some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't believe in 'moral' when it comes to commerce: there is legal and illegal.

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

[Snapolit1]

wrong thread,.

[ALR-bishop]

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective

But Leon's post is pretty weird

[the-illini]

So A has his cards, the original thief has his money, B has his money and M has the knowledge he did the ethically correct thing.

You can’t spend it or collect it but M has my respect.

Chris Bland

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective

But Leon's post is pretty weird

Weird? Well, I guess quoting law that could apply to this case is sort of weird to some. Maybe it's only weird to non-Native Texans, which I am not.

And I agree with Chris's post right above this one too. M did the right thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I understand Chris' perspective, but at the same time, I think M would have a valid claim against him, one which I suspect he will not pursue. If I were mediating this dispute, I would propose that Chris return half the proceeds to M, and that everyone move on in friendship. And while I don't know A's circumstances, there must be some more secure way to keep his cards.

[timn1]

Yes, why not, Chris? Why not at least return half of Mike's loss to him? Can you provide a clear and simple explanation to your customer base how you justify not doing this?

And to Zach Rice: why not offer Mike some of the T209s he had wanted for his own collection when he bought the cards? Isn't that the least you could do, considering [B]how much expense and effort he went to in getting your cards back for you?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I understand Chris' perspective, but at the same time, I think M would have a valid claim against him, one which I suspect he will not pursue. If I were mediating this dispute, I would propose that Chris return half the proceeds to M, and that everyone move on in friendship. And while I don't know A's circumstances, there must be some more secure way to keep his cards.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him immoral or unethical. He was entirely innocent and has suffered a significant financial loss.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to?

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

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]

double post

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

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.

We had this discussion before in the context of the NYPL. Posts 16-18 I think. To be estopped, the silent person needs to have intended to disadvantage another.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...light=estoppel

[Michael Peich]

My name is Mike Peich, and I am M in Tim Newcomb’s post. There are a few basic facts that I want to establish before I respond to Chris Buckler’s request that I “make this as public as Tim has.”

Facts:
1. A is Zach Rice. His cards were stored at his grandfather’s house in Ohio and they were stolen by his brother Max. Max sold many of the cards, including a group of 122 T210s, 73 T209s and a Texas Tommy, directly to the dealer Mr. Buckler identifies as T. T apparently contacted Mike Siska, S, and sold the cards to him. Mr. Buckler purchased the T210s and T209s from Mr. Siska, and agreed to accept the Texas Tommy on consignment from him.

2. On about May 12, 2016 Mr. Buckler contacted me and offered to sell me 73 T209s. I asked him how he acquired the cards and he replied that a “picker” friend of his, presumably Mr. Siska, found them somewhere in Kentucky and offered them to him. He also mentioned that Mr. Siska might have some T210s for sale and I told him I was interested in those as well. Mr. Buckler assured me that Mr. Siska was an honest fellow. He sent rough scans of the cards and we agreed upon a price of $1700 for the 209s. On May 14, 2016 I sent him a check (#5512) for the cards. My intent was to keep a few of them for my set, offer some to other T209 collectors, and sell the rest at the National where I had a booth with Tim Newcomb and Chris & Bill Bland.

3. On about May 24, 2016 Mr. Buckler called and said that Mr. Siska would sell the T210s and offered me the 122 cards and sent scans. On May 26, 2016 I sent him a check for $2000 (#5217).

4. Shortly after I received the T209s I sold 17 of them to three collectors I knew.

5. On the first day of the 2016 National Zach came to our booth where Tim was the only one present. He began looking at the 209s and 210s and asked Tim where I got the cards. Tim told him from Mr. Buckler, and at that point Zach stated that they were his cards. Tim called me and on my way back to the table I met Zach and we returned to our booth where he began to show me scans of the cards that were stored on his phone. It was clear to me that they were Zach’s cards, and I immediately pulled them from my case. Zach and I agreed that he would contact his grandparents, and we would both talk with Mr. Buckler.

6. In the ensuing few days Zach discovered from his grandparents that his entire collection was missing. What I had was one portion of that collection.

7. I decided that the correct thing to do was return the cards I had for sale to Zach, return the cards I had put into my collection, and retrieve the 17 209s I had sold. An attorney friend I contacted told me that even though I had paid for the cards, they were stolen goods and belonged to Zach.

8. With Zach present I made a list of the cards I returned to him, a list of the cards in my collection, and a list of the cards I had sold.

9. Zach indicated that he was going to file a stolen property report with the local authorities in the Ohio county where his grandparents lived. He notified me on September 19, 2016 that he had filed the report and attached a copy of it in his email.

10. I had several conversations at the National with Mr. Buckler about the cards. In every one of them I said that I was going to do the correct thing and return Zach’s cards to him. I also told him that I felt he should return the $3700 I had paid him for the cards. He demurred and said that his legal counsel had suggested that he was not responsible and could do nothing until Zach filed a formal theft report. When I pointed out that he could ask Mr. Siska to return his money, Mr. Buckler felt that might cause a rupture in his business relationship with Mr. Siska.

11. When I returned home I immediately contacted the three people to whom I sold the 209s, explained what had happened, offered to reimburse them for the cards, and asked that they return the cards so I could give them to Zach. They all understood. I returned their money, the cards were returned to me, and I mailed the cards to Zach along with the cards I had placed in my collection.

12. On Sept. 20, 2016 I sent Mr. Buckler an email informing him that Zach had filed the theft report. And then I stated the following (excerpted from my email):
Now that the theft report has been filed, and I have fulfilled my obligation and returned stolen property to Zach, I respectfully request that you please return the $3700 I paid for the two lots of Zach’s cards I purchased from you:
Lot #1: 73 cards from T209-II (Contentnea), $1700.00 paid to Chris
Buckler on 5/14/16 (check #5212).
Lot #2: 122 cards from T210 (Old Mill), $2000.00 paid to Chris
Buckler on 5/26/16 (check #5217).

Thank you for your timely attention in returning my purchase amount
of $3700.

13. On September 21, 2016 I received an email response from Mr. Buckler and I have excerpted the following:
I have spoken with an attorney and was advised that I have no
lawful obligation to issue a total refund as the transaction was not made
in bad faith. However, I will reimburse you the profit I made on selling
you the cards of $400.

I know you are not happy with this situation and I am very sorry this
has happened. The only person responsible is Max Rice, he should be
the one who is punished and pay restitution to all parties in possession
of Zach’s property.

14. Mr. Buckler is correct. After I received his email I have had no further contact with him. He stated he would pay me a fraction of what I paid him and I assumed it would be a waste of my time to try, yet again, to convince him to return the full $3700. (I said nothing to him about the additional funds I had to pay to recover the cards I had sold.)

15. I spoke with legal counsel and after determining the expenses I would incur in recovering the $3700 from Mr. Buckler, I decided it was not worth the money and time to do so.

16. I am not a lawyer. I collect cards because I enjoy the baseball history represented by them. I am also not a full-time dealer. I set up once a year at the National. But on the two occasions years ago when I bought cards from dealers and I requested a return on my purchase, those two dealers honored their guarantee and returned my purchase price, with no questions asked. Based on that limited experience, and not armed with the nuances of legal theory, I made the decision at the National that the only action I could undertake was to return Zach’s property. I felt I was acting properly, not necessarily legally.

I want to respond to a few of Mr. Buckler’s FACTS.
1. I did offer M the profit that I made off the deal which was 10%
He did offer me $400.

2. See #13. above regarding “lawyering up.”

3. I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.
A few times at the National, but not afterward.

4. I never firmly stated to M that I would not work with him in some way.
Mr. Buckler’s response to my September 20 email requesting the return of $3700 was to my mind a clear indication that he would not “work with me.”

5. I sure wish M would have just communicated with me personally without bringing Tim into this. I understand that Tim wants to help his friend, but he has caused confusion, as all the facts have not been stated.
I do not feel the burden of responsibility is mine to communicate with Mr. Buckler. It is his. Further, I did not ask Tim to create this post.

6. M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.
Mr. Buckler never made the suggestion that we talk “with the proper authorities” before moving forward. I told him repeatedly what I was going to do with the stolen property, and I asked that he do the same and refund my purchase price.

Apart from my wife and children, Tim Newcomb is my dearest friend in the world. He has on several occasions wanted to communicate to Net54 the incidents that transpired regarding the theft and my financial loss. By making this post he has acted out of friendship and indignation at what happened to me, but it wasn’t done at my request.

I have not responded to the thread prior to this because I have been in the Midwest with family (I live in Pennsylvania). For several months we have been dealing with a deadly medical issue regarding my son-in-law. I have not had time to do much else than provide support for my daughter and her husband, so once I make this post I will have little time to respond to other posts. My apologies. I do appreciate some of the kind comments made by posters to the thread.

Thank you for taking the time to read my account.

Mike Peich

[Peter_Spaeth]

I hope Chris will realize it's just not fair to leave Mike holding the entire bag here. The issue isn't whether he (Chris) did anything wrong, he didn't. It's just a very unfortunate situation.

[oldjudge]

Peter-No question, the right thing is for Buckler to return Mike's money. Isn't he also legally obligated to return Mike's money?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Leon

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

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.

Uhh, I think that one fell about 10 yards short of the goal post.

[the-illini]

A doesn’t have to file charges against a family member but he had no problem taking all of the cards back and essentially making M the victim of his brother’s theft.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

Then why do many professions and professional organizations have codes of ethics? Check the definitions I feel ethics and morality, while related, are not synonymous.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Then why do many professions and professional organizations have codes of ethics? Check the definitions I feel ethics and morality, while related, are not synonymous.

They don't, at least not in the sense you are loosely using the terms. A voluntary organization can ask its members to adhere to certain standards but there is no requirement that a person join the organization or adhere to the standards it sets. If a professional organization has an enforceable set of rules required to maintain a license, it is because the state has delegated lawmaking in the form of regulatory capacity to that organization. They can label it a code of ethics (they don't use "morals") but it is really a regulation with the compulsory power of the state behind it. For example, the California State Bar. It has a set of rules of professional conduct and if you breach them you can be investigated, prosecuted in the State Bar Court, and possibly lose your license. That isn't ethics, it is regulation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't know, Adam. Example. As we know, under the statute of frauds, I can't enforce a contract for the sale of goods over $500 (never mind the exceptions, irrelevant to the point) without a writing signed by the other party. So under the law, the other party can breach with impunity if he knows there is no such writing. But wouldn't you say it's still unethical to breach the contract, or at least that there's a substantial consensus that would say it is? Perhaps you would not.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

They don't, at least not in the sense you are loosely using the terms. A voluntary organization can ask its members to adhere to certain standards but there is no requirement that a person join the organization or adhere to the standards it sets. If a professional organization has an enforceable set of rules required to maintain a license, it is because the state has delegated lawmaking in the form of regulatory capacity to that organization. They can label it a code of ethics (they don't use "morals") but it is really a regulation with the compulsory power of the state behind it. For example, the California State Bar. It has a set of rules of professional conduct and if you breach them you can be investigated, prosecuted in the State Bar Court, and possibly lose your license. That isn't ethics, it is regulation.

I am not loosely using any term, I am using the term the professions and organizations themselves use. A quick google search turns up dozens of examples. If you want to argue that if you have a Code of Ethics you are essentially turning them into regulations it might be debatable, but it's hardly like I'm making up the term.

[bigfish]

Glad to see Mike get some of his money back.

[Michael Peich]

In my last post on this matter I mentioned that I accepted Chris Buckler’s offer to refund me $1850, half of my loss for the stolen Zach Rice cards I purchased from Chris.

True to his word Chris mailed me a check for $1850 and it has cleared my bank.

With this payment my dispute with Chris over reimbursement for the stolen Zach Rice T209s and T210s is settled.

My hope is that Zach will recover other cards that his brother stole and sold from his collection.

Thank you for the kind words of support many of you offered.

Regards,
Mike