Today's Wash. Post has major piece re the BB card fraud

Johnny630 · #1 07-23-2019, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

He can call things what he likes, his attempt to equate them to securities isn't what I found questionable, that IS marketing and he can use all the hyperbole he likes. It's his obvious manipulation of the prices, to a degree that Mastro didn't even aspire to that may go unpunished that is my concern.

I was just making the interesting side point that if they were securities, as which he wanted people to think of them, he would be in a LOT bigger trouble, and making some people whole might mitigate that, but it wouldn't eliminate it.

I agree with the your last paragraph it is interesting.

Obvious Manipulation you state, are you referencing Shilling ? If so I didn�t that it was illegal depending upon which state you were located in?

Peter_Spaeth · #2 07-23-2019, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I agree with the your last paragraph it is interesting.

Obvious Manipulation you state, are you referencing Shilling ? If so I didn�t that it was illegal depending upon which state you were located in?

Did you read the thread I posted last night on sales reported by PWCC but not in the ebay database?

bobfreedman · #3 07-23-2019, 07:13 AM

Jeff, I do understand why you did what you did in taking this case but what I do not think is Kosher is that you have created a market for yourself by being the loudest and complaining about what Brent did as loud as anyone on this board. You essentially raised it to the level (along with others) that it demanded attention and then took the case. How is this ethical?

calvindog · #4 07-23-2019, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Jeff, I do understand why you did what you did in taking this case but what I do not think is Kosher is that you have created a market for yourself by being the loudest and complaining about what Brent did as loud as anyone on this board. You essentially raised it to the level (along with others) that it demanded attention and then took the case. How is this ethical?

So you think the only reason I complained loudly for years about these issues is because I was hoping to force a case to myself that would increase my income by a percentage point or two � and open myself up to constant criticism? That must have also been the reason I sued Mastro - to get them to hire me hopefully. And what other cases have I taken in which I criticized someone�s behavior in the hobby only to represent them later? Can you tell me one?

bobfreedman · #5 07-23-2019, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

So you think the only reason I complained loudly for years about these issues is because I was hoping to force a case to myself that would increase my income by a percentage point or two — and open myself up to constant criticism? That must have also been the reason I sued Mastro - to get them to hire me hopefully. And what other cases have I taken in which I criticized someone’s behavior in the hobby only to represent them later? Can you tell me one?

It only takes one time

Nowhere did I say that is why you did it either.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #6 07-23-2019, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

So you think the only reason I complained loudly for years about these issues is because I was hoping to force a case to myself that would increase my income by a percentage point or two � and open myself up to constant criticism? That must have also been the reason I sued Mastro - to get them to hire me hopefully. And what other cases have I taken in which I criticized someone�s behavior in the hobby only to represent them later? Can you tell me one?

Jeff, I'm not accusing you of anything, but a person with very little imagination could dream up a scenario where you went after Mastro BECAUSE he didn't hire you and Brent isn't making the same mistake. I'm not even remotely saying this is what happened, but I imagine you have met people in your career that might try something like that.

The problem is if it's possible, people jump to probable and beyond. It doesn't help that the rumor mill has been pretty accurate a number of times already in this whole mess.

I really hope your presence in this mess helps the victims, I can't say that I hope your presence helps the perpetrators though, that would be disingenuous.

blametony · #7 07-23-2019, 11:52 AM

Jeffrey,

Just my 2�

What I'm most intrigued by, and am curious about your opinion of, is Brent's assertions that "conservation" is perfectly acceptable in the hobby as he correlates it to the art world. This entire premise is ridiculous. Fine art works are inherently unique, 1 of 1 pieces. In that regard, condition and conservation of that condition are not as taboo. Graded Sportscards, by definition, are a world of comparison where the condition of one card can be exponentially greater than another simply based on condition. The "conservation" of that card then comes into question as it relates to the other cards in existence that have not been "conserved".

I understand he is in self-preservation mode at the moment, but by uttering complete nonsense like he did with the above simply makes him look ridiculous and minimizes any other argument he puts forth in his defense.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #8 07-23-2019, 12:15 PM

Kudos Tony for the best explanation I've seen to date of why card conservation/restoration/alteration and art C/R/A are two different things.

Peter_Spaeth · #9 07-23-2019, 12:18 PM

There is an even simpler difference. Art is restored/conserved to preserve it for posterity and the work is disclosed. Baseball cards are restored to deceive, in nearly all cases, without disclosure.

Fuddjcal · #10 07-23-2019, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Jeff, I do understand why you did what you did in taking this case but what I do not think is Kosher is that you have created a market for yourself by being the loudest and complaining about what Brent did as loud as anyone on this board. You essentially raised it to the level (along with others) that it demanded attention and then took the case. How is this ethical?

perfectly ethical. It's just a complete cornholing F/U to the entire hobby and everyone in it, that's all.

Republicaninmass · #11 07-23-2019, 11:45 AM

Its poetic justice at its finest

Johnny630 · #12 07-23-2019, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Did you read the thread I posted last night on sales reported by PWCC but not in the ebay database?

Yes I did....

Peter_Spaeth · #13 07-23-2019, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Yes I did....

You had asked about market manipulation. Assuming this is accurate, isn't that market manipulation?

Johnny630 · #14 07-23-2019, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You had asked about market manipulation. Assuming this is accurate, isn't that market manipulation?

Doesn’t look good....all these people unpaid on cards $7,000 and over.....yeah right ......Bull to the S&&T ....maybe they will try this avenue to approach in prosecution......will be interesting to see.....who knows

I want to see what PSA is going to do ?

Are they remaining silent for these reasons over at Newport Beach ???

PSA might think it's safer to keep quiet until details do, or don't, come out. That way they don't shoot themselves in the foot over something they may not necessarily have to.....

Like if 6 pieces of damning evidence come out, it's better for them if they keep quiet now, and own up to those 6 things, but skate on 7-8 other things that weren't found out, or they weren't implicated in, despite having done them

36GoudeyMan · #15 07-23-2019, 07:36 AM

I don't post much, mostly lurk, but this is a huge deal all around, for the hobby and the hobbyists.

From what little I know, as a lawyer, the Sixth Amendment assures that a person charged with a crime has counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not require any particular attorney to take on any particular client (there are even rules that allow lawyers to refuse to take cases for some types of clients). Any lawyer is, generally speaking, free to accept any representation, but typically is not required to do so.

Having said that, I admire someone who has been a critic of a person or entity, who then takes up their "defense," often not to save or salvage the person or entity, but instead to ensure that the person or entity gets the treatment to which they are entitled, to ensure that the system treats the person or entity fairly and properly (and legally). I am not sure that Charles Manson's lawyers wanted him to be acquitted; I am sure they wanted the trial process to be fair and open and legitimate and transparent.

If Mr. Lichtman (who I do not know at al and have never met) wants to ensure that PWCC is treated properly in the process, that's his choice, and I respect it. If his object is to try to get something positive out of PWCC in its relationship to the hobby, I think its a net positive. And I think he's entitled to be paid for his work, too. If his object is to insulate PWCC from its obvious liability, play tricks with the system to get PWCC and its principals off the hook, that's different, but I, for one, do not hear that in his comments here. On balance, having someone intimately familiar with the hobby is a net plus; he knows how it all works, who the participants are, etc. I'd rather have someone knowledgeable involved than an outsider who is in it for the acquittal at all costs.

Also, please understand that there is a great deal he cannot say due to the attorney-client privilege. Do not crucify him if he is limited in his disclosures, especially in the context of a pending criminal investigation.

Johnny630 · #16 07-23-2019, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36GoudeyMan

I don't post much, mostly lurk, but this is a huge deal all around, for the hobby and the hobbyists.

From what little I know, as a lawyer, the Sixth Amendment assures that a person charged with a crime has counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not require any particular attorney to take on any particular client (there are even rules that allow lawyers to refuse to take cases for some types of clients). Any lawyer is, generally speaking, free to accept any representation, but typically is not required to do so.

Having said that, I admire someone who has been a critic of a person or entity, who then takes up their "defense," often not to save or salvage the person or entity, but instead to ensure that the person or entity gets the treatment to which they are entitled, to ensure that the system treats the person or entity fairly and properly (and legally). I am not sure that Charles Manson's lawyers wanted him to be acquitted; I am sure they wanted the trial process to be fair and open and legitimate and transparent.

If Mr. Lichtman (who I do not know at al and have never met) wants to ensure that PWCC is treated properly in the process, that's his choice, and I respect it. If his object is to try to get something positive out of PWCC in its relationship to the hobby, I think its a net positive. And I think he's entitled to be paid for his work, too. If his object is to insulate PWCC from its obvious liability, play tricks with the system to get PWCC and its principals off the hook, that's different, but I, for one, do not hear that in his comments here. On balance, having someone intimately familiar with the hobby is a net plus; he knows how it all works, who the participants are, etc. I'd rather have someone knowledgeable involved than an outsider who is in it for the acquittal at all costs.

Also, please understand that there is a great deal he cannot say due to the attorney-client privilege. Do not crucify him if he is limited in his disclosures, especially in the context of a pending criminal investigation.

Well said sir :-)

Many a time in the courtroom I�ve disliked a defendant while respecting his attorney. This is definitely the case in this matter.

irv · #17 07-23-2019, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 36GoudeyMan

I don't post much, mostly lurk, but this is a huge deal all around, for the hobby and the hobbyists.

From what little I know, as a lawyer, the Sixth Amendment assures that a person charged with a crime has counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not require any particular attorney to take on any particular client (there are even rules that allow lawyers to refuse to take cases for some types of clients). Any lawyer is, generally speaking, free to accept any representation, but typically is not required to do so.

Having said that, I admire someone who has been a critic of a person or entity, who then takes up their "defense," often not to save or salvage the person or entity, but instead to ensure that the person or entity gets the treatment to which they are entitled, to ensure that the system treats the person or entity fairly and properly (and legally). I am not sure that Charles Manson's lawyers wanted him to be acquitted; I am sure they wanted the trial process to be fair and open and legitimate and transparent.

If Mr. Lichtman (who I do not know at al and have never met) wants to ensure that PWCC is treated properly in the process, that's his choice, and I respect it. If his object is to try to get something positive out of PWCC in its relationship to the hobby, I think its a net positive. And I think he's entitled to be paid for his work, too. If his object is to insulate PWCC from its obvious liability, play tricks with the system to get PWCC and its principals off the hook, that's different, but I, for one, do not hear that in his comments here. On balance, having someone intimately familiar with the hobby is a net plus; he knows how it all works, who the participants are, etc. I'd rather have someone knowledgeable involved than an outsider who is in it for the acquittal at all costs.

Also, please understand that there is a great deal he cannot say due to the attorney-client privilege. Do not crucify him if he is limited in his disclosures, especially in the context of a pending criminal investigation.

When I read this post initially, I was also thinking WTF, but after reading Jeff's comments and the various posts throughout, including yours above, I think the bolded sections explain it very well.

Aquarian Sports Cards · #18 07-23-2019, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I agree with the your last paragraph it is interesting.

Obvious Manipulation you state, are you referencing Shilling ? If so I didn�t that it was illegal depending upon which state you were located in?

It's a weird situation. Shilling in and of itself, if the items are paid for, is not illegal. But coordinating with others to drive up the price while assuring them they either won't win, or won't have to pay if they win is illegal. Mastro Shilled with insider knowledge of the prices and there are similarities to what appears to have been going on with PWCC.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1906 Lancaster Red Roses Post Card, 8 future T206 Major Leaguers	CMIZ5290	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	3	06-15-2019 06:12 PM
Great Wash. Post piece re oldest living ex-MLB player	ValKehl	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	03-29-2014 12:29 AM
This cartoon from today's Wash. Post ...	ValKehl	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	15	03-09-2014 08:28 AM
Big NY Times piece today on card/autograph collector	GregMitch34	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	07-08-2012 04:58 PM
major fraud autograph update!!!	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	6	03-28-2007 06:41 PM