John Rogers Home and Business Searched by the FBI

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[wonkaticket]

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.

I agree Corey seems a little to easy to send the FBI on wild goose....you know

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

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.

I have practiced as a prosecutor. By filing a criminal complaint you are putting law enforcement on notice of the allegations. They will likely look into the allegations but cannot be compelled to pursue a search warrant.

[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.

[edjs]

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 don't know a lot about the law, but I believe it is not the dollar amount that involves the FBI, rather the type of crime involved. When someone robbed the title and loan company by my house, all they got was petty cash. It was considered a bank robbery, and the FBI had to do the investigation over something like $50.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

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.

You may want to contact a lawyer about Nash's refusal to help you sell the collateral. My thoughts, and I have never practiced in this area, are that there may be an action related to his interfering with your ability to satisfy the debt.

Again - I have not practiced law in this area.

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by I Only Smoke 4 the Cards

You may want to contact a lawyer about Nash's refusal to help you sell the collateral. My thoughts, and I have never practiced in this area, are that there may be an action related to his interfering with your ability to satisfy the debt.

Again - I have not practiced law in this area.

Thanks for your thoughts I just may do that. During the lawsuit Peter Nash alleged that I destroyed Nash's present and future business dealings with John Rogers. What is that business relationship? It's a fact that Legendary Auctions sent Peter Nash's landlord money so he would not be evicted, but did you know that John Rogers is one of the owner of Legendary Auctions. I asked Doug Allen what percentage of ownership does John Rogers have in Legendary Auctions, Doug wouldn't tell me but he did confirm that John Rogers is part owner of Legendary Auctions. Doug told me if it wasn't for John Rogers helping out financially Legendary Auctions wouldn't exist. Doug Allen told me he's good friends with John Rogers and stays over Rogers house when he visits.

[calvindog]

The Big House?

[slidekellyslide]

Hmmm...Day 2 since this story broke and still nothing on Haulsofshame.

[wonkaticket]

I guess they could still arrange sleep overs...

[Sunny]

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.

Hey John Rogers I have a great deal for you. I’ll sell you all of Peter Nash’s memorabilia that I have as collateral. You can call your buddy up Peter Nash and I’m sure he will give you the provenance of the memorabilia, after all you did loan him unsecured loans of $166,200, so it makes no sense that he wouldn’t give you provenance on this material. It would be a great deal for you and just think you would be helping your buddy out by paying down some of his debt. Remember my Judgment against Nash gets paid off first before you can get any of your money back from Nash.

Taking off a few items I have sold theirs approximately 60 items of Nash’s collateral I have for sale. Peter Nash puts a value of approximately $125,000 on this stuff. This deal would not include the Ed Delahanty bat that would have to be a separate deal. Make me an offer!

[Runscott]

15 posts and every last one of them relates to Peter Nash.

Seems like he owns you.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Runscott

15 posts and every last one of them relates to Peter Nash.

Seems like he owns you.

Scott no offense I wonder how laid back you would be with having been physically threatened, ripped off for huge amounts of money, given questionable or fake items for collateral on debts owed. All from a guy who pretends to be a hobby sleuth and savior, while yanking his pud in cyberspace and pointing out the whims and legal troubles of others while taking the 5th on his own.

I don’t think Nash “owns” Robert, more like he “owes” Robert money…if anything.

I think poking Rogers is fair if he’s so keen on Nash, and so quick to consign “memorabilia” to Coaches Corner…LOL.

Just my two cents there needs to be 1000 more posts on Nash the hobby needs to know what this guy is.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Scott no offense I wonder how laid back you would be with having been physically threatened, ripped off for huge amounts of money, given questionable or fake items for collateral on debts owed. All from a guy who pretends to be a hobby sleuth and savior, while yanking his pud in cyberspace and pointing out the whims and legal troubles of others while taking the 5th on his own.

I don’t think Nash “owns” Robert, more like he “owes” Robert money…if anything.

I think poking Rogers is fair if he’s so keen on Nash, and so quick to consign “memorabilia” to Coaches Corner…LOL.

Just my two cents there needs to be 1000 more posts on Nash the hobby needs to know what this guy is.

Poking Rogers is definitely fair - the Rogers issues are news to many of us.

I see your point about Robert, but just so he understands - he is known to most (if not all) of us simply as "the guy who hates Peter Nash". That is a positive thing, but most of us who dislike Nash (myself included) aren't known here on a vintage baseball card discussion forum, simply for our hatred of someone. The only person who came close was Travis and his hatred of PSA and JSA, but at least we also knew him as the boxing autograph guy.

But it is Robert's right to inadvertently (or purposely?) label himself here based completely on his relationship to Nash. It is only tiresome to me because I have read most of his 15 posts, and I'm not seeing anything new. But again, that's his right.

Having said all that - sorry, Robert, if I vented unfairly. Please continue, and I sincerely hope you get justice. And if there is something related to the forum that you can contribute, I would love to read it - you sound like a guy who could turn some of that passion toward positive stuff that would be interesting.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Poking Rogers is definitely fair - the Rogers issues are news to many of us.

I see your point about Robert, but just so he understands - he is known to most (if not all) of us simply as "the guy who hates Peter Nash". That is a positive thing, but most of us who dislike Nash (myself included) aren't known here on a vintage baseball card discussion forum, simply for our hatred of someone. The only person who came close was Travis and his hatred of PSA and JSA, but at least we also knew him as the boxing autograph guy.

But it is Robert's right to inadvertently (or purposely?) label himself here based completely on his relationship to Nash. It is only tiresome to me because I have read most of his 15 posts, and I'm not seeing anything new. But again, that's his right.

Having said all that - sorry, Robert, if I vented unfairly. Please continue, and I sincerely hope you get justice. And if there is something related to the forum that you can contribute, I would love to read it - you sound like a guy who could turn some of that passion toward positive stuff that would be interesting.

Travis posted 10 posts per day all pertaining to his hatred of PSA/JSA, and would NEVER satisfactorily answer a direct question...I don't think we need to run off a guy who has 15 total posts.

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by Runscott

15 posts and every last one of them relates to Peter Nash.

Seems like he owns you.

John Roger is the person that bought $550,000 of Peter Nash's stuff in an "AS IS" one lot auction. I’ve been told Roger's got all his money back by selling a few items. I see that a few of those items that Rogers sold ended up in "The National Pastime Museum" for example the Hugh Duffy bat, the Mike King Kelly bat and the Ed Delahanty pocket watch. Many of the item Roger's bought in this "AS IS" auction came from the same place my collateral came from. I know that many of the items that Nash had comes from the John Dooley Collection in MA. John Dooley was friends with Nuf Ced McGreevy and ended up with McGreevy's personal collection. But Peter Nash pleaded the fifth when asked where he got this stuff from. If the stuff was real, why did Nash plead the fifth? I've talked to the Dooley's family attorney and they told me that they considered going after Nash. You have to ask yourself, why did Nash plead the fifth? if he knew the stuff was real. I remember when Peter Nash told me about the treasure trove of stuff he found in Katherine Dooley's basement telling me it was worth millions of dollars. Peter Nash I know you will read this so why don't you give me the provenance of all the collateral I have so it can be sold for top dollar and be applied to your Judgment.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Sunny

Hey John Rogers I have a great deal for you. I’ll sell you all of Peter Nash’s memorabilia that I have as collateral. You can call your buddy up Peter Nash and I’m sure he will give you the provenance of the memorabilia, after all you did loan him unsecured loans of $166,200, so it make no sense that he wouldn’t give you provenance on this material. It would be a great deal for you and just think you would be helping your buddy out by paying down some of his debt. Remember my Judgment against Nash gets paid off first before you can get any of your money back from Nash.

Taking off a few items I have sold theirs approximately 60 items of Nash’s collateral I have for sale. Peter Nash puts a value of approximately $125,000 on this stuff. This deal would not include the Ed Delahanty bat that would have to be a separate deal. Make me an offer!

Robert I'll take the Delehanty bat can I get an LOA from John Rogers?

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Robert I'll take the Delehanty bat can I get an LOA from John Rogers?

Last year I spoke with Jerrold Casway, he wrote a book on Ed Delahanty and I emailed pictures of the bat to him. He told me the bat is 100% real and has no doubt about it. Mr. Casway said he was friendly with Peter Nash and would put a call into him and find out where he got it from. He spoke to Peter Nash and Peter Nash told him I refuse to answer any questions about Robert Fraser or the Ed Delahanty bat. Jerry Casway probably has the largest collection of Ed Delahanty memorabilia and he wrote the book, "Ed Delahanty in the Emerald Age of Baseball".

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Sunny

Last year I spoke with Jerrold Casway, he wrote a book on Ed Delahanty and I emailed pictures of the bat to him. He told me the bat is 100% real and has no doubt about it. Mr. Casway said he was friendly with Peter Nash and would put a call into him and find out where he got it from. He spoke to Peter Nash and Peter Nash told him I refuse to answer any questions about Robert Fraser or the Ed Delahanty bat. Jerry Casway probably has the largest collection of Ed Delahanty memorabilia and he wrote the book, "Ed Delahanty in the Emerald Age of Baseball".

This kind of stuff is truly the sad and disgusting part about Peter Nash. Very few people know as much about baseball as Nash the guy really is a wealth of knowledge. He also obtained thru research many real and amazing items that are part of our national pastime and our shared history.

However it’s clear Peter used his knowledge to create and sell/market questionable to downright fake items this is what disgusts me and should have everyone upset. Because of this we have an amazing item a Delahanty trophy bat which should be cherished and kept for the ages…that now is questionable due to the proximity of Nash and his known shenanigans. Peter instead of going down as an ex rap star and hobby icon will forever be the “Typhoid Mary” of baseball memorabilia.

One thing to fake some Ruth signatures and take some folks for cash, but to destroy and taint real hobby grails thru the games Peter has played for greed…is a tragedy and a betrayal of the game and the hobby.

To rub salt in the wound he’s made no attempt to fix, clear up or take responsibility for the mess. Instead he hides in cyberspace dragging anyone and everyone thru the mud guilty of anything that he himself has done or most likely done it’s truly shameful.

John