Bill Mastro's upcoming sentencing

[Leon]

I have to speak to Heritage for approval but we will get it pulled until we get it all sorted out. And for the record I have never seen anything like that overlay copy before. Had I seen it displayed like that the card wouldn't be in the auction...at least until it was given a clean bill of health. That is why it was in there until now.

[conor912]

Not good

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

We're all famous!

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=39278

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

That overlay does seem to match up perfectly. If it is really the Libraries card I hope they get it back.

This is the part of the law I do not get. Mastro stole insane amounts of money and might get up to 30 months. Then you have a guy that sells a 1/4 ounce of weed to someone and gets more jail time that the guy that done millions of dollars of damage.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Leon

I have to speak to Heritage for approval but we will get it pulled until we get it all sorted out. And for the record I have never seen anything like that overlay copy before. Had I seen it displayed like that the card wouldn't be in the auction...at least until it was given a clean bill of health. That is why it was in there until now.

Com'on Leon really?

Man I hate this but I almost have to give Nash credit here. You're on Jerry's video talking to Scott about the FBI taking your card for review as possibly being stolen from the NYPL. It's then returned to you and what they said nothing? Just tossed it on your table with no input or feedback.

No that can't be the case because you just said above it passed the review and you know all about the cards 25 year history...now this is all new to you? You never have seen this spot?

Hell not long ago there was noise of a stolen Delahanty photo from the Detroit Public Library. There were no details but having just bought a Delahanty photo from Legendary, within minutes I had done the following. Contacted Doug made him aware asked for the photos history, contacted the Feds to get info and made plans if it was stolen to work with DPL to return. In the end it was all good not my photo mine came from a known collectors collection and wasn't even the photo in question. I even updated folks here for added measure.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=203147

My point in 30 mins I knew all there was to be known about my item having a brief but uncalled for scare from a single newspaper article. You're telling me federal agents ask to see your item and return it and you never gave it a second thought or review. Yet the auction description clearly says this was on somebody's mind. You're either the most laid back "laissez faire" guy in the world. Or this is a bit of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil pass the hot potato.

If you are innocent and did get duped, and this is stolen. I'd make sure my next gift from Bill was a check. I also wonder if that is the case does your view on a letter now change being a possible victim?

Cheers,

John

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

That overlay does seem to match up perfectly. If it is really the Libraries card I hope they get it back.

This is the part of the law I do not get. Mastro stole insane amounts of money and might get up to 30 months. Then you have a guy that sells a 1/4 ounce of weed to someone and gets more jail time that the guy that done millions of dollars of damage.

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 have a call into the Library now. I have spoken with Heritage and we will pull the card if need be, no worries. We never wanted to sell a card without a clean bill of health. Unless you are a fraudulent person, as Peter Nash is, you wouldn't want to do that.

And John, you can spin this any way you want to but there is not one iota of anything I did wrong. I said I couldn't talk about some things. Everything I have heard and seen until today said the card was fine. If you don't believe me that is your call.

And not that I need to answer the question about the letter, doesn't change my view one bit.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

+1 I've said the same thing many times.

[Jaybird]

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 have a call into the Library now. I have spoken with Heritage and we will pull the card if need be, no worries. We never wanted to sell a card without a clean bill of health. Unless you are a fraudulent person, as Peter Nash is, you wouldn't want to do that.

And John, you can spin this any way you want to but there is not one iota of anything I did wrong. I said I couldn't talk about some things. Everything I have heard and seen until today said the card was fine. If you don't believe me that is your call.

And not that I need to answer the question about the letter, doesn't change my view one bit.

Changing your opinion based on new information is often the right thing to do.

[aaron1050]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Lastly, of course people can change their minds. I've always appreciated how you changed your mind about Mike O'Keeffe, the NY Daily News reporter who you and others blasted for his purportedly unfair coverage of the Mastro fraud. And how you changed your mind about me after we bickered constantly out here years ago when I was loudly critical of Mastro and Allen -- and I was being roundly criticized for it.

Hey, Leon even reached out and unbanned me! That's good mind-changing.

In all seriousness, I think he's shown real growth in the last seven or eight years in terms of his ability to acknowledge the mountain of evidence (and common sense) against the Mastro/Legendary guys as sufficient to conclude they were crooks, but at the same time he obviously hits the same wall of mental disconnect (separate a person from their actions?) that drove him to so ferociously defend those guys in the first place.

Part of it, I would imagine, is personal relationships and part of it may be some psychological reasons that we'll never understand that contribute to a sort of selective blind spot that causes him to make seemingly incompatible and completely contradictory conclusions while he tried to overlook or explain away or compartmentalize they're bad deeds. I will agree though that even after all of this, it's like one step forward two steps backward to see that Leon was actually considering writing a letter in support of Mastro. Growth yes, but that's just crazy at this point in time (these guys are convicts now!) and goes to the point that we will never understand the psychology here and what drives the reasoning for his need to absolve these guys.

As far as the appropriateness of the penalties, I'm assuming that Mastro was completely cooperative with the feds, and that should warrant some leniency, but I think 7-10 years would have been more appropriate, not 30 months. And understanding just how hard it would be to determine and then distribute a restitution figure, it still would have been appropriate to add a $3M - $5M flat figure as additional punishment.

Otherwise, I'm just happy that these guys were proven to be the frauds they are and so overwhelmingly so -- by federal convictions, plea deals, and real jail time. It should close the books on a very dark episode in the hobby's history when so many were the unknowing victims of significant fraud that undercut what was supposed to be a "hobby".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Where do you get 7-10 years? According to the plea agreement the maximum for the offense is 5, as I read it anyhow (page 16). And where do you get 3-5 million? The plea agreement indicates that the government estimates the total fraud as less than $I million (page 17).

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Where do you get 7-10 years? According to the plea agreement the maximum for the offense is 5, as I read it anyhow (page 16). And where do you get 3-5 million? The plea agreement indicates that the government estimates the total fraud as less than $I million (page 17).

If you read what he wrote he said what he felt was appropriate, not what was in the plea agreement. And his comment about $3-5 million was relating to a penalty -- a fine -- and not restitution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If you read what he wrote he said what he felt was appropriate, not what was in the plea agreement. And his comment about $3-5 million was relating to a penalty -- a fine -- and not restitution.

According to the plea agreement again, the maximum fine is twice the gross gain. And obviously I know how to read, my point is that "appropriate" has to be defined in terms of what the law provides.

[wonkaticket]

Leon. I'm spinning things unfairly huh? Let me get this straight.

Were you or were you not made aware by the Feds that this card could have been from the NYPL?

Were you or were you not discussing this card and it's possible NYPL/Mastro connection with Scott in the video?

After the Feds reviewed your card what was their determination? All clear etc.

Did you make any attempt after the card was returned to investigate the possible NYPL connection on your own prior to offering for sale? Keeping in mind it took Chris above about 30 seconds to raise serious doubts based off a few scans at a glance. If so what conclusion did you come to?

Why was the auction description so clear in listing "library stamp" as the very first thing the mark could be if this is all "new" news to you and was non-issue prior to being listed for sale?

Did you or did you not for years support Bill and Doug and just recently accept and paise gifts from Bill? Only to later after being told how hypocritical that was to announce the gifts return.

I'm not sure how I'm spinning anything I've brought up in this thread. Seems I've been pretty direct. Leon if this set of events above was directed at any other party you would be raising eyebrows also. Tell me you wouldn't.

Sorry but I fail to see a bigger grand picture here. It seems like the same story. Item with potential known issues is listed for sale along with a carefully worded description. Then when it's under the spotlight and questions come up the seller and auction are shocked and surprised they just weren't aware. Like I said the story never changes just the cast....happens to have youu as player this time that's all.

John

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

According to the plea agreement again, the maximum fine is twice the gross gain. And obviously I know how to read, my point is that "appropriate" has to be defined in terms of what the law provides.

Let's split hairs for another week and ignore the 600 pound gorilla in the room. Regardless, the fine has a statutory max on what Mastro pleaded guilty to. Had he been required to plead to a different charge the fine could have been significantly bigger. Same with the maximum statutory period of incarceration. Had he been required to plead to a different charge he could have been facing 20 years and his guidelines significantly higher. Just because prosecutors reached a plea agreement does not suggest for a second that they believe the evidence of fraud is not more significant than what is in the agreement. That's just what they settled on to get rid of the case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Yes I understand all that but that's the world we are in, not your hypothetical one.

[Leon]

John
Keep spinning and I am not going to be a part of your charade. As I said I didn't do anything wrong. If you think I did, great. I didn't. I didn't have to bend over backwards to work with the authorities on this and am in the middle of getting it cleared up now (with their help). ...I won't respond to anymore of your drivel but will report back after the investigation is over. thanks

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Leon. I'm spinning things unfairly huh? Let me get this straight.

Were you or were you not made aware by the Feds that this card could have been from the NYPL?

Were you or were you not discussing this card and it's possible NYPL/Mastro connection with Scott in the video?

After the Feds reviewed your card what was their determination? All clear etc.

Did you make any attempt after the card was returned to investigate the possible NYPL connection on your own prior to offering for sale? Keeping in mind it took Chris above about 30 seconds to raise serious doubts based off a few scans at a glance. If so what conclusion did you come to?

Why was the auction description so clear in listing "library stamp" as the very first thing the mark could be if this is all "new" news to you and was non-issue prior to being listed for sale?

Did you or did you not for years support Bill and Doug and just recently accept and paise gifts from Bill? Only to later after being told how hypocritical that was to announce the gifts return.

I'm not sure how I'm spinning anything I've brought up in this thread. Seems I've been pretty direct. Leon if this set of events above was directed at any other party you would be raising eyebrows also. Tell me you wouldn't.

Sorry but I fail to see a bigger grand picture here. It seems like the same story. Item with potential known issues is listed for sale along with a carefully worded description. Then when it's under the spotlight and questions come up the seller and auction are shocked and surprised they just weren't aware. Like I said the story never changes just the cast....happens to have youu as player this time that's all.

John

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes I understand all that but that's the world we are in, not your hypothetical one.

Yeah, my world is all hypothetical while you spin one contrarian fantasy after another which never results in anything concrete other than more blathering posts amounting to nothing.

[aaron1050]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

According to the plea agreement again, the maximum fine is twice the gross gain. And obviously I know how to read, my point is that "appropriate" has to be defined in terms of what the law provides.

Why? I characterized what I felt would be appropriate punishments for Mastro and crew, not what would be appropriate per applicable sentencing guidelines.

Given the breadth and volume and time period of the fraud, it's brazen nature, and the lack of remorse expressed, my gut tells me 7-10 years and $3M to $5M would have been these guys getting "what they had coming" and an appropriate punishment.

As it is, they're going to jail for a decent amount of time so at least there's that. And at least there's no more real quibbling. Everyone knows these guys are convicted criminals who will do time. Considering where we were with the Mastro/Legendary guys in 2008, it's pretty incredible that we reached this point.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Aaron we definitely agree on the bigger point.

[wonkaticket]

I'm not the one with a potentially stolen card for sale. I'm not the one claiming to do more than 99.9 % of people in this hobby in terms of fighting fraud. While conveniently failing to do basic due diligence on a major ticket item that had serious potential issues. Issues by the way that you were made aware of a year ago by federal authorities. I'm also not the one taking gifts and praising a known major hobby fraud for his generosity.

Like so many before you and so many more to come. I'm so proud of you for doing the right thing after it's made public and no longer under the carpet. May I strive to have your integrity one day. Make no mistake Leon the only spin and charade I see here is coming from the greater Texas area because it's always sunny in Philadelphia.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I'm not the one with a potentially stolen card for sale. I'm not the one claiming to do more than 99.9 % of people in this hobby in terms of fighting fraud. While conveniently failing to do basic due diligence on a major ticket item that had serious potential issues. Issues by the way that you were made aware of a year ago by federal authorities. I'm also not the one taking gifts and praising a known major hobby fraud for his generosity.

Like so many before you and so many more to come. I'm so proud of you for doing the right thing after it's made public and no longer under the carpet. May I strive to have your integrity one day. Make no mistake Leon the only spin and charade I see here is coming from the greater Texas area because it's always sunny in Philadelphia.

The issues I was made aware of a year ago had been cleared up in my mind. When I saw the new information today I took immediate action. What more do you want? Why this crusade? You are acting like an idiot. The authorities I spoke with today didn't indicate they had any issue whatsoever with me. I am good with that. I am sorry I don't live up to your high moral standards though. I will strive very hard though....

[Bicem]

So what's happening with the card?

[poorlydrawncat]

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.

Honestly Leon, of all the things you said, this is the one that really stands out to me as the most concerning, especially the way you phrased it.

"If they ask for it back...". Only if they ask for it to be returned? I find that an odd caveat to make, unless you are aware of the fact that public libraries in the past have not always been on top of recovering their stolen items, even when they've been proven to be stolen. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through.

"If it's proven it's stolen..." What does that mean exactly? What burden of proof are you putting on this? Are you talking about legal proof? If the FBI tells you it's stolen?

As far as I'm concerned we have all the proof we need that the card was stolen, the only thing we don't have is "proof" from a court of law or government agency. If that's what you're talking about, then I think honestly you're just trying to find excuses not to give up the card. For instance, if I witness someone committing a murder, do i need to wait for a jury to decide if he's guilty before I do? Of course not, I can know something to be true even if legally it isn't acknowledged to be so.

In that spirit, let's look at the evidence. Here are the images that people are saying prove that the NY public library stamp was erased:









Ok so from what I can see the card has a bunch of red ink marks on the back. Oddly enough all the ink marks line up PERFECTLY with the NY public library stamp and match the color of the ink used. Oddly enough there are no red marks outside where the stamp would have made them. Also we know the NY public library has a rich history of items exactly like this one being stolen from its coffers.

The combination of these three facts alone makes the odds that these ink marks got there some other way astronomical, like 1 million to 1. And if someone took the time to erase the stamp and hide its true provenance, then the odds are nearly 100 percent that it's stolen.

So I don't get it Leon. Why not just say, "holy crap, you're right, I'm gonna make it right no matter what. Hell, I'll donate it back if that's what it takes!" Why are you putting so many conditions on the return? IF it's proven, IF they ask for it... You don't need to wait for someone to tell you, you and I know more about cards than any FBI agent or judge and we know that card was stolen regardless of whether it's legally acknowledged.

I don’t see how someone who truly was doing more than 99.9 percent of the hobby to combat fraud would be asking us to wait for another opinion or promising to return it on the condition that the library makes a formal request. Someone who was doing more that 99.9 percent of the hobby would donate it back to the library if that’s what it took to get it back in the right hands.

Right now the only thing that’s 99.9 percent is my certainty that the card was stolen.

EDIT: I'd like to apologize in advance if this comes off as too fiery. Want to add that I'm not saying Leon knew anything about the card or wouldn't take action to make sure it was handled the right way. Just pointing out my concerns about the way the issue is being discussed...

[wonkaticket]

It's not my standard Leon it's yours the rest of the 99.9% of us are just sitting on the sidelines while you fight the good fight remember. Luckily I'm not involved fraud or shady stuff because you would "be my worst enemy" or something like that.

I'm just sort of shocked that Chris let alone Nash was able to research a six figure card with limited access in a matter of seconds and raise these questions to you, so you could act so quickly to correct. Again sort of surprised nothing else prior to this gave you reason to act or research this thoroughly before listing with an auction house for sale. Luckily the auction covered all the bases huh?

"There is surface marring or erasure on the back in the same upper quadrant. This could be a library stamp, a collector stamp or the mark of some retailer."

Yeah I guess I'm just an idiot who doesn't get this hobby...you know me.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bicem

So what's happening with the card?

After I speak with the NYPL (hopefully tomorrow but very soon) a determination will be made. It can't be put back in once pulled so we are making sure it was in fact stolen before we pull it. I wish I had seen how that mark was portrayed today, earlier. Such is life. I just bought a card....(and this was the 3rd time it has sold in auction since 1996)

[Leon]

Things were deaccessioned for various reasons. Do some research. Just because there is a mark doesn't mean it was stolen. As a matter of fact according to the document on Nash's website there is one 1869 Red Stocking card reported missing. If JC has/had one, and I have one, how do we know it didn't leave the library under normal conditions? Lots of assumptions here...

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

Honestly Leon, of all the things you said, this is the one that really stands out to me as the most concerning, especially the way you phrased it.

"If they ask for it back...". Only if they ask for it to be returned? I find that an odd caveat to make, unless you are aware of the fact that public libraries in the past have not always been on top of recovering their stolen items, even when they've been proven to be stolen. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through.

"If it's proven it's stolen..." What does that mean exactly? What burden of proof are you putting on this? Are you talking about legal proof? If the FBI tells you it's stolen?

As far as I'm concerned we have all the proof we need that the card was stolen, the only thing we don't have is "proof" from a court of law or government agency. If that's what you're talking about, then I think honestly you're just trying to find excuses not to give up the card. For instance, if I witness someone committing a murder, do i need to wait for a jury to decide if he's guilty before I do? Of course not, I can know something to be true even if legally it isn't acknowledged to be so.

In that spirit, let's look at the evidence. Here are the images that people are saying prove that the NY public library stamp was erased:


Ok so from what I can see the card has a bunch of red ink marks on the back. Oddly enough all the ink marks line up PERFECTLY with the NY public library stamp and match the color of the ink used. Oddly enough there are no red marks outside where the stamp would have made them. Also we know the NY public library has a rich history of items exactly like this one being stolen from its coffers.

The combination of these three facts alone makes the odds that these ink marks got there some other way astronomical, like 1 million to 1. And if someone took the time to erase the stamp and hide its true provenance, then the odds are nearly 100 percent that it's stolen.

So I don't get it Leon. Why not just say, "holy crap, you're right, I'm gonna make it right no matter what. Hell, I'll donate it back if that's what it takes!" Why are you putting so many conditions on the return? IF it's proven, IF they ask for it... You don't need to wait for someone to tell you, you and I know more about cards than any FBI agent or judge and we know that card was stolen regardless of whether it's legally acknowledged.

I don’t see how someone who truly was doing more than 99.9 percent of the hobby to combat fraud would be asking us to wait for another opinion or promising to return it on the condition that the library makes a formal request. Someone who was doing more that 99.9 percent of the hobby would donate it back to the library if that’s what it took to get it back in the right hands.

Right now the only thing that’s 99.9 percent is my certainty that the card was stolen.

EDIT: I'd like to apologize in advance if this comes off as too fiery. Want to add that I'm not saying Leon knew anything about the card or wouldn't take action to make sure it was handled the right way. Just pointing out my concerns about the way the issue is being discussed...

[Stonepony]

On the bright side there is an open bar at the Net54 hors d'oeuvers dinner

[Brian Van Horn]

Just a thought about sentencing:

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

Things were deaccessioned for various reasons. Do some research. Just because there is a mark doesn't mean it was stolen. As a matter of fact according to the document on Nash's website there is one 1869 Red Stocking card reported missing. If JC has/had one, and I have one, how do we know it didn't leave the library under normal conditions? Lots of assumptions here...

No you're right, it's absolutely possible. But the fact that the mark was erased and that the card has a 25 year provenance that doesn't mention the NYPL makes it less of an assumption. But obviously I get your point, and you don't want to assume anything when it comes to a card of this magnitude. But unless the NYPL says they released that card, I think it's no longer an assumption at that point.

Pardon my ignorance, I don't know who JC is or what his copy looks like (I'm not too entrenched in hobby circles). Are you saying JC's card could be the missing one? We know yours has the NY stamp, is there evidence of a stamp on the reverse of his? Otherwise it seems like it takes more assumptions to assume his is the stolen card and not yours. Please correct me if I'm not getting your point about how the other card plays into this.

Also my point was more about the conditions you were putting on the card's return (eg "if it's proven", "if they ask for it"). If the NYPL doesn't have records of it ever being returned to the public, I'd like to know that you would return it on the basis that it was the right thing to do and not because you got a formal request.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Leon

Things were deaccessioned for various reasons. Do some research. Just because there is a mark doesn't mean it was stolen. As a matter of fact according to the document on Nash's website there is one 1869 Red Stocking card reported missing. If JC has/had one, and I have one, how do we know it didn't leave the library under normal conditions? Lots of assumptions here...

So I guess, even with this said, and assuming you have the one that was not stolen (yet obviously still belonged to the NYPL), that it was stamped, then altered to try and remove said stamp, and should be in an SGC A holder and not graded a 50, right? I'm just trying to sort out the various rotten smells in Denmark.

[glchen]

A lot of people are really beating up on Leon in this thread. I think from his history on the board, and his past actions, he really deserves the benefit of the doubt here. Give him time to sort through this. I know a few years ago, I purchased a raw Butterfinger Babe Ruth ad card from a reputable consignor on ebay. I thought the item was authentic, so I didn't even bother sending it in for authentication for over a year. Finally, I decided to send the card into Beckett, more for protection than to check if it were authentic, and I was very surprised when it came back as counterfeit. The consignor and I agreed to have Leon mediate this, and Leon was very generous with his time in working with the Beckett folks to take another look at the card. The card was still determined to be fake, and Leon agreed with the assessment since he had owned a genuine one of these in the past. Leon had no obligation whatsoever to get involved in this matter, yet he did, and helped me a lot in this matter. (I was also very satisfied with the refund that I received from the consignor after I returned this card also.) The point is that Leon really does a lot for a lot of collectors in the hobby without asking anything to be publicized or anything. I really think he's deserves and has earned the time to let this matter run the course before people pass their judgment here.

[calvindog]

How does a card with an NYPL stamp which means it's clearly owned by the NYPL "leave the library under normal conditions?" What are such "normal conditions"? Like it grew legs and walked out?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

How does a card with an NYPL stamp which means it's clearly owned by the NYPL "leave the library under normal conditions?" What are such "normal conditions"? Like it grew legs and walked out?

Like it was possibly sold to use the money for other reasons. Now about all of those card doctors you represent. Why don't we talk about them for awhile?

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by calvindog

How does a card with an NYPL stamp which means it's clearly owned by the NYPL "leave the library under normal conditions?" What are such "normal conditions"? Like it grew legs and walked out?

It's unlikely, but like Leon mentioned sometimes libraries will sell items when they need the money. But there would be a record of that sale, and unless the NYPL has one, I think there's no doubt the card is stolen...

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

Like it was possibly sold to use the money for other reasons. Now about all of those card doctors you represent. Why don't we talk about them for awhile?

Before we change the subject, just answer me this:

If the NYPL does not have record of the sale, would you return the card?

And if there's other circumstances I'm not considering by all means bring them up.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Like it was possibly sold to use the money for other reasons. Now about all of those card doctors you represent. Why don't we talk about them for awhile?

You mean my representation of people in accordance with the Constitution and federal laws? You know I don't conspire with clients to commit fraud in the hobby. And you also know I'm not going to breach a privilege to discuss what my clients say to me.

So let me get this straight:

Dewolf is a "vile pri*k"
Wonka is an "idiot"
I'm a "bold-faced [sic] liar."

What does that make you? Why don't you just acknowledge legitimate criticism instead of attacking everyone who dares to speak the obvious? No one has it out for you here. There's no "crusade" against you. Why such increasingly irrational responses?

[Leon]

You sound like a broken record. Like a little kid "what does that make you".....really? Why do you defend card doctors when you are allegedly leading the charge against them? Uh, I think that would make you a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by calvindog

You mean my representation of people in accordance with the Constitution and federal laws? You know I don't conspire with clients to commit fraud in the hobby. And you also know I'm not going to breach a privilege to discuss what my clients say to me.

So let me get this straight:

DeWolf is a "vile pri*k"
Wonka is an "idiot"
I'm a "bold-faced [sic] liar."

What does that make you?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

You sound like a broken record. Like a little kid "what does that make you".....really? Why do you defend card doctors when you are allegedly leading the charge against them? Uh, I think that would make you a hypocrite.

Uh you have no idea the circumstances of my representation. Just like you had no idea that your card belonged to the NYPL.

[Econteachert205]

I worked at a museumthat had items "donated" all the time. More like trash drop off, old magazines, farm equipment etc. when I worked there one of the jobs was to de accession items. We had an antiquated cataloging system ( this was 2004) and not all items were catalogued. We had volunteers who would put things into storage without properly cataloging.

I'm sure that now the nypl has their act together, being a larger institution than the one I worked at, however in the past, I'm sure the same problems as I described with books occurred. Here are a few thoughts on the item in question.

1. I feel it is unlikely that even if there were multiple cards in the nypl collection one would be deaccessioned or sold without clear recording, even 30 years ago.

2. It seems likely that the stamp is from a library collection, and if it was sold legally, it seems unlikely the new owner would chance damaging the card to remove the stamp.

3. I trust Leon that he bought it after whatever happened. He is the one who stands to lose large here. If he suspected the card was taken from a library collection he would have sold it privately, not put it with scans on a major auction house where this super rare card, one of a handful, could be scrutinized in such a way.

4. The FBI and Nypl will be made aware, Leon stands to lose a lot on the card and this whole ordeal will likely be no fun whatsoever. If it were my card I'd be sick. He's been straight forward about addressing the concerns here.

[Leon]

As I want to move onto more positive things, and this is being figured out, I won't be posting in this inquisition thread anymore. The auction item will be updated if it is left in and all bidders will be notified and given an option to withdraw their bids given the new information. That is all for now. Thanks for the support I have gotten publicly and privately. And to any naysayers, I am sorry you feel that way.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

As I want to move onto more positive things, and this is being figured out, I won't be posting in this inquisition thread anymore. The auction item will be updated if it is left in and all bidders will be notified and given an option to withdraw their bids given the new information. That is all for now. Thanks for the support I have gotten publicly and privately. And to any naysayers, I am sorry you feel that way.

I like that you used your final two posts to change the subject and not address any of the actual questions regarding whether you would return the item at question. Up until now I've usually found myself on your side with these things and I've always considered you an upstanding member of the hobby...

To be honest, I've lost a lot of respect for you with the way you've handled this thread and the whole situation...

[CW]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

This amazes me as well. It's as if Nash thinks by doing all this research and exposing all these other "frauds", it either creates a diversion to the fraud he has committed, OR he thinks it will somehow vindicate him and people will think, "Yeah, that Pete Nash... he's not so bad!"

Yet another bizarre facet to this crazy hobby we all love.

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to this link, bold-faced liar is acceptable usage.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57985...bold-faced-lie

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

According to this link, bold-faced liar is acceptable usage.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57985...bold-faced-lie

Thanks, Barry.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Thanks, Barry.

I fill in for him now that he goes to bed at 8 PM.

[wonkaticket]

You can call it beating up on him, a witch hunt or an inquisition. I call it being disappointed. The facts are Leon has/had a card that he knew full well had potential issues. He was made aware of these issues long ago by qualified people with nothing to gain. He's a person of standing in our hobby and someone who touts their honesty, integrity and dedication to this hobby. A person that demands people to stand behind their comments.

Regardless of the laws regarding ownership, legal issues, innocence or guilt. I find it disappointing and hard to believe. That almost a year after these issues were brought to his attention he never noticed or looked for a stamp connecting this card to the NYPL.

I'm sorry but if the Federal Bureau of Investigation takes an item from my collection for review as potentially stolen. From that day forward that would be the focus of my collecting world to clear the misunderstanding and resolve any questions around my item long before it ever hit an auction block. To say after it's at auction "oh yeah now that you mention it I do see the mark, wish I had seen that before" seems dishonest at the worst end of the spectrum and extremely naive at the other end.

But I'm an idiot for seeing it this way that's been clearly pointed out, so this idiot will let this auction pass him by.

[trobba]

If the card was sold legally, why would someone go through the trouble/effort/risk to remove the seal from the card?

I don't really get it, the close up scan shows enough indisputable proof that the word "library" was there as well as other marks to remove any doubt from my (completely unbiased) mind that it was the NYPL mark.

I think Heritage's caveat of "a collector stamp or the mark of some retailer" is pretty lame and touches, if not crosses, the border of stretching the truth.

I don't collect these and knew nothing of all this until I read this post, but it sure seems to me the card has major provenance issues and until the truth is completely resolved have trouble seeing it up for public auction. Why not pull it and do all the research? If it proves clean it will only increase the value when up again, instead of having a shroud of guilt lingering that will only taint the whole sitchie...

Seems like there are enough questions to slow everything down and get it right.

Rob G

[Peter_Spaeth]

Based on the chronology presented, I infer that the FBI took the card from Leon, examined it, and returned it to him. What if they told him they had no reason to believe the card was stolen? (I don't know that to be the case, just drawing possible inferences.) Why could Leon not reasonably rely on that assurance, at least until other information was presented, which appears to have happened for the first time yesterday? It seems to me the criticism here involves some degree of hindsight, and some assumptions that may or may not be true.

In any event, hopefully this will reach a resolution soon.

[packs]

I have no opinion on anyone involved or what is right or wrong. I'm just posting about logistics of the NYPL making a deacquisition.

The last time the NYPL made its collection available for sale was in 2005, when it sold some items from it's art collection. It was big news when it happened and is readily searchable. However, I can't find any information on them holding an auction for pieces from their baseball card collection.

[Wildfireschulte]

The way Heritage and Luckey handled this card has lowered both companies from the status of "esteemed auction house" to the same level as the eBay hucksters in my mind. Over and over we've seen the smart people on this board bust some of the big-name auction houses over fraudulent descriptions. Keep it up guys!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What if they told him they had no reason to believe the card was stolen? (I don't know that to be the case, just drawing possible inferences.)

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.