[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

In another thread on this board about this matter Billingsly's reply about his descriptions was "He said that Lew told him that that would be an ok description so that is what he did. Two things -

1. Does this not confirm that the cards are in fact from the Lipset auction where they were sold as "trimmed"? Why else ask Lew?

2. Upon asking Lipset about wording of future sales of these same cards without using the word "trimmed" as Lew did in his auction and with Lew now knowing the intention of the question was reselling of the cards - two people are now involved. Doesn't that fit the legal definition of conspiracy to commit fraud?

Can any of the lawyers on the board confirm or explain this?