[Peter_Spaeth]

To begin, though some of those letters concern alleged shill bidding at Mastro Auctions,
many do not. See Doc. Nos. 90, 114, 150. Several do not even contain specific allegations of
misconduct, by Bill or anyone else. See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 124, 146; Supplemental Report to S.R.
at 3-4. Certainly, these letter writers felt aggrieved by Bill’s conduct. And we do not intend to
minimize Bill’s conduct, for which he has taken, and continues to take, full responsibility. We
simply observe that most of the letters submitted to the Court do not relate to Bill’s offense
conduct, convey allegations neither established nor relied upon by the Government and, in
multiple instances, do not even allege any specific wrongdoing.

Moreover, several of the letter writers assume they were victimized by shill bidding
because the items they purchased, or related items, subsequently depreciated in value. But such
allegations simply do not suggest, let alone prove, shill bidding. Scott Joy, for example, writes
that he has “no proof I was shilled but it sure feels like it” because some of the cards he
purchased from Mastro Auctions have resold for “50-70% of what I paid.” (Doc. No. 113). Mr.
Joy does not identify the specific items in question. But even accepting that Mr. Joy’s purchases
were subsequently resold at lower prices, that does not mean—or even suggest—that the original
sales were affected by shill bidding. Items purchased at auction reflect one person’s
idiosyncratic valuation; sometimes collectibles, like many other market goods, lose value.


Similarly, Richard Levy writes that he “feel[s] that it is likely that I was a victim of shill
bidding” on the Jackie Robinson game-used bat that he purchased for $82,356 because other
Robinson bats have since realized lower prices at auction; thus, Mr. Levy concludes, the price at
which he purchased his bat must have been artificially inflated by shill bidding. (Doc. No. 91).
Mr. Levy’s feeling is inconsistent with the available evidence. First, Mr. Levy’s final bid on this
item was actually a ceiling bid of $90,798, which means that Mr. Levy was voluntarily prepared
to pay any price up to $90,798 for this bat. But Mr. Levy was not “bid up” to his ceiling: he won
the bat for $82,356. Second, this specific bat—the only available “game-used” bat from
Robinson’s 1949 MVP season—had unique historical significance, which explains why it sold
for a higher price than other Robinson game-used bats available in the market.21 Third, Mr. Levy
alleges that the value of his bat has not risen because a different Robinson game-used bat sold for
$83,650 in August 2011. But in fact, in July 2013, Mr. Levy’s exact bat was resold for more
than $156,000—approximately 57% higher than Mr. Levy’s purchase price.


Steven Cummings also claims to have been a victim of shill bidding and requests a
refund of the “over charges incurred during the shill bidding process.” Although he has never
met Bill, he goes on to suggest that Bill suffers from a personality disorder and “major character
defect.” (Doc. No. 124). Like Mr. Levy and Mr. Joy, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr.
Cummings was a victim of shill bidding. Just the opposite: like Mr. Levy, Mr. Cummings won
several lots for less than the maximum prices he had voluntarily bid and was willing to pay. For
example, Mr. Cummings won a first-edition 19th-century baseball publication, for which he had
placed a ceiling bid up to $10,454, for $4,875. He won an early 20th-century baseball
publication, for which he had placed a ceiling bid up to $25,286, for $17,270. He won an
autographed 1928 Ty Cobb biography, for which he had placed a ceiling bid up to $4,506, for
$3,076. And like Mr. Levy’s bat, all of these items were ultimately resold at higher prices at
auction.

Again, we offer these clarifications without intending, in any way, to minimize the
seriousness of Bill’s crime or to diminish Bill’s acceptance of responsibility. Bill apologizes to
customers and colleagues in the industry for any harm he has caused them. Given all of the
publicity surrounding Bill’s offense, as well as the solicitations on hobbyist message boards to
contact the Court, see supra note 20, it is certainly understandable how it came to pass that
eleven former customers wrote to the Court to share their grievances. We respectfully submit
that the hundreds of letters of support on Bill’s behalf, scores of them written by former
customers and colleagues, provide meaningful context for the eleven that the Court has received
directly.