Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Brent was definitely cooperating at one point, as acknowledged by his counsel at the time.
On another point, yes it's difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under the rules of evidence in many cases even where the person is guilty, but in this case that wouldn't be because of any doubt that trimming is an impermissible alteration, on that point I would not be troubled. It would clearly be a material omission not to disclose a card is trimmed. You don't need an absolute consensus to establish that anyhow.
|
I know, and I'm with you, but if the trimming is such that the TPG doesn't catch it (or says they didn't), it is kind of like money laundering now that the card resides in a respected and trusted TPG's holder. These TPGs have put forth that they are the experts, and based on the kind of money thrown at them to grade cards and the premiums cards in certain TPG holders seem to bring over raw and other graded cards in the hobby, it sure seems like they are considered the be-all and end-all experts. So, unless some card doctor comes forth and actually admits he/she submitted an altered/trimmed card to a TPG that they then mistakenly graded, you aren't likely going to be able to convict the card doctor of anything. By mistakenly encapsulation an altered/trimmed card, the TPG hobby expert has effectively opined and said the card was good. So who else do you bring in to court to testify against an accepted hobby expert? I'm not so sure the BODA/Blowout guys would be automatically afforded the same level of respect and expertise acceptance in a court of law in front of a jury as the TPGs who actually have people paying them for their work and opinions. And if you do find and bring in a different TPG to testify against them:
1. Now the jury is going to see that the supposed TPG experts actually don't appear to all have or follow the same grading standards and measures (unless the TPG being testified against is suddenly willing to admit they blew it and made a mistake).
2. Now you've set a precedent of one TPG testifying against another, which could end up backfiring down the road if the two TPGs ever find their positions switched in some future case. I can easily see one TPG agreeing to testify against another as revenge for testimony that was previously given against them.