Posted By:
cmoking"Actually I think the intent issue is easier to prove IF the policy is to return slabbed altered cards in the original slabs. Such a policy in effect says they don't care whether collectors continue to be defrauded by their re-authentication of altered cards, which to me makes it a much smaller step to establishing the necessary intent that they knew."
Corey, thanks for the response. I assume you are a lawyer since you sound like you know what you are talking about. A question for you: how do you find out what their policy is? If questioned in court or by authorities, couldn't PSA simply say: we didn't find any altered cards that were submitted in PSA holders, we did a good job on them in the first place. Since we didn't find any altered cards in our holders, obviously we didn't return any slabbed altered cards back.
In your example of the tax stuff, I'm not sure its such a good analogy. PSA is considered an expert, not just some individual. Given that they are considered an expert or the expert, then who would a reasonable jury consider to be more expert? Guys deep in the hobby (such as people here) would know better, but 12 random people would not. Wouldn't they think the N54 crowd was a bunch of geeky collectors (no offense intended, I'm one of them) as opposed to a corporation like PSA? I think that was the analogy you were making, correct me if I'm wrong. Also please forgive and/or correct me if I've confused some legal concepts.
"If, though, the policy is to take slabbed altered cards out of circulation..." I think you can stop right there. There is no "if" when it comes to this half-point resubmission. The whole policy is to allow collectors to get a half-point on some cards and for PSA to gain some revenue. They aren't looking to protect collectors or lose money.