Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

One thing to consider that I hadn't really thought about, and I haven't read every post so maybe it's been discussed, is this: was it kosher for ML not to tell consignors for days that their cards had been stolen and were missing? To get Scott's take, would you feel comfortable not telling consignors, on the theory that you'd make them whole in the end anyhow?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One thing to consider that I hadn't really thought about, and I haven't read every post so maybe it's been discussed, is this: was it kosher for ML not to tell consignors for days that their cards had been stolen and were missing? To get Scott's take, would you feel comfortable not telling consignors, on the theory that you'd make them whole in the end anyhow?

It seems like the side that is ok with running the fake auction has in mind establishing value from the results. If that was the purpose you can’t let the situation be known to consignors or anyone else or those results would be called even more into question. Pulling the items instead of running a fake auction would have allowed immediate communication with consignors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

It seems like the side that is ok with running the fake auction has in mind establishing value from the results. If that was the purpose you can’t let the situation be known to consignors or anyone else or those results would be called even more into question. Pulling the items instead of running a fake auction would have allowed immediate communication with consignors.

Yes absolutely. If you continue the auction, you have to keep it from them. So is that OK?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes absolutely. If you continue the auction, you have to keep it from them. So is that OK?

I will say if like ML and my legal council, Insurance company, and the PoPo all told me to run the auction. I would run the auction. To me it really is that simple. For anyone who missed it several hundred posts ago one of the few people that actually know what they are talking about posted that was what happened.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will say if like ML and my legal council, Insurance company, and the PoPo all told me to run the auction. I would run the auction. To me it really is that simple. For anyone who missed it several hundred posts ago one of the few people that actually know what they are talking about posted that was what happened.

This means nothing. ML's legal team has one job: Do what's in their clients' best interest. Nobody here is saying ML didn't do what was in their best interest.

Question is, was it in the best interest of bidders and consigners? Was it ethical or right?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

This means nothing. ML's legal team has one job: Do what's in their clients' best interest. Nobody here is saying ML didn't do what was in their best interest.

Question is, was it in the best interest of bidders and consigners? Was it ethical or right?

Even without their legal team the insurance company and the POLICE said to run the auction. Would you seriously not do what they recommended?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will say if like ML and my legal council, Insurance company, and the PoPo all told me to run the auction. I would run the auction. To me it really is that simple. For anyone who missed it several hundred posts ago one of the few people that actually know what they are talking about posted that was what happened.

No one said they know this is what happened and it seems rather doubtful to many.

[BigfootIsReal]

The Energizer Bunny.....it keeps going....and going....and going....

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal

The Energizer Bunny.....it keeps going....and going....and going....

Sometimes it needs a little prod but yes it does.

[Jewish-collector]

This is one of those threads (and there are not too many) that you just gotta say "WTF". beer chug.gifbeer chug.gifbeer chug.gif

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

No one said they know this is what happened and it seems rather doubtful to many.

Actually it was said that is what happened. It doesn't fit your opinion so you probably ignored it.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Actually it was said that is what happened. It doesn't fit your opinion so you probably ignored it.

Point me to it, please.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

No one said they know this is what happened and it seems rather doubtful to many.

ad nauseam

With literally MILLIONS at stake you should have your head examined if you think they didn't ask insurance or legal what they should do.

Hence why the opinions of those making assumptions, who could not walk by, let alone purchase, millions of dollars in cards, don't matter.

[G1911]

The insurance angle was thrown out without being stated to be true but a possibility, then the side that wants to justify the fake auction latched onto it. It is obviously not the case. No one can produce a single example of an insurance plan, policy, demand, decision or communique telling a claimant they must host a fake auction to assign value in all of human history for a reason - this is not how it works. This angle is pretty obviously false.

I would be a little surprised if their attorneys would have directly advised a course of action that seems to violate California consumer law, but it's possible. 'Maybe the police asked them to' is probably the best of these three possible justifications as none of us disgusting filthy poors who should not have any right to post an opinion have access to that investigation, so I don't know why they latched onto this clear falsehood so hard when there were better avenues to take.

Any auction house that embraces the principle of hosting fake fraudulent auctions to deceive bidders should lose bidders, but of course they won't. Stuff dictates ethics and the complete lack thereof. Even if that means covering up a theft of consigners property from consigners, and hosting a fraudulent auction lying to all of their bidders. If someone was handling my property, and it was stolen, don't we think I have a right to know that? Well, we would in any other case but not this one because we have priorities here $$$$$$$$$$$. Any of us bothered by this have probably already made the decision to not do business with Memory Lane considering Cohen's conviction for fraud and resulting prison term (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news...ing-activities).

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by G1911

Any auction house that embraces the principle of hosting fake fraudulent auctions to deceive bidders should lose bidders, but of course they won't. Stuff dictates ethics and the complete lack thereof. Even if that means covering up a theft of consigners property from consigners, and hosting a fraudulent auction lying to all of their bidders. If someone was handling my property, and it was stolen, don't we think I have a right to know that? Well, we would in any other case but not this one because we have priorities here $$$$$$$$$$$. Any of us bothered by this have probably already made the decision to not do business with Memory Lane considering Cohen's conviction for fraud and resulting prison term (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news...ing-activities).

I think if consignors were notified ahead of time, it would have been a bigger issue. I’m curious as to the bidding patterns of the stolen items. Was a house account set up to bid and win back. From all my reading only a few people knew about the heist before the auction closed. Plus, how’s the investigation going on this, as it’s been a month now.

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by G1911

The insurance angle was thrown out without being stated to be true but a possibility, then the side that wants to justify the fake auction latched onto it. It is obviously not the case. No one can produce a single example of an insurance plan, policy, demand, decision or communique telling a claimant they must host a fake auction to assign value in all of human history for a reason - this is not how it works. This angle is pretty obviously false.

I would be a little surprised if their attorneys would have directly advised a course of action that seems to violate California consumer law, but it's possible. 'Maybe the police asked them to' is probably the best of these three possible justifications as none of us disgusting filthy poors who should not have any right to post an opinion have access to that investigation, so I don't know why they latched onto this clear falsehood so hard when there were better avenues to take.

Any auction house that embraces the principle of hosting fake fraudulent auctions to deceive bidders should lose bidders, but of course they won't. Stuff dictates ethics and the complete lack thereof. Even if that means covering up a theft of consigners property from consigners, and hosting a fraudulent auction lying to all of their bidders. If someone was handling my property, and it was stolen, don't we think I have a right to know that? Well, we would in any other case but not this one because we have priorities here $$$$$$$$$$$. Any of us bothered by this have probably already made the decision to not do business with Memory Lane considering Cohen's conviction for fraud and resulting prison term (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news...ing-activities).

How did you find out about that artricle in the above link?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes absolutely. If you continue the auction, you have to keep it from them. So is that OK?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes absolutely. If you continue the auction, you have to keep it from them. So is that OK?

I have no opinion on whether or not the auction should have continued. I can convince myself either way that either choice is valid but I think it is ok to not have told the consignors until the end of the auction. The consignors were selling their cards. I think letting the auction run was favoring them anyway.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One thing to consider that I hadn't really thought about, and I haven't read every post so maybe it's been discussed, is this: was it kosher for ML not to tell consignors for days that their cards had been stolen and were missing? To get Scott's take, would you feel comfortable not telling consignors, on the theory that you'd make them whole in the end anyhow?

Sorry to keep copping out, but I would do what my attorney and law enforcement told me.

What would I LIKE to do? Tell the consignors immediately, give everyone the option to pull their items (or remaining items as the case may be) and if too many consignors wanted out because of the situation, cancel the auction, tell everyone what happened and rely on insurance to make my affected consignors whole and return the items if consignors didn't want to reschedule them. I simply don't know if that was a possibility.