Collectors (PSA) Acquired SGC

Peter_Spaeth · #1 03-06-2024, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Fair criticism. I'm obviously talking out my ass on all things legal matters. What is a fair spread of reasons as to why a prosecutor might choose not to bring a case for this? You've mentioned before that the evidence might just not be admissible, but would assume they'd have known that from the outset, yet they still chose to pursue it, at least initially. Without having a crystal ball, what other reasons could you see for them cutting bait?

Are prosecutors in cases like this concerned about their "win rates" in court? Could that possibly come into play? Could he have perhaps felt that despite having ample evidence of sports card hanky panky having occurred, he was afraid he was likely to still lose the case because a jury just wasn't likely to see it the same way and he didn't want to risk taking a "Loss"?

A few points.

Yes, generally, prosecutors want to bring cases they think have a very strong chance of winning or forcing a guilty plea. It's certainly possible that here, the judgment in the end was that the case might not play well to a jury, although just speculating I think it's more likely that evidentiary issues were more of a factor particularly after the star witness went south. But of course I don't know.

As to whether this could have been all foretold in advance, not necessarily. Brian would have known all along he couldn't make a case from BODA threads under the rules of evidence, but especially after Brent initially cooperated, he may have thought he could build a case based principally on testimony, especially if other witnesses chose to cooperate rather than face the prospect of Brent testifying against them. Or it could have been worth going forward just to get the then-expected guilty plea from Brent. And it's possible other things did not go as expected that would not have been known from the outset.

Or it's possible that due to the pandemic, etc. the case just moved down and out in terms of importance and resource allocation.

But I highly doubt any prosecutor made a judgment that doctoring cards and selling them without disclosure by the mails or wires could not be a crime in the first place.

parkplace33 · #2 03-06-2024, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A few points.

Yes, generally, prosecutors want to bring cases they think have a very strong chance of winning or forcing a guilty plea. It's certainly possible that here, the judgment in the end was that the case might not play well to a jury, although just speculating I think it's more likely that evidentiary issues were more of a factor particularly after the star witness went south. But of course I don't know.

As to whether this could have been all foretold in advance, not necessarily. Brian would have known all along he couldn't make a case from BODA threads under the rules of evidence, but especially after Brent initially cooperated, he may have thought he could build a case based principally on testimony, especially if other witnesses chose to cooperate rather than face the prospect of Brent testifying against them. Or it could have been worth going forward just to get the then-expected guilty plea from Brent. And it's possible other things did not go as expected that would not have been known from the outset.

Or it's possible that due to the pandemic, etc. the case just moved down and out in terms of importance and resource allocation.

But I highly doubt any prosecutor made a judgment that doctoring cards and selling them without disclosure by the mails or wires could not be a crime in the first place.

Speaking of Brent, where is he these days? With another company? I haven't heard his name in a hot minute.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 03-06-2024, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Speaking of Brent, where is he these days? With another company? I haven't heard his name in a hot minute.

Nor have I. But I suspect, like the Terminator, he'll be back.

Yoda · #4 03-07-2024, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Speaking of Brent, where is he these days? With another company? I haven't heard his name in a hot minute.

Brent was spotted nude sunbathing on a beach in Tahiti. Lying next to him in a similar state, was a gorgeous local maiden.
Betsy has not been seen.

calvindog · #5 03-07-2024, 01:38 PM

Big mail day!

bnorth · #6 03-07-2024, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Big mail day!

Lets see the cards.

calvindog · #7 03-07-2024, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnorth

Lets see the cards.

It's a big haul, which includes the entire Annis Furs Tigers set from 1934! I'll post a few (the T206s are reholders):

Vintagedeputy · #8 03-07-2024, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

[/url]

Love that Hal Chase! I�ve never seen that before.

Snowman · #9 03-06-2024, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

particularly after the star witness went south.

Who are you referring to when you say the "star witness went south"? And by "went south" do you mean they just told the FBI to pound sand and refused to cooperate, or did a key witness die from covid or something, greatly complicating the case?

Peter_Spaeth · #10 03-06-2024, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

Who are you referring to when you say the "star witness went south"? And by "went south" do you mean they just told the FBI to pound sand and refused to cooperate, or did a key witness die from covid or something, greatly complicating the case?

Travis, as I understand it, Brent through his former counsel originally was cooperating with the feds (something clearly guilty parties frequently do in the hope of getting a lighter sentence at the end of the day, meaning they will furnish evidence and eventually testify against other defendants should a trial ensue); but subsequently switched counsel and apparently decided no longer to cooperate. This was all discussed on Blowout and to an extent here as well if I recall.

Lorewalker · #11 03-06-2024, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis, as I understand it, Brent through his former counsel originally was cooperating with the feds (something clearly guilty parties frequently do in the hope of getting a lighter sentence at the end of the day, meaning they will furnish evidence and eventually testify against other defendants should a trial ensue); but subsequently switched counsel and apparently decided no longer to cooperate. This was all discussed on Blowout and to an extent here as well if I recall.

And it was shortly after Brent stopped cooperating that eBay removed PWCC for shill bidding. That was interesting timing.

Snowman · #12 03-06-2024, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis, as I understand it, Brent through his former counsel originally was cooperating with the feds (something clearly guilty parties frequently do in the hope of getting a lighter sentence at the end of the day, meaning they will furnish evidence and eventually testify against other defendants should a trial ensue); but subsequently switched counsel and apparently decided no longer to cooperate. This was all discussed on Blowout and to an extent here as well if I recall.

Ah, OK. That was my guess, but wasn't sure. Lichtman spoke a little bit about his time defending Brent/PWCC on the Hobby News Daily podcast yesterday. The full interview was pretty good/interesting, so it's worth a listen if you're into that sort of thing. Here's a link to it. The PWCC conversation starts at 11:44 into it.

https://youtu.be/RqE-UT8ShH0?si=sV-kEZQ1363drv9c&t=704

Here's a transcript of what he says during this segment:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffery Lichtman

"I was a harsh critic of Brent & PWCC when I believed they were committing fraud. Then they became targeted by the FBI, and at that point, I felt that in order for them to get a more favorable disposition of their situation, I felt that they should take in all the cards that were altered in some way or another and give refunds, which they did. And I think that went a long way toward helping their situation. They accepted responsibility, they made people whole (not everybody, that's for sure), I suppose - and not everybody wanted to be made whole because a lot of people had trimmed cards in PSA holders, in high grades, and they figured why should I get back the price that I paid for this thing when it's gone up in value since then? This is the hobby. Everybody's against fraud except when it can make you money. This is an interesting mess of people in the hobby. You know, bless their hearts because I suppose I'm one of them."

Snowman · #13 03-06-2024, 10:19 PM

It would be interesting to hear Brent's take on what happened and why he decided to switch counsel.

My guess is he was likely convinced that he hadn't actually done anything wrong but that Lichtman believed he had and that he was just doing what he was advised to do because he feared he was going to be in trouble if he didn't follow Lichtman's advice. Then after discussing his situation with someone else, a different attorney, perhaps one that doesn't collect cards, he believed he was getting some bad/biased advice and decided to cut ties with Lichtman.

That or I'm dead wrong and just completely speculating.

Peter_Spaeth · #14 03-06-2024, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowman

It would be interesting to hear Brent's take on what happened and why he decided to switch counsel.

My guess is he was likely convinced that he hadn't actually done anything wrong but that Lichtman believed he had and that he was just doing what he was advised to do because he feared he was going to be in trouble if he didn't follow Lichtman's advice. Then after discussing his situation with someone else, a different attorney, perhaps one that doesn't collect cards, he believed he was getting some bad/biased advice and decided to cut ties with Lichtman.

That or I'm dead wrong and just completely speculating.

I am only speculating as well, and I would not frame it in quite the same terms, but I do believe he made the decision to change direction probably based on what another lawyer or lawyers said to him. I don't believe for a minute Brent actually thought he hadn't done anything wrong. His degree of fear, risk tolerance, whatever, likely changed from the early days of the scandal and FBI involvement.

Snowman · #15 03-07-2024, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am only speculating as well, and I would not frame it in quite the same terms, but I do believe he made the decision to change direction probably based on what another lawyer or lawyers said to him. I don't believe for a minute Brent actually thought he hadn't done anything wrong. His degree of fear, risk tolerance, whatever, likely changed from the early days of the scandal and FBI involvement.

Ya, hard to know what his mindset is. I do remember watching a video from a few years back though where he was being interviewed and asked about all the doctored cards selling through PWCC. He seemed to respond as though he thought there was nothing wrong with improving cards and that he thought as long as it passed grading, then it didn't matter. I suspect if he believed it was wrong, deep down, that his answers would have been different. Perhaps more dodgy or just outright denying any allegations. I also remember listening to the interview and finding myself in agreement with much of what he said (though not everything, of course).

Bigdaddy · #16 03-06-2024, 10:51 PM

Slightly OT - Does anyone know what happened to all the cards that were 'taken in' and money refunded? Surely they weren't destroyed, and I have not seen a Scarlet Letter applied to them as was much of the merch in Operation Bullpen. Unless they were destroyed, they've got to be somewhere.

Back on topic - Any chance going forward that PSA would incorporate SGC graded cards into its registry?

Snowman · #17 03-07-2024, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Slightly OT - Does anyone know what happened to all the cards that were 'taken in' and money refunded? Surely they weren't destroyed, and I have not seen a Scarlet Letter applied to them as was much of the merch in Operation Bullpen. Unless they were destroyed, they've got to be somewhere.

Back on topic - Any chance going forward that PSA would incorporate SGC graded cards into its registry?

My understanding is that the serial numbers are still valid. None of them have been decertified. I suspect they're either in PWCC's hands still or perhaps in law enforcement's hands? Who knows. Maybe they're all in Brent's personal vault at this point. But they're still valid, at least that's my understanding.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Acquired	CollectingAmericasPastime	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	9	11-16-2021 06:32 AM
Kuhn - Acquired. Thanks!	CollectingAmericasPastime	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	3	09-04-2019 01:34 PM
Cobb Acquired!	CollectingAmericasPastime	T206 cards B/S/T	1	02-09-2018 08:50 AM
Can u remember ur 1st T206 u acquired?	danmckee	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	82	02-10-2012 12:18 PM
WTB: Ray Schalk ACQUIRED	jb217676	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	01-10-2011 09:55 AM