It's now official - Mastro trimmed hisT206 Wagner

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Thanks for the definition of legal standing. I had no idea--I just like to talk about legal matters with no working understanding of the operative terms.

Your premise is that no past owner of the card can legally sue-- he has no right to a day in court because he no longer owns the card. In my humble opinion, I believe that premise to be false. He can sue, but he likely will not prevail, at least under the facts as we know them, because he cannot prove at least one essential element of his claim (and there also may be affirmative defenses such as SOL). As in virtually any civil action, a Plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct caused him damage and then attribute some amount to that damage. If you don't you lose, but that doesn't mean you were barred from asking in the first place because you lacked standing. Now if I tried to sue claiming that the whole fraud ordeal negatively impacted me and/or my collection in some measurable way then yes, I would agree that there is insufficient nexus between me and the alleged wrongdoers to provide standing.

A more interesting scenario presents if the buyer of a PSA 5 Wagner were to argue that he overpaid because the market was artificially inflated by the existence of an "8" that turned out to be bogus, or conversely, if the seller of that same PSA 5 argued that he could have sold for more had there been no 8 on the market because his would have been the highest graded. These people would have a colorable claim (if the facts were right and they could prove them) that they had a legally protectible stake or interest and thus have standing. They would probably lose on the standing issue, IMO, but it wouldn't shock me to see a lawyer at least advance the argument.

In sum, current ownership of property does not define exclusive standing in cases like this, again IMO. Had the owner previous to Kendrick sold it to him at a loss and could show that the fraud had something to do with that loss-- a tough row to hoe, no doubt-- then the fact that he no longer owns the card would not prevent him from suing on the basis of standing. Again, we're dealing in hypotheticals and I don;t foresee any lawsuits from past or current players in this melodrama, but stranger things have happened I'm sure.

the woman who won the psa 8 wagner in the treat entertainment/walmart giveaway paid too much windfall taxes on the card when she won it, when in fact, her tax burden would have been much less had the card been properly graded by the people who purportedly gave it an 8 instead of an A to suit their own greedy interests. that is grounds for a lawsuit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I think all previous owners have standing to sue. And here, if you can prove any detriment whatsoever from the fraud, you are entitled to at least nominal damages, even if you can't prove entitlement to compensatory damages. Since its a tort action, nominal damages for fraud gets you to the jury on punis. Viola!!!

And if wishes were horses...

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

I'm not wishing anything. I agree that it would be a difficult case. But I also think that some of the buyers could probably come up with something other than the purchase price which would get you to the jury. Buyer's fee on purchase then private sale, whatever. The capital gains tax issue for the one winner suggested above is an interesting thought.

If you get to the jury on punis then all bets are off. It probably wouldn't cost too much to try either. A couple of depositions and a summary judgment response. Give it to a young lawyer who needs courtroom time and let them run with it.

[nolemmings]

It probably wouldn't cost too much to try either. A couple of depositions and a summary judgment response. Give it to a young lawyer who needs courtroom time and let them run with it.

I dunno Kenny. Given the Dfs I could see a lot of paper thrown around and hurdles tossed in the way, valid or not. Besides, given the upside and potential notoriety, wouldn't you want to tackle it yourself?

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by travrosty

the woman who won the psa 8 wagner in the treat entertainment/walmart giveaway paid too much windfall taxes on the card when she won it, when in fact, her tax burden would have been much less had the card been properly graded by the people who purportedly gave it an 8 instead of an A to suit their own greedy interests. that is grounds for a lawsuit.

That transaction took place before it was graded, I believe.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I dunno Kenny. Given the Dfs I could see a lot of paper thrown around and hurdles tossed in the way, valid or not. Besides, given the upside and potential notoriety, wouldn't you want to tackle it yourself?

Todd,

Uh, no. I am well past the stage where I care about potential notoriety and have other cases which probably have more potential upside. As far as I am concerned this is a theoretical issue only. Thus, the hungry young lawyer angle seems perfect to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter,

I'm not wishing anything. I agree that it would be a difficult case. But I also think that some of the buyers could probably come up with something other than the purchase price which would get you to the jury. Buyer's fee on purchase then private sale, whatever. The capital gains tax issue for the one winner suggested above is an interesting thought.

If you get to the jury on punis then all bets are off. It probably wouldn't cost too much to try either. A couple of depositions and a summary judgment response. Give it to a young lawyer who needs courtroom time and let them run with it.

So Jim Copeland pays 125K, sells for 461K less Sotheby's cut, and he has a fraud claim that gets him to a jury for punitive damages. OK. If you say so. Or Brian Siegel who bought for $1M plus and sold for $2M plus. Yeah, he would make an excellent fraud plaintiff.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

That transaction took place before it was graded, I believe.

No it was graded, Gretzky sold it to Walmart who then had a promotion.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Jim Copeland pays 125K, sells for 461K less Sotheby's cut, and he has a fraud claim that gets him to a jury for punitive damages. OK. If you say so. Or Brian Siegel who bought for $1M plus and sold for $2M plus. Yeah, he would make an excellent fraud plaintiff.

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not you could get a claim to the jury. IMO, you can. Now you are dodging that question and raising a completely different issue. You must be a defense lawyer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not you could get a claim to the jury. IMO, you can. Now you are dodging that question and raising a completely different issue. You must be a defense lawyer.

And in now saying it is a theoretical issue only you must be backpedaling from your initial post where you were much more enthusiastic. An appropriately chastened plaintiff's lawyer.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And in now saying it is a theoretical issue only you must be backpedaling from your initial post where you were much more enthusiastic. An appropriately chastened plaintiff's lawyer.

Peter,

It has always been theoretical to me. Since I disagreed about the standing issue, I started thinking about it. That doesn't mean that I want the case. As I said, that is a case for a younger lawyer who needs trial time to make.

But, since you so adroitly avoided the issue, I assume that you now agree there is at least a "theoretical" possibility that it can get to the jury. I'm sure that is a difficult concession for a defense lawyer to make, even if the concession is only implicit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I concede nothing I cant imagine a colorable harm any prior buyer could establish.

[nolemmings]

Defense lawyers always acknowledge that a case could get to a jury--they just call it the idiot judge factor

[Kenny Cole]

Run, run like the wind ...

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

That transaction took place before it was graded, I believe.

Barry: That card was graded by 1991 -- and I know this because I was quoted in New York Magazine about what I would think this card would sell for. Trust me, my guess was less than half of what the final selling price was. But the woman who won that card won that card circa 1995-96 and that was after 1991 and thus the card was graded when she won that card. Just an FYI for the timeline.

And that is not because I have such a great memory, instead I was writing one of my rambling columns for Sports Collectors Daily and googled Rich Klein Beckett analyst and that quote popped up.

Regards
Rich

[deadballfreaK]

Mastro is a criminal. Doesn't matter one iota if the cards increased in value. He set out with an intent to defraud for personal gain. But he has a lot of money he has swindled people out of. He'll get a great defense and probably wind up at home wearing an ankle bracelet for a year. Some stupid, poor slob who has a bag of weed will rot for 20 years. Justice in this country is what you can afford.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by deadballfreaK

Mastro is a criminal. Doesn't matter one iota if the cards increased in value. He set out with an intent to defraud for personal gain. But he has a lot of money he has swindled people out of. He'll get a great defense and probably wind up at home wearing an ankle bracelet for a year. Some stupid, poor slob who has a bag of weed will rot for 20 years. Justice in this country is what you can afford.

Great post, and unfortunatley probably true.

If he does go to prison,it will be a cushy federal prison where they have tennis courts or golf courses, and have movie nights with popcorn and soft drinks. Maybe even hang out with Bernie.

" Justice in this country is what you can afford" - great way to sum things up!

Sincerely, Clayton

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Leon

Maybe, and if he did he might be right. I don't condone the fraud with the trimming but it's still the best looking Wags in the hobby. I am still undecided if I think it's value has held. It certainly might have. It's hard to say.....

This certainly isn't any kind of surprise to anyone. The card is in fact the best appearing Wagner by a wide margin, and its mystique won't change at all. I believe most of the owners of the card, if not absolutely all of them, already knew what Mastro recently confirmed. My humble prediction is that it will continue to rise in value as it has habitually done, and will change hands for $50 million or more within a quarter century or so (that's in the vicinity of 12% compounded annually, a rate a top flight collectible is easily capable of in most collectible fields).

Best wishes,

Larry

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No it was graded, Gretzky sold it to Walmart who then had a promotion.

Thanks Peter. After I posted I was thinking maybe I was wrong. I know it sold raw in the Copeland Sale, so it must have been graded right after that. My error.

And thanks Rich also. My memory is not as crisp as it once was.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by deadballfreaK

Mastro is a criminal. Doesn't matter one iota if the cards increased in value. He set out with an intent to defraud for personal gain. But he has a lot of money he has swindled people out of. He'll get a great defense and probably wind up at home wearing an ankle bracelet for a year. Some stupid, poor slob who has a bag of weed will rot for 20 years. Justice in this country is what you can afford.

I agree with your sentiment but really? You think he'll get an ankle bracelet when he is trying to plea for 30 months or less behind bars AND IT'S not being accepted. And now the plea has been turned down twice by the judge. No, I think on that aspect, you are incorrect. He will do some time, we just don't know how much. Personally it would have been nice to see some kind of restitution, somehow. Maybe take monies and use it for charity if the victims can't be identified easily.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Thanks Peter. After I posted I was thinking maybe I was wrong. I know it sold raw in the Copeland Sale, so it must have been graded right after that. My error.

And thanks Rich also. My memory is not as crisp as it once was.

it was graded by 1991 because it was exhibited at the 91 national in anaheim and it was in its psa holder. i saw it there behind the velvet rope.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Thanks Peter. After I posted I was thinking maybe I was wrong. I know it sold raw in the Copeland Sale, so it must have been graded right after that. My error.

And thanks Rich also. My memory is not as crisp as it once was.

Right, Gretzky and McNall had it graded. Walmart bought it next for a promotion but the woman who won the promotion had to sell because of the taxes and Gidwitz won it at auction.

Kenny, Walmart would be a good client, maybe they are interested in pursuing a fraud claim.