John Rogers Home and Business Searched by the FBI

[calvindog]

Well, I just hope he didn't have any loose Wagners in the couch cushions. Those FBI agents can sometimes get sticky fingers.

http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/arti...-business-home

[WhenItWasAHobby]

It's odd that no reason was given for the search. The FBI probably wanted to quietly seize that big stash of those vintage J. Edgar Hoover cross-dressing photos.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

It's odd that no reason was given for the search. The FBI probably wanted to quietly seize that big stash of those vintage J. Edgar Hoover cross-dressing photos.

I didn't know that two of his employees were busted for stealing from him...perhaps they told the FBI something that sent them in there?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I didn't know that two of his employees were busted for stealing from him...perhaps they told the FBI something that sent them in there?

Reading between the lines of the article, you make a compelling hypothesis.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

It's odd that no reason was given for the search. The FBI probably wanted to quietly seize that big stash of those vintage J. Edgar Hoover cross-dressing photos.

I have never heard of this guy, but on the point of not putting the reason you are searching someone's home or business on the search warrant.......is that legal? We can search your home or business, but you don't get to know why?

I'm not a lawyer, but something seems wrong about that.

Sincerely, Clayton

[calvindog]

It's fairly obvious they've searched these premises for evidence of a crime. At this point, putting a broad criminal statute on a search warrant will hardly provide any information of what the specific purpose of the search is. I'm sure his lawyer called the prosecutor and has learned all that needs to be known at this time.

It's a pretty horrible thing to happen but I have had times where the FBI has searched a premises for two straight days and no charges were ever brought. And I wouldn't wish this on anyone.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by calvindog

It's fairly obvious they've searched these premises for evidence of a crime.

I wonder what they took?

[teetwoohsix]

I understand. I just thought that in order to obtain a search warrant, the first step would be to go to a judge with your evidence that a crime has been committed, and you have reason to suspect that evidence is within the home or business. The judge signs off on it, and the search warrant is written up with the details of the evidence they are looking for.

In this fashion, it seems as though they can just be "looking for whatever", instead of "looking for something in particular".

I do know that this would be incredibly embarrassing- two days of searching with no charges brought- amazing.

Sincerely, Clayton

[calvindog]

Of course, the warrant specifies what can be taken. But the materials identified are often very broad: computers, correspondence, financial records, etc.

[teetwoohsix]

Thanks. I was confused on the "sealed" part.

I figured a "sealed" warrant would make sense in something like a murder case, where they had information obtained but not released to the public- that way if they didn't find it, the killer still wouldn't know they had this evidence. But, I thought that was usually the only time sealed warrants were used.....

Sounds like this guy must have some interesting photo's though

Sincerely, Clayton

[Exhibitman]

"I have had times where the FBI has searched a premises for two straight days"

Like an IRS audit without the glitz...

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Thanks. I was confused on the "sealed" part.

I figured a "sealed" warrant would make sense in something like a murder case, where they had information obtained but not released to the public- that way if they didn't find it, the killer still wouldn't know they had this evidence. But, I thought that was usually the only time sealed warrants were used.....

Sounds like this guy must have some interesting photo's though

Sincerely, Clayton

This is pretty common practice. Nothing odd about it to me.

[RichardSimon]

Seems like some here are watching too much Law & Order SVU .

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Seems like some here are watching too much Law & Order SVU .

I've never watched one episode of that show in my life-seriously.

Sincerely, Clayton

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

This is pretty common practice. Nothing odd about it to me.

That's scary.

Amendment Four:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, no Law and Order episodes made me question this, just the Constitution. To be specific, the "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" part. If it is sealed, are they only describing the "things to be seized" to the judge and themselves? I always thought that was the whole purpose of arriving at a place to do the search, with warrant in hand, was to not only search, but to provide the specific reason why you are searching and what exactly you are looking for. Wouldn't you expect that, if someone showed up to search your home and business?

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Not defending or condemning this guy, I've never heard of him- just trying to understand how this "sealed" warrant is common practice?

[drcy]

..

[nolemmings]

Ah yes Clayton, Amendment Four. I remember reading something about that in law school, or maybe it was history class. Truly a beacon for the entire world. However, it became inconvenient and was gutted or "re-interpreted" in light of the Patriot Act. Now what red-blooded American can't get behind such a noble sounding piece of legislation? National security, "We're at War", "Can't let the Bastards win" and all that. Somebody lend me their fife and drum.

[Brian Van Horn]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Seems like some here are watching too much Law & Order SVU .

OK, I'll go for the cheap joke.

Richard,

Given it's both home and business, didn't you mean Law and Order SUV?

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Ah yes Clayton, Amendment Four. I remember reading something about that in law school, or maybe it was history class. Truly a beacon for the entire world. However, it became inconvenient and was gutted or "re-interpreted" in light of the Patriot Act. Now what red-blooded American can't get behind such a noble sounding piece of legislation? National security, "We're at War", "Can't let the Bastards win" and all that. Somebody lend me their fife and drum.

LOL

Ah yes, the deceptive ol' Patriot Act. NOW it makes sense.

Fife and drum on the way....

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Ah yes Clayton, Amendment Four. I remember reading something about that in law school, or maybe it was history class. Truly a beacon for the entire world. However, it became inconvenient and was gutted or "re-interpreted" in light of the Patriot Act. Now what red-blooded American can't get behind such a noble sounding piece of legislation? National security, "We're at War", "Can't let the Bastards win" and all that. Somebody lend me their fife and drum.

Those wonderful words like "unreasonable" have to be consistently reinterpreted in light of the times, no?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

This news article seems to add a little bit more information of what was seized.

"Agents could be seen taking long cardboard boxes labeled "slugger" with contents sounding like wooden baseball bats jostling inside".

http://www.fox16.com/story/d/story/f...bkaynUTfVrtA2g

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

This news article seems to add a little bit more information of what was seized.

"Agents could be seen taking long cardboard boxes labeled "slugger" with contents sounding like wooden baseball bats jostling inside".

http://www.fox16.com/story/d/story/f...bkaynUTfVrtA2g

Perhaps the definition of WMD is expanding.

[shernan30]

Maybe he bought the bats from Gibson?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

Wasn't the Wagner that Rogers bought the one that was auctioned off in Goldin Auctions last year?

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

That's scary.

Amendment Four:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

So, no Law and Order episodes made me question this, just the Constitution. To be specific, the "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" part. If it is sealed, are they only describing the "things to be seized" to the judge and themselves? I always thought that was the whole purpose of arriving at a place to do the search, with warrant in hand, was to not only search, but to provide the specific reason why you are searching and what exactly you are looking for. Wouldn't you expect that, if someone showed up to search your home and business?

Sincerely, Clayton

P.S. Not defending or condemning this guy, I've never heard of him- just trying to understand how this "sealed" warrant is common practice?

"Sealed" pertains to the public. Most court files are public record, you could go to the clerk's office and look at the file. However, some cases, such as juvenile cases, are sealed. This means that they are not available to the public.

As it relates to the particularity of a warrant. There is usually an affidavit explaining the officer's rationale for seeking the warrant and an address to be searched.

Ex: Home at 123 Street, New York City.

[wonkaticket]

I wonder if Peter Nash will be reporting on this...his buddy...and all....

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

"Sealed" pertains to the public.

"Sealed" in this case pertains to everyone but the government, not just the public.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I wonder if Peter Nash will be reporting on this...his buddy...and all....

I gotta admit...I did pull up his website and his twitter today to see if he had mentioned it.

Nope.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by calvindog

"Sealed" in this case pertains to everyone but the government, not just the public.

Not sure what you mean. Law enforcement and the defendant would both have access to the warrant.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

Not sure what you mean. Law enforcement and the defendant would both have access to the warrant.

If you read the article, the affidavits supporting the search were sealed. That means that until they are unsealed the defendant does not have access to them, just the government does.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If you read the article, the affidavits supporting the search were sealed. That means that until they are unsealed the defendant does not have access to them, just the government does.

Thanks, that's how I read it and why I questioned it. I guess the Patriot Act is turning inward now.

Sincerely, Clayton

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by teetwoohsix

Thanks, that's how I read it and why I questioned it. I guess the Patriot Act is turning inward now.

Sincerely, Clayton

The sealing of affidavits in this case has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

[calvindog]

Btw, weren't John Rogers AND Doug Allen speakers at the Net 54 dinner at past Nationals? Who is speaking this year -- Bernie Madoff?

Full disclosure: I've never been asked to speak at the dinner.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Btw, weren't John Rogers AND Doug Allen speakers at the Net 54 dinner at past Nationals? Who is speaking this year -- Bernie Madoff?

Full disclosure: I've never been asked to speak at the dinner.

No, actually you are wrong. John has never spoken at a dinner.

Neither have you and I am sure it will stay that way.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

No, actually you are wrong. John has never spoken at a dinner.

Neither have you and I am sure it will stay that way.

Good, I don't want to go to prison!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Good, I don't want to go to prison!

Speaking at a dinner isn't against the law, just in case you don't know.

For the record Mike Okeefe, Mike Berkus, Peter Calderon, several Beckett employees and many others have been speakers before. I don't see any of them having legal issues. No Jeff, most in the hobby are good people. The others will get rooted out and all hobbyists should be appreciative of your efforts (seriously) on helping prevent fraud. I too, try my best to help.....

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Speaking at a dinner isn't against the law, just in case you don't know.

For the record Mike Okeefe, Mike Berkus, Peter Calderon, several Beckett employees and many others have been speakers before. I don't see any of them having legal issues. No Jeff, most in the hobby are good people. The others will get rooted out and all hobbyists should be appreciative of your efforts (seriously) on helping prevent fraud. I too, try my best to help.....

Of that group, you may want to check again.

And Rogers was asked to speak at a dinner but pulled out; I guess he didn't want to incriminate himself

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

I wonder if Peter Nash will be reporting on this...his buddy...and all....

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I gotta admit...I did pull up his website and his twitter today to see if he had mentioned it.

Nope.

It's true that Peter Nash is friendly with John Rogers. Nash said in court filed papers that John Rogers had agreed to contribute $10,000 for Nash's legal fees... The NY Daily News wrote an article about it, see link below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ite...morabilia-exec

When I tried to contact John Rogers to ask him why he was giving money to Peter Nash to defend his lawsuit, John Rogers had his attorney send me a cease and desist letter not to contact him.

I have a copy of an signed affidavit from John Rogers dated July 26, 2012 that he loaned approximately $166,200 to Peter Nash. The third sentence of the affidavit states:

"During the years of 2009 and 2010 I loaned approximately $166,200 to Mr. Nash. These wire transfers were unsecured loans for which no formal loan agreements or documents were executed between Mr. Nash, myself or my companies."

My wife and I have a Judgment against Peter Nash and Roxanne Nash. As of today the Judgment including the 8.5% interest amounts to approximately $500,000. I have a bunch of collateral from Peter Nash which would help pay down the Judgment but does Peter Nash give me any provenance or try to help me sell it, no. For example I have an Ed Delahanty Trophy bat that Peter Nash gave to me as collateral on the bat it says "Presented To Edward Delahanty Four Home Runs July 13, 1896". But Peter Nash has refused to help me sell it. Nash writes volumes about baseball memorabilia and goes into extreme details on his Hauls of Shame website but refuses to write anything about the rare memorabilia that he gave me as collateral.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Sunny

It's true that Peter Nash is friendly with John Rogers. Nash said in court filed papers that John Rogers had agreed to contribute $10,000 for Nash's legal fees... The NY Daily News wrote an article about it, see link below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/ite...morabilia-exec

When I tried to contact John Rogers to ask him why he was giving money to Peter Nash to defend his lawsuit, John Rogers had his attorney send me a cease and desist letter not to contact him.

I have a copy of an signed affidavit from John Rogers dated July 26, 2012 that he loaned approximately $166,200 to Peter Nash. The third sentence of the affidavit states:

"During the years of 2009 and 2010 I loaned approximately $166,200 to Mr. Nash. These wire transfers were unsecured loans for which no formal loan agreements or documents were executed between Mr. Nash, myself or my companies."

My wife and I have a Judgment against Peter Nash and Roxanne Nash. As of today the Judgment including the 8.5% interest amounts to approximately $500,000. I have a bunch of collateral from Peter Nash which would help pay down the Judgment but does Peter Nash give me any provenance or try to help me sell it, no. For example I have an Ed Delahanty Trophy bat that Peter Nash gave to me as collateral on the bat it says "Presented To Edward Delahanty Four Home Runs July 13, 1896". But Peter Nash has refused to help me sell it. Nash writes volumes about baseball memorabilia and goes into extreme details on his Hauls of Shame website but refuses to write anything about the rare memorabilia that he gave me as collateral.

Well in poor Peter’s defense he’s very busy dragging dead people like Halper thru the mud for their fake items. So I’m not sure how much time he has left these days to address his own creations and questionable items. Then you have to add in the man crush on Lifson, the other bills, the warrants and legal letters….there’s only so many hours in the day Robert come on!

Peter Nash keeping the hobby safe as long as there’s no mirror around.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Sunny

My wife and I have a Judgment against Peter Nash and Roxanne Nash. As of today the Judgment including the 8.5% interest amounts to approximately $500,000. I have a bunch of collateral from Peter Nash which would help pay down the Judgment but does Peter Nash give me any provenance or try to help me sell it, no. For example I have an Ed Delahanty Trophy bat that Peter Nash gave to me as collateral on the bat it says "Presented To Edward Delahanty Four Home Runs July 13, 1896". But Peter Nash has refused to help me sell it. Nash writes volumes about baseball memorabilia and goes into extreme details on his Hauls of Shame website but refuses to write anything about the rare memorabilia that he gave me as collateral.

Just so Peter's fans see this...hmmmm...wonder why that would be?

[tbob]

There was a huge article in the Arkansas Times a while back about the incredible photo archive Rogers has compiled. Basically what he does is go to big city newspapers and offer to take their archived photographs and make digital copies for them and in return he takes possession of the originals and they make their way in to the hobby. I bought some original pictures at the National in Chicago and they were stunning.
The comment above about the FBI suddenly dropping in on his business and snooping around shortly after former employees entered guilty pleas in federal court is hardly surprising. Deals for shorter sentences based on cooperation are the norm these days...

[tbob]

I remember Rogers coming to the Net 54 Board a while ago to comment on posts which detailed his flipping a T206 Honus Wagner he purchased. Maybe someone with better computer skills than I possess can pull up that old thread

[4815162342]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=90460

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=91558

[sylbry]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I wonder what they took?

"About a year ago, two of Rogers’ former employees pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud for diverting funds from customers to their own Paypal accounts. Christopher Jackson and Steve Roby also stole thousands of photographs from Rogers and sold many on eBay, according to government prosecutors.

Jackson received a 33-month prison sentence and two years of supervised release. He was ordered to pay more than $138,000 in restitution. Roby was sentenced last July to a year and a half in prison, a year of supervised release and $138,000 in restitution."

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...photo-archive/

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by tbob

The comment above about the FBI suddenly dropping in on his business and snooping around shortly after former employees entered guilty pleas in federal court is hardly surprising. Deals for shorter sentences based on cooperation are the norm these days...

True, but in a similar way, it's a well attested fact that one can file a criminal complaint with the FBI at the very least out of brazen stupidity for lack of knowledge of the law or more likely out of malicious retaliation.

Case in point. In August 2004 a sportscard collector gave an Ebay seller negative feedback because the seller didn't disclose problems with the cards. After Ebay dispute resolution and Square Trade failed, the seller asked buyer, "What would it take to remove the negative feedback". The buyer replied, "How about $500?". A short time later, the collector, who works out of his house, gets a surprise visit from two FBI agents who were responding to a criminal extortion complaint. The collector chose not to answer any questions and lawyered-up. Supposedly once the collector's lawyer showed the agents the e-mail exchanges, according to the collector, the agents immediately dropped the investigation and supposedly shook their heads in disgust. Allegedly according to the seller, the FBI contacted the collector and warned him that his actions "were dangerously close to extortion and mail fraud". Go figure which side is to believed.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

True, but in a similar way, it's a well attested fact that one can file a criminal complaint with the FBI at the very least out of brazen stupidity for lack of knowledge of the law or more likely out of malicious retaliation.

I am not a criminal lawyer so I know little about this. Are you saying that if a person feels another person has committed a crime, by filing a criminal complaint with the FBI he can compel the FBI to open a criminal investigation and, as part of the process, obtain a search warrant? That sets off a lot of bells to my common sense meter.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

True, but in a similar way, it's a well attested fact that one can file a criminal complaint with the FBI at the very least out of brazen stupidity for lack of knowledge of the law or more likely out of malicious retaliation.

Case in point. In August 2004 a sportscard collector gave an Ebay seller negative feedback because the seller didn't disclose problems with the cards. After Ebay dispute resolution and Square Trade failed, the seller asked buyer, "What would it take to remove the negative feedback". The buyer replied, "How about $500?". A short time later, the collector, who works out of his house, gets a surprise visit from two FBI agents who were responding to a criminal extortion complaint. The collector chose not to answer any questions and lawyered-up. Supposedly once the collector's lawyer showed the agents the e-mail exchanges, according to the collector, the agents immediately dropped the investigation and supposedly shook their heads in disgust. Allegedly according to the seller, the FBI contacted the collector and warned him that his actions "were dangerously close to extortion and mail fraud". Go figure which side is to believed.

Sounds pretty amazing that the FBI would be involved in a case involving $500, they usually do not act until there are lots of zeroes in the number.

[wonkaticket]

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=114597

Maybe they were just searching for his less fun Wagner? It’s so hard to keep track of things these days who knows.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Doesn't seem likely John will give us his perspective.

nyyanksghr nyyanksghr is offline
member

Send Message User Lists Last Activity: 04-11-2010 02:32 PM

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I am not a criminal lawyer so I know little about this. Are you saying that if a person feels another person has committed a crime, by filing a criminal complaint with the FBI he can compel the FBI to open a criminal investigation and, as part of the process, obtain a search warrant? That sets off a lot of bells to my common sense meter.

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Sounds pretty amazing that the FBI would be involved in a case involving $500, they usually do not act until there are lots of zeroes in the number.

I'm not a criminal nor civil lawyer myself and I agree with you Richard from my own personal experience that the amount shouldn't have triggered an investigation. The big problem with this incident is that it is not known what was written or said in the complaint to the FBI but it's rather safe to say that some of the salient issues were either greatly "trumped up" or omitted.