcher may find important in fifty years. Or what one item can tell us about another. A small theft can turn out to be quite a significant loss to future researchers. I could go on and on about this but I think everyone gets my point.

This argument of ownership doesn't even get into the potential legal and financial risk of owning such materials. A quick web search will show countless other collectors who have gotten burned for owning items taken from archives, libraries, and other public and private collections.

I won't be posting anymore on subjects although I will continue to read (how can I stop?).

I understand that others may have differing opinions but I believe our overall goals are the same.

Wishing everyone the best and their collecting endevours,

David Lu$t1g

(Edited last name for web searching purposes. Thanks).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good post. I think you should continue to share your views whether or not they are in sync with Leon's, or others'. In the end, even the moderator is just one guy with an opinion; his opinion doesn't define the forum or dictate anyone else's, and I am sure he would agree.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by david_l

Leon, I respect you as a person and it's obvious you're a smart and caring guy. I also appreciate you directly responding to me even though I'm sure this is a subject you're sick of reading about on the forum. I have a fundamental difference of opinion on this though. The following post is not about you or your experiences but rather just my opinion on the subject and some posts I've seen here.

IHHO..

A lazy employee or understaffing does not constitute negligence. More importantly, the NYPL collection is a public collection. No matter how long anybody filibusters or how many times an item is sold, an item removed from the NYPL will never actually belong to anyone but the public. You can possess this property, sell or trade it, but in the end you will always just be possessing stolen poperty at the expense of the greater public and the community you spend so much time participating in. If history, knowledge, and community is important to us we should be enthusiastically returning these items to the public and we should be praising those that do. I'm not trying to villainize anyone. We all love this hobby and sports history but anybody possessing items from a public archive is explicitly hurting the community, both present and future.

It is true that many items in an archive are uncatalogued and may never be viewed by researchers. It's true that some archive employees may potentially be lazy or self serving. These are merely hollow justifications though. You never know what a researcher may find important in fifty years. Or what one item can tell us about another. A small theft can turn out to be quite a significant loss to future researchers. I could go on and on about this but I think everyone gets my point.

This argument of ownership doesn't even get into the potential legal and financial risk of owning such materials. A quick web search will show countless other collectors who have gotten burned for owning items taken from archives, libraries, and other public and private collections.

I won't be posting anymore on subjects although I will continue to read (how can I stop?).

I understand that others may have differing opinions but I believe our overall goals are the same.

Wishing everyone the best and their collecting endevours,

David Luftig

Hi David
I can certainly respect your opinion.
I don't expect other members to agree or disagree with me only to have civil dialogue and enjoy the hobby we love. Happy collecting....

ps.... I think it's worth reiterating that I do feel stolen items should generally be returned to their owners. Unfortunately we don't live in a black and white world. And as far as I know I am the rightful owner of everything in my collection .

pps...and of course I agree with Peter. The only thing I learned as a liberal arts major is that I am in the minority of opinions of the majority in those classes, by a long shot. Sometimes I was, or felt like I was, the lone person on the other side of a view for the whole class.

[Jeffrompa]

My Dad bought tons of stuff from libraries that closed and sold to him and sold to others . Unless that item was reported specifically no way could they come back and ask for it .