Bill Mastro's upcoming sentencing

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

A more realistic inference to be drawn is that they told him what they saw on the back of the card was inconclusive, especially considering they looked at the back of the card not inside an FBI lab with FBI equipment but with whatever they could find at the PSA booth.

If there was inadequate equipment on site to make a proper assessment, and they had some suspicion the card might be stolen (which I assume to be the case since they took it from him), why didn't they (if you know) keep the card for further evaluation rather than returning it to Leon?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If there was inadequate equipment on site to make a proper assessment, and they had some suspicion the card might be stolen (which I assume to be the case since they took it from him), why didn't they (if you know) keep the card for further evaluation rather than returning it to Leon?

You'd have to ask them.

[danmckee]

WOW! Serious detective work with the scans and pointing out the remnants of the stamp.

I am contacting Heritage to remove my bids on this item.

On a good note... that will free up some coinage to pop something else in this KILLER auction! Oh how I wish I had more to spend

C everyone in CHI-TOWN

Dan

[Peter_Spaeth]

I guess how I would come out then would depend a lot on the exact words used when the card was returned.

But without knowing that, if the FBI took a card from me, and then gave it back to me without requiring further evaluation, that would give me some comfort. I'm not sure I would then feel obliged to conduct my own forensic examination, if the FBI itself did not feel one was warranted, or could yield any evidence relevant to the issue.

With hindsight, we can see that more could have been done. But it's hindsight.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess how I would come out then would depend a lot on the exact words used when the card was returned.

But without knowing that, if the FBI took a card from me, and then gave it back to me without requiring further evaluation, that would give me some comfort. I'm not sure I would then feel obliged to conduct my own forensic examination, if the FBI itself did not feel one was warranted, or could yield any evidence relevant to the issue.

With hindsight, we can see that more could have been done. But it's hindsight.

Did you read the transcript?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I did but it was a little hard to follow and also it was before it was returned, right, because Scott was saying he didn't think it would be returned and Leon was saying he thought he would get it back at least for now?

[mr.ginter]

I won't kick a dog when he's down. Even though there are a few items I'd love to own in my collection listed. I'm going to follow John's lead and won't be bidding on any items from Leon's collection. In case this is considered a controversial post and you need my first and last name its Scott Hassel.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Leon

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear.

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess how I would come out then would depend a lot on the exact words used when the card was returned.

But without knowing that, if the FBI took a card from me, and then gave it back to me without requiring further evaluation, that would give me some comfort. I'm not sure I would then feel obliged to conduct my own forensic examination, if the FBI itself did not feel one was warranted, or could yield any evidence relevant to the issue.

With hindsight, we can see that more could have been done. But it's hindsight.

I can imagine the FBI could have a million reasons to do this. Remember the FBI is not concerned with matters of truth but of law. You can be 100 percent sure something is stolen, but even if you witnessed the theft yourself it doesn't mean there's anything you can do legally without proof that would hold up in a court of law. The truth and the determination of the law are two very different things.

But at the end of the day the FBI's opinion doesn't matter that much to me. This community knows more about baseball cards and their history than any FBI agent. We know the card has an NYPL stamp, we know the NYPL has reported that exact card stolen, of which there are two known copies in the world. There are no records that I know of of the library selling that card (if there were, it would be a different story). The card was altered to remove the stamp (by the way, the fact that it's holdered with a number grade should be enough to take the auction down right this second...) and there's no mention of the library in its supposedly extensive provenance records.

I think this is a pretty open and shut case. If it looks, quacks, then duck, etc.

And honestly for Leon to classify this as a witch hunt I think is ultra-hypocritical. There have been so many auction busting threads in the past, but suddenly when it's one of Leon's items, Leon's response is that the community is out to get him. The very community with all his supporters and the people who consider him to be one of the pillars of the hobby. I mean honestly, give me a break.

[autograf]

There you go Joann.......throwing some logic on the fire.......

I'd agree on the thorough vetting of it. On the surface, it sure looks like the NYPL card. What recourse would Leon have with who he bought it from and their consignor? I'd pursue that avenue too.

Hopefully it gets resolved soon.........

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

I can imagine the FBI could have a million reasons to do this. Remember the FBI is not concerned with matters of truth but of law. You can be 100 percent sure something is stolen, but even if you witnessed the theft yourself it doesn't mean there's anything you can do legally without proof that would hold up in a court of law. The truth and the determination of the law are two very different things.

But at the end of the day the FBI's opinion doesn't matter that much to me. This community knows more about baseball cards and their history than any FBI agent. We know the card has an NYPL stamp, we know the NYPL has reported that exact card stolen, of which there are two known copies in the world. There are no records that I know of of the library selling that card (if there were, it would be a different story). The card was altered to remove the stamp (by the way, the fact that it's holdered with a number grade should be enough to take the auction down right this second...) and there's no mention of the library in its supposedly extensive provenance records.

I think this is a pretty open and shut case. If it looks, quacks, then duck, etc.

And honestly for Leon to classify this as a witch hunt I think is ultra-hypocritical. There have been so many auction busting threads in the past, but suddenly when it's one of Leon's items, Leon's response is that the community is out to get him. The very community with all his supporters and the people who consider him to be one of the pillars of the hobby. I mean honestly, give me a break.

We have known SINCE YESTERDAY of the NYPL stamp. Show me where "the community" knew this before yesterday.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

It's not a question of whether they want it back. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through. Recovering a stolen item back isn't an easy process when you're a government-owned institution, you have a lot of bureaucracy to get through.

Only reason I take issue with it is because in the past libraries have had things stolen from them, and even when it's proven, the libraries haven't had the resources to formally request the return of the item. it's actually really sad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

Wow, it seems like years since you have posted. Welcome back. How is your law practice going?

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We have known SINCE YESTERDAY of the NYPL stamp. Show me where "the community" knew this before yesterday.

That's kinda my point...

FBI didn't notice the stamp, community did. And the FBI were the ones actively investigating it. Wouldn't you think the FBI would think to check for the stamp from the institution where it was reported stolen? It took the community to figure that out, not the FBI. And yea it took some time but it still happened before the FBI, which doesn't do much for my confidence in them. That's all I'm saying.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

It's not a question of whether they want it back. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through. Recovering a stolen item back isn't an easy process when you're a government-owned institution, you have a lot of bureaucracy to get through.

Only reason I take issue with it is because in the past libraries have had things stolen from them, and even when it's proven, the libraries haven't had the resources to formally request the return of the item. it's actually really sad.

True, probably. But IMO that still doesn't mean that Leon is somehow a jerk for wanting to know with some certainty that it's stolen, have a simple request for its return, and gosh maybe some time to think about it before he just tosses a mid-5-digit card in the mail.

Badgering him to commit RIGHT NOW right here in this forum to returning it forthwith, hang the proof of stolen and with no request, is really absurd. No one else would. Lord knows I certainly wouldn't.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wow, it seems like years since you have posted. Welcome back. How is your law practice going?

Thanks Peter. I do crawl out from under my rock every now and then. The practice is going well. I'm enjoying the flexibility but can also see that it would have been better to do this when I was younger! Hope all is well with you.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by jmk59

True, probably. But IMO that still doesn't mean that Leon is somehow a jerk for wanting to know with some certainty that it's stolen, have a simple request for its return, and gosh maybe some time to think about it before he just tosses a mid-5-digit card in the mail.

Badgering him to commit RIGHT NOW right here in this forum to returning it forthwith, hang the proof of stolen and with no request, is really absurd. No one else would. Lord knows I certainly wouldn't.

I wasn't asking him to commit to anything with the knowledge we have currently. I was asking him in the hypothetical situation where the NYPL confirms it's stolen but does not have the resources to formally ask for it back, whether or not he'd return it.

Honestly I think if this were about someone else, Leon would be chiming in right now saying he'd return the card if it was his and everyone else would do the same. But because it's Leon's card I think people are treating it differently, which is a bit unfair. Or maybe not, who knows really.

[chernieto]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems to me the criticism here involves some degree of hindsight, and some assumptions that may or may not be true.

Seems to be a very common theme to a many of these threads.
Add in some aggressive lawyer(s) who insult anyone who takes up a stance against their assumptions.
Over and over the presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems absent.
It sure can take the joy out of Mudville, in my humble opinion
Paul Chern

[japhi]

Originally Posted by jmk59

True, probably. But IMO that still doesn't mean that Leon is somehow a jerk for wanting to know with some certainty that it's stolen, have a simple request for its return, and gosh maybe some time to think about it before he just tosses a mid-5-digit card in the mail.

Badgering him to commit RIGHT NOW right here in this forum to returning it forthwith, hang the proof of stolen and with no request, is really absurd. No one else would. Lord knows I certainly wouldn't.

Amen, If this was my card I would do my due diligence as well. I don't know Leon but will assume 50K is a big number to him.

The grandstanding on this thread is a little over the top - one guy claims he would spend night and day trying to find the history of the card. My guess is that guy would sell the card private and wash his lands, like the large majority of folks on this board would do.

I also can't think of any other forum on the internet where the owner lets the members take runs at him, it's fascinating to watch.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

That's kinda my point...

FBI didn't notice the stamp, community did. And the FBI were the ones actively investigating it. Wouldn't you think the FBI would think to check for the stamp from the institution where it was reported stolen? It took the community to figure that out, not the FBI. And yea it took some time but it still happened before the FBI, which doesn't do much for my confidence in them. That's all I'm saying.

You may well be right in hindsight that the FBI did not do its homework, I don't know. But again, at the time in question, I am not sure Leon was on notice of that, such that he should have (as John is claiming) undertaken an independent forensic investigation to "clear" the card.

[wonkaticket]

This is an easy fix. Leon has 10k in this thing. Mastro has an upcoming sentencing and has every reason under the sun to make major public issues like this go away before he sits in front of a judge. Leon should get his 10k back or more from his good buddy Bill inbetween picking up gifts, then make an effort to return the item to the NYPL if in fact stolen. Which it is pretty clear that it is, as nothing from the Splading collection was ever sold or released from the NYPL to my knowledge.

Working around the shades of grey, legal technicalities, carefully worded auction descriptions and playing naive in order to let this go to auction for a profit is what was happening prior to this all coming to light. This whole story may be news to some here but this wasn't news to Leon.

In the end he won't be out anything he just won't profit from a prior theft. My issues are why wasn't this addressed by him long ago? Not like he wasn't made clearly aware.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You may well be right in hindsight that the FBI did not do its homework, I don't know. But again, at the time in question, I am not sure Leon was on notice of that, such that he should have (as John is claiming) undertaken an independent forensic investigation to "clear" the card.

Oh I totally agree with you there. I think Leon did all the due diligence with the card in regards to the FBI. I probably would have done the same thing. That being said, I don't have all the evidence and a lot of people are accusing Leon of knowing more than he let on. Again, I'm not really entrenched enough in the hobby to make that determination myself, but if it's true it would be really disheartening.

I was just kinda concerned about the way Leon was reacting to the evidence of the NYPL stamp, but I also understand why he's defensive about it considering he spent so much money on it and is probably reluctant to part with it. I just hope he's as morally rigorous when it comes to himself as when it comes to others. But it's too early to tell that, we'll know by the end of the auction.

[Exhibitman]

Nice post Joann. Hate to sound all lawyerly here but has anyone considered that Leon might be the lawful owner of the card? A minority of states (and I believe Texas is one) allow a thief or his successor to convey good title to a bona fide purchaser. Before we bust out the tar and feathers I think we need an answer to that question.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Nice post Joann. Hate to sound all lawyerly here but has anyone considered that Leon might be the lawful owner of the card? A minority of states (and I believe Texas is one) allow a thief or his successor to convey good title to a bona fide purchaser. Before we bust out the tar and feathers I think we need an answer to that question.

I find that hard to believe, I thought the rule throughout the US was nemo dat quod non habet -- a thief cannot convey good title, therefore a subsequent purchaser cannot acquire good title. Always happy to learn though.

EDIT TO ADD I suppose there could be some variance in state statutes of limitation, but again, I would be surprised if any state allowed a subsequent purchaser's rights to prevail over an original owner whose goods were stolen. As the common law doctrine says, nobody can give what he doesn't have.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I find that hard to believe, I thought the rule throughout the US was nemo dat quod non habet -- a thief cannot convey good title, therefore a subsequent purchaser cannot acquire good title. Always happy to learn though.

You and your damn French.

Tom C

[nolemmings]

Interesting full faith and credit implications, or at least issues concerning interstate commerce. If seller is lawful owner under his State's law, does buyer's State have to recognize the sale as valid if it would otherwise not be? If any buyer in the chain of title after thief lived in a State that recognizes a BFP as having a valid interest, are all subsequent States where buyers reside bound to that same determination? I've actually got to go bill some time now, but crackerjack researcher and scholar Peter_Spaeth no doubt will have an informed response upon my return

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Interesting full faith and credit implications, or at least issues concerning interstate commerce. If seller is lawful owner under his State's law, does buyer's State have to recognize the sale as valid if it would otherwise not be? If any buyer in the chain of title after thief lived in a State that recognizes a BFP as having a valid interest, are all subsequent States where buyers reside bound to that same determination? I've actually got to go bill some time now, but crackerjack researcher and scholar Peter_Spaeth no doubt will have an informed response upon my return

For these very reasons, and the fact that we have a Uniform Commercial Code, I very much doubt the law varies according to state. But I am not going to research it any more than to note a quick google search reveals a scholarly article stating the principle I stated as the American rule.

[baseballart]

In case anyone is interested, the NYPL library contact information is:

Robert J. Vanni
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations
Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street
New York, New York 10018-2788
tel. (212) 930-0744
fax (212) 391-2503
rvanni@nypl.org


I'm not sure if this is still current. When I contacted Robert on an auction item a few years ago, he advised that it had been de-accessioned. He also welcomed queries on any other item where title might be in question.

Max

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

You and your damn French.

Tom C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnOcwy3Jle0

[Exhibitman]

Unfortunately the UCC is not uniform across jurisdictions. Many states enact their own modified versions. I ran across one such variance between states in a case and it made a difference in the outcome.

[danmckee]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Unfortunately the UCC is not uniform across jurisdictions. Many states enact their own modified versions. I ran across one such variance between states in a case and it made a difference in the outcome.

Did you win or lose that one Adam?

[calvindog]

While I'm sure all of the civil lawyers mean well, I think you're doing a disservice to Leon who, as noted in the Heritage catalog, was engaging in "philanthropy" by selling his collection to pay for his daughter's education. I say this sincerely that I think the last thing he would then want to have happen is to use a legal loophole to keep a card stolen from the New York Public Library. Kind of the opposite of "philanthropy," you know?

[Peter_Spaeth]

This civil lawyer does not believe such a loophole exists, assuming the card was stolen. But if someone can point me to something contrary....

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

This civil lawyer does not believe such a loophole exists, assuming the card was stolen. But if someone can point me to something contrary....

I'm controlling myself from making the obvious joke here....

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We have known SINCE YESTERDAY of the NYPL stamp. Show me where "the community" knew this before yesterday.

Peter, I can't speak for everyone but I knew about it that's why I brought it up (post #195) to Leon before it ever hit Nash's website.

Many people knew of Leon's visit about this this card from the Feds it's a small hobby. Most figured he would work it out or get the questions on this item cleared up before hit ever hit an auction block or was sold privately. Seems that didn't happen....and it seems from the auction description some folks were aware and were covering all the angles.

Look owning a stolen item doesn't make you a crook not in the collectibles world that's for sure it could happen to any of us. In that way I have sympathy for Leon. To me it's how you handle the item and the choices you make after you're made clearly aware of issues that defines the situation. That's my issue with Leon in this situation. Not the stolen or potentially stolen card, but the way he handled the situation with this item and letting it hit the auction block. To play naive, innocent, call people names and play the victim of a witch hunt afterwards just further frustrates me. Get over yourself you're not so important that myself and others are out to get you. What I did here with Leon is nothing I haven't done with other folks Leland's, Chan, Paragon, Allen, Goldin etc. in those cases it was good work kudos or silence from Leon. Now that he's in the hot seat I'm an idiot, Jeff has a shady law practice and we all can pound sand,

Cheers,

John

P.S. I just got your email I would agree a bit it could be a good thing to talk about over beers at the national if you're heading out. At the very least give us a reason to drink.

[Exhibitman]

Won it, Dan.

It depends on how the item was taken. A burglar gets nothing by way of title in the USA. An embezzler, check kiter or similar criminal fraudster gets voidable title that may be cleared by a bona fide purchaser. It depends on which version of the UCC the state uses. Quite apart from that is the issue of limitations. A lawsuit to reclaim an item after the theft of a readily identifiable item that has gone through multiple public sales over decades may be deemed to be untimely even if the original thief obtained only void (no) title.

As for the rest of the commentary re lawyers, I hope that every lawyer would analyze the issues based on getting his or her client what he or she wants, regardless of the outcome. My client may be a crook but he is entitled to the full benefit of the law same as I am. If there is a chance that the client has good title I need to advise accordingly even if I disagree. We all represent our share of scumbags, right counsellors?

fWIW if it was my card involved I would force them to prove it was stolen before I hand it back. Sorry but I'm not going to hand $50k or more to someone on the basis of anything written here no matter how well intentioned.

[Peter_Spaeth]

John, yes to be sure his is not the first time questions were raised about the card, but I am wondering why you think Leon was obligated to conduct his own investigation after the FBI gave him back the card rather than keeping it to do further forensic analysis. If the federal agency investigating the theft that obviously has sophisticated crime labs tells him there isn't anything further that can be done to trace it to the NYPL because they will never be able to read the stamp, why isn't that a clean enough bill of health? And what's the burden of proof here -- does one have to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that a card is not stolen in order to be able to sell it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Won it, Dan.

It depends on how the item was taken. A burglar gets nothing by way of title in the USA. An embezzler, check kiter or similar criminal fraudster gets voidable title that may be cleared by a bona fide purchaser. It depends on which version of the UCC the state uses. Quite apart from that is the issue of limitations. A lawsuit to reclaim an item after the theft of a readily identifiable item that has gone through multiple public sales over decades may be deemed to be untimely even if the original thief obtained only void (no) title.

As for the rest of the commentary re lawyers, I hope that every lawyer would analyze the issues based on getting his or her client what he or she wants, regardless of the outcome. My client may be a crook but he is entitled to the full benefit of the law same as I am.

fWIW if it was my card involved I would force them to prove it was stolen before I hand it back. Sorry but I'm not going to hand $50k or more to someone on the basis of anything written here no matter how well intentioned.

Adam if the card was stolen then it was stolen by someone who walked out of the building with it, not by some means by which the thief acquired voidable title. That seems reasonably clear. And I agree with you there possibly could be a statute of limitations issue, as I previously mentioned, but that is a separate question from whether a bona fide purchaser could acquire good title.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

As for the rest of the commentary re lawyers, I hope that every lawyer would analyze the issues based on getting his or her client what he or she wants, regardless of the outcome. My client may be a crook but he is entitled to the full benefit of the law same as I am. If there is a chance that the client has good title I need to advise accordingly even if I disagree. We all represent our share of scumbags, right counsellors?

Wow, so you mean you don't conspire with your clients when they do bad things? Because I've heard otherwise.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by japhi

The grandstanding on this thread is a little over the top - one guy claims he would spend night and day trying to find the history of the card. My guess is that guy would sell the card private and wash his lands, like the large majority of folks on this board would do.

If you have anymore guesses in the future Matt, will you at least try to make them educated guesses?

[GaryPassamonte]

This thread starts out questioning the sentence of a profligate lawbreaker and ends up berating an individual for not returning an item, not legally proven to be stolen, and finally to trust the same legal system to help him recoup his possible losses from who knows who. Yeah, sounds like a good idea. I would say this would be a time for caution, not haste.

[wonkaticket]

Peter good question. Look let's be honest the Feds come and take one of your items as potentially stolen. Then let's say it's returned with "hey this thing is fishy but we are limited on resources and limited by law on what we can do here. However heads up this is an issue you may want to look into, in the end can't tell you what to do."

I think the better question is why as a collector would you not want to exercise all due diligence to either clear the misunderstanding up. Or better yet look to make yourself whole if in fact you were duped. This is what the avg. collector which I consider myself to be would do. Now let's set a differnt set of rules on top of this that wouldn't apply to the average collector like many of us.

Leon is a public figure who is outspoken and bold in talking about fraud. He's an owner of an auction company as well as the owner of the hobby's premier message board. A message board famous for outing and detailing issues like this within the hobby.

These reasons and the others I have previously posted is why I think a bit more due diligence was needed from Leon on this. Before offering this card for sale public or private. Also let's be really candid we didnt need a CSI crime lab to figure this out. Chris and Nash did it in a matter of seconds using non original scans and what PhotoShop and a PC?

Leon has the card in his hands what he doesn't have a computer? How does he post from Western Union via telegraph? He doesn't have access to a scanner? That must make putting up those auction lots for B&L tough? He doesn't have access to countless experts, hobbyists and people with computer skills that he could call on for help. I don't know some sort of web based community or something. If one could find such a community. I wonder if there has ever been a situation where folks of this so called community were able to look at marks on cards and determine something that helped obtain a clear outcome for all parties involved.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=112134

Sorry to be so sarcastic but if Leon wanted to know the deal he could have.

Cheers,

John

[travrosty]

If it was Burdick's Wagner from the Met instead of this card, and otherwise the same circumstances, would we even be discussing loopholes on how to keep it?

[JMEnglish27]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

This. Leon's a good guy in my book. I dunno how his integrity can be in doubt. FBI looked at it, told him it was fine, now it turns out it might not be, so he's in wait-and-see mode. What's he supposed to do, take a polygraph in the town square?

[danmckee]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Peter good question. Look let's be honest the Feds come and take one of your items as potentially stolen. Then let's say it's returned with "hey this thing is fishy but we are limited on resources and limited by law on what we can do here. However heads up this is an issue you may want to look into, in the end can't tell you what to do."

I think the better question is why as a collector would you not want to exercise all due diligence to either clear the misunderstanding up. Or better yet look to make yourself whole if in fact you were duped. This is what the avg. collector which I consider myself to be would do. Now let's set a differnt set of rules on top of this that wouldn't apply to the average collector like many of us.

Leon is a public figure who is outspoken and bold in talking about fraud. He's an owner of an auction company as well as the owner of the hobby's premier message board. A message board famous for outing and detailing issues like this within the hobby.

These reasons and the others I have previously posted is why I think a bit more due diligence was needed from Leon on this. Before offering this card for sale public or private. Also let's be really candid we didnt need a CSI crime lab to figure this out. Chris and Nash did it in a matter of seconds using non original scans and what PhotoShop and a PC?

Leon has the card in his hands what he doesn't have a computer? How does he post from Western Union via telegraph? He doesn't have access to a scanner? That must make putting up those auction lots for B&L tough? He doesn't have access to countless experts, hobbyists and people with computer skills that he could call on for help. I don't know some sort of web based community or something. If one could find such a community. I wonder if there has ever been a situation where folks of this so called community were able to look at marks on cards and determine something that helped obtain a clear outcome for all parties involved.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=112134

Sorry to be so sarcastic but if Leon wanted to know the deal he could have.

Cheers,

John

Wonka-Tonka

Instead of all of these posts, you could have taken this precious time to drive that new shiny rocket ship down here to Maryland!

We could have had a blast today!

Dan

[travrosty]

Referencing a post by Dan McKee on that other FBI thread. So why isn't SGC coming on here and saying how this Peck and Snyder card got such a high grade with major erasure and defacing and remnant stamp markings on the back of the card? The erasures even erase part of the natural lettering? Is it because of who now owns it? I don't get it. Where is SGC?



McKee:

A little andendum to John's recent post. I and I am sure we would also like to thank SGC for their cooperation and WILLINGNESS to listen to advanced collectors and then to immediately act and offer assistance.

If PSA had taken this attitude with the Nodgrass, they would have been looked upon as helpful. Instead, Joe had his grader re-examine the Nodgrass and said it was still legit, even after me, John and Rob Lifson stated it was bad.

A true difference in service by the 2 leading grading companies in these particular situations.

[Moonlight Graham]

Maybe this could be a solution: If the card is confirmed to be stolen, Leon should return it to the NYPL if that is what they desire. Or, with their consent, he could have the card sold by an auction house, take his 10,000 back, and then the NYPL could have the rest. Maybe they need the money more than the card back and would be much happier with that scenario. Just my worthless two cents.

Joe

[Leon]

i spoke with the NYPL. The card is being pulled from the auction while a solution is found. Thanks for all of the support. I doubt I post in this thread again and don't care to talk anymore about it publicly.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by travrosty

If it was Burdick's Wagner from the Met instead of this card, and otherwise the same circumstances, would we even be discussing loopholes on how to keep it?

Of course not, if it were anyone else the board would be crucifying them. Not that that's necessarily acceptable either, just pointing out the blatant double standard.

I mean looking for legal loopholes for ways Leon could keep the card? Seriously? The hypocrisy is pretty slimy.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

Of course not, if it were anyone else the board would be crucifying them. Not that that's acceptable either, just pointing out the blatant double standard.

I mean looking for legal loopholes for ways Leon could keep the card? Seriously? The hypocrisy is pretty slimy.

I agree, there wouldnt be any discussion on how someone could keep it, it would go back to the met, period, end of story. Working out some 'deal' is foreign to me as there is a nypl stamp on the back of the card.