pwcc (part two)

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Unless Brent is prosecuted, then I'd say that you're the one who is clueless, Jeff. Because if law enforcement is reading this, and they don't prosecute Brent, then clearly they are laughing at you.

Do you talk out of your ass all day? I mean is that what you do for a living? You have no idea how the process works and yet you continue to blabber on like a fourth grader. Why don't you focus on what you know? Like your scanner.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by calvindog

That's ok, Gary, I had a better year than you -- by the end of January.

Jeff, don't be so sensitive. I was being sarcastic, and obviously the cost of that card was chump change for you.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Do you talk out of your ass all day? I mean is that what you do for a living? You have no idea how the process works and yet you continue to blabber on like a fourth grader. Why don't you focus on what you know? Like your scanner.

Don't think that insults are going to get you out of this. You said that we should complain to law enforcement, then where is the phone number? You said that Brent's committed fraud, then where is the prosecution? It's put up or shut up. Like always.

[Eric72]

Again, I loathe to tread...however...have a question. Would a class action lawsuit be in order? It seems as though a skilled prosecutor might be able to line up a great many similarly situated plaintiffs.

A successfully litigated case just might be enough to deter future fraudsters from misrepresenting the online images of the items being offered for sale...at least, it should do so for the major players.

If PWCC realizes exceptionally high prices for their items through manipulating images in an unscrupulous manner, then drag them into court. If not, then cut bait and move on. I really don't see any other way to handle this issue.

Just my two cents. Others can, will, and should disagree.

Best Regards,

Eric

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Don't think that insults are going to get you out of this. You said that we should complain to law enforcement, then where is the phone number? You said that Brent's committed fraud, then where is the prosecution? It's put up or shut up. Like always.

You're a jackass. There's not an auction house law enforcement hotline to call. And just because fraud is committed does not mean that a prosecution starts an hour later. Do you think grand juries are dispatched every time you post on Net 54? Have you ever been a part of a criminal investigation? Or do you just blather on and on and on about things you have no personal experience of and no training for?

And get me out of what? The hot light of your pinpoint questioning? I don't work for you. And I certainly wouldn't share with you what I do or don't do in connection with the reporting of any auction house fraud. If you're a victim I'd advise you to make yourself known on this page.

Also, I've successfully sued auction house owners, I've reached cash settlements with crooked consignors, I've represented numerous witnesses in grand juries investigating auction house fraud, I've represented numerous defendants in criminal cases relating to the hobby. What have you done besides drone on like a braying jackass?

Lastly, why am I even talking to you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Again, I loathe to tread...however...have a question. Would a class action lawsuit be in order? It seems as though a skilled prosecutor might be able to line up a great many similarly situated plaintiffs.

A successfully litigated case just might be enough to deter future fraudsters from misrepresenting the online images of the items being offered for sale...at least, it should do so for the major players.

If PWCC realizes exceptionally high prices for their items through manipulating images in an unscrupulous manner, then drag them into court. If not, then cut bait and move on. I really don't see any other way to handle this issue.

Just my two cents. Others can, will, and should disagree.

Best Regards,

Eric

Eric a prosecutor works for a government, and does not bring a class action lawsuit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

You're never going to get a boycott of an auction house unless it's a de facto boycott because everyone is terrified that they won't get their cards or consignment checks as what occurred to one poster who consigned with Legendary and got stiffed. If there is enough easily noticed fraud or funny business with an auction house, some law enforcement body will investigate. Doesn't have to be the feds. Keep in mind that there are NUMEROUS investigations going on right now of auction houses in our hobby. Just because they're not public doesn't mean that they don't exist. People are going to prison. Auction house principles have been sued for fraud. Consignors who have conspired with auction houses to defraud bidders have been successfully sued or have reached out of court settlements. The bottom line is, as victims here we have more power than we think. Don't be so quick to assume everyone is getting away with it, they're not.

I agree a boycott is too ambitious to be practical, but as a matter of principle I still think people should refuse to deal with people they think are fraudulent. I know we have disagreed on this before.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Eric a prosecutor works for a government, and does not bring a class action lawsuit.

A class action could be handled by a private civil lawyer. Peter, don't you do class actions?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

There's not an auction house law enforcement hotline to call.

You were the one who wrote that we should complain to law enforcement.

Originally Posted by calvindog

If you're a victim I'd advise you to make yourself known on this page.

I'm not a victim.

Otherwise, Jeff, here's a little piece of advice. Grow up and stop hurling insults. Now, I know that the only reason you're insulting me is because you've gotten your butt kicked in this argument. And if law enforcement is reading this, then terrific. But if they are, then you really ought to think about how you conduct yourself. Even if they weren't, it's something you ought to consider.

And frankly, I don't think Brent ought to be prosecuted. I've written that before, and I'll say it again now. I just wanted to see what you really had, and so far the answer seems to be nothing. And if you can get law enforcement to prosecute Brent over $110.27 of fraud, more power to you. But I'll have to see it to believe it.

Good night, sir.

[calvindog]

First off, if you think I've gotten my butt kicked in this argument you're more delusional than you appear.

Second, it's obvious that you don't think Brent should be held accountable for the fraud which has been revealed on Net 54. It's very clear that you're doing all that you can to protect him. Why, I have no idea and don't care.

Lastly, now you're dispensing professional advice? Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Eric a prosecutor works for a government, and does not bring a class action lawsuit.

Peter,

With all due respect, then, who does?

Please know that I am not taking a swipe at you. It simply seems to me that a great many people might have been defrauded by PWCC. If this is the case, who should represent them?

Very truly yours,

Eric

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

A class action could be handled by a private civil lawyer. Peter, don't you do class actions?

Yup. But usually on the defense side.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Peter,

With all due respect, then, who does?

Please know that I am not taking a swipe at you. It simply seems to me that a great many people might have been defrauded by PWCC. If this is the case, who should represent them?

Very truly yours,

Eric

Eric, as Jeff says, a private civil lawyer. I haven't given it much thought, but I could see a number of obstacles given the technicalities of class action law.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck!

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Eric, as Jeff says, a private civil lawyer. I haven't given it much thought, but I could see a number of obstacles given the technicalities of class action law.

Peter,

Again, I am not taking a swipe at you. I simply wish to ask a question.

In the case of public opinion v. auction house fraud, does the public opinion have a colorable claim?

Best Regards,

Eric

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck!

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yup. But usually on the defense side.

Make an exception. We'll split the depositions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

Peter,

Again, I am not taking a swipe at you. I simply wish to ask a question.

In the case of public opinion v. auction house fraud, does the public opinion have a colorable claim?

Best Regards,

Eric

Eric I am not exactly sure what you are asking. Only a person who can allege that he/she has been harmed can bring a civil claim for damages, and to allege fraud one needs at least a reasonable factual basis for making that allegation, mere speculation is not enough. The "public" has no standing to sue, although of course a governmental body can vindicate the public interest.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

That's why we have a judicial system, right?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

That's why we have a judicial system, right?

That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.

You said he was guilty of fraud and ought to be prosecuted. If you are correct on all accounts, he will be convicted. Everything else you write is bullshit.

I'll be watching... gooooooooood luck!

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems to be non sequitur night.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

You said he was guilty of fraud and ought to be prosecuted. If you are correct on all accounts, he will be indicted. Everything else you write is bullshit.

I'll be watching... gooooooooood luck!

You said that unless he is indicted then he's not guilty of fraud -- that was wrong.

I said fraud occurred in his auctions and that whether or not he's indicted, fraud still occurred in his auctions -- that is correct. PS -- he can also be found liable for civil fraud.

As I'm not a prosecutor I don't control who gets indicted -- that is correct.

I understand these concepts are difficult for you because you're a clueless moron with no experience in these issues -- again, correct.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems to be non sequitur night.

Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bone.parth is exhibit A.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

You said that unless he is indicted then he's not guilty of fraud -- that was wrong.

I said fraud occurred in his auctions and that whether or not he's indicted, fraud still occurred in his auctions -- that is correct. PS -- he can also be found liable for civil fraud.

As I'm not a prosecutor I don't control who gets indicted -- that is correct.

I understand these concepts are difficult for you because you're a clueless moron with no experience in these issues -- again, correct.

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

Not a single thing you wrote above is correct. LOL

[Peter_Spaeth]

Law enforcement has the means to investigate a small fraction of the frauds that occur in the hobby and elsewhere. Therefore, the notion that if someone is not the subject of a criminal proceeding they did not commit fraud is demonstrably false and patently absurd.

Conversely, the mere fact that someone is investigated or even indicted does not mean they committed fraud. An indictment is an allegation, nothing more.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

the notion that if someone is not the subject of a criminal proceeding they did not commit fraud is demonstrably false and patently absurd.

Never wrote that.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Conversely, the mere fact that someone is investigated or even indicted does not mean they committed fraud. An indictment is an allegation, nothing more.

I confused the words indictment and conviction. Meant to say convicted.

Jeff says he is guilty and ought to be prosecuted. I never said Brent was innocent, just that he shouldn't be prosecuted. If law enforcement chooses not to prosecute Brent, then obviously they agree with me and disagree with Jeff. If Brent is prosecuted and found innocent, then he still shouldn't have been prosecuted as he will have been exonerated. So for Jeff to be correct, Brent needs to be both prosecuted and convicted.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Not a single thing you wrote above is correct. LOL

Not a single thing about who you are as a human being is at all decent. Your attitude and manner are disgusting. And in fact you are wrong. You have said yourself that Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, so go and do it. Otherwise, shut up about it already. Because anything other than getting it done is just blowing smoke up people's ass. It is all talk and no walk. If you think Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, then either go find a way to put him behind bars, or just shut up already.

[CaramelMan]

This thread sux....too much bickering and you lose the importance of the subject

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Not a single thing about who you are as a human being is at all decent. Your attitude and manner are disgusting. And in fact you are wrong. You have said yourself that Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, so go and do it. Otherwise, shut up about it already. Because anything other than getting it done is just blowing smoke up people's ass. It is all talk and no walk. If you think Brent has committed fraud and ought to be prosecuted, then either go find a way to put him behind bars, or just shut up already.

It's rare to find someone who is so proud to be an ignorant jackass. You now have multiple lawyers on this thread pointing out how the educational system has failed you -- or perhaps you were just too busy braying like the jackass that you are and weren't listening in class that day or month. Your understanding of the legal system would appear as if you learned it all from watching the Flintstones.

One of the purposes of this board is to point out fraud. And fraud exists in PWCC auctions with the scans and the shill bidding. When the fraud stops, the comments about the fraud will stop, not just because a low grade moron like you wants it to stop. Just as I wasn't cowed by other jackasses years ago when I pointed out the Mastro fraud and they tried to change the subject, I won't be deterred by a simpleton like you. By screaming that if Brent isn't 'locked up behind bars' by sundown today then we should stop talking about it isn't going to work if you haven't noticed. But let's keep this issue going, the more we talk about it on here the more people are coming out with examples of fraud in his auctions. You're doing a great job of keeping the spotlight on the fraud in PWCC auctions.

[frankbmd]

"All rise.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................................
You may be seated"

Sorry, Judy is still with her make-up artist. The judge is averse to wrinkles ya know.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

But let's keep this issue going, the more we talk about it on here the more people are coming out with examples of fraud in his auctions.

I'll ignore the insults, but let me say this - based on what I have seen so far, the only evidence against him seems to be that his scans are minimally brighter and that he allegedly doctored the image of a $643 hockey card. That doesn't seem like much to go on for a prosecution. If you have other people coming to you with examples that I don't know about, that is a different story.

I'm sorry that I got so upset, it's just that I don't like seeing people go to jail. And I just can't equate PWCC with Mastro. Maybe if there were more compelling evidence, I would feel differently. Anyways, I do apologize and I know that you think I'm an idiot. I just feel like I want to end my role in this, so this will be my last post on this thread.

Adieu.

[ullmandds]

I must agree that us talking about this and keeping it at the forefront and making others aware and citing examples...is DOING something...despite the sentiment of some that since I'm not a blue collar worker...I'm a pussy for not busting knee caps and threatening people with bodily harm because I was shilled out of some cash.

You know who u are GiantSlayer!!!!!

[tschock]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

Jeez, I'm not a lawyer and even I know that one can't be found "innocent" in a court of law. Just "not guilty". There's a difference. Look it up.

[bobbyw8469]

Long story short, PWCC gets UNREAL prices for his items, which attracts consignors, which attracts sales. Just check out completed listings for a 1956 Mantle #135 PSA 6 to see what I am talking about. Typically, a $800 card, his sells for over $2,000. My mind is blown everytime I see the prices his cards gets. Someone could make a decent living just buying my stuff and consigning it with Brent!!

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Not a single thing about who you are as a human being is at all decent. Your attitude and manner are disgusting.

Jamie, it's one thing to be argumentative and confrontational, which is something I totally get, as I'm right there with you, but when someone who knows an area much better than you tells you that you are blowing hot air, why can't you just say thanks for the education and go from there? If you did that, you wouldn't get forced into a corner where all you can do is hurl insults.

The last thing I would do is try to force my lawn-chair thoughts on law, on Jeff or any of the other lawyers on this forum. Use them as a resource when you want to LEARN about law, and I'm sure they'll use you as a resource when they want to know about whatever it is you're good at.

[Fred]

Has this forum passed a guilty verdict on someone? Sounds like the court of Net54 opinion has passed judgement.

Cmmon guys, lets get back to cardboard!

Peace, love, understanding and all that $hit....

[ullmandds]

I think the talk about how the forum used to be...has caused this forum to revert back...in some ways...to the way this forum used to be!!!

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Jamie, it's one thing to be argumentative and confrontational, which is something I totally get, as I'm right there with you, but when someone who knows an area much better than you tells you that you are blowing hot air, why can't you just say thanks for the education and go from there? If you did that, you wouldn't get forced into a corner where all you can do is hurl insults.

The last thing I would do is try to force my lawn-chair thoughts on law, on Jeff or any of the other lawyers on this forum. Use them as a resource when you want to LEARN about law, and I'm sure they'll use you as a resource when they want to know about whatever it is you're good at.

They misinterpreted my argument. They thought that I felt Brent ought not be prosecuted because I believed he was innocent, but the real reason why is because there seems to be insufficient damages. See posts 69 and 109 where I discuss that so far there seems to be only $110.27 in damages.

That said, another reason that I feel compassionate towards Brent is that he is a small-time ebay dealer. Those guys have very tight margins. Yes, there seems to be some funny business going on in Brent's auctions, but why not go after the big fish first, before worrying about small-fries like Brent?

What about this thread:
http://net54baseball.com/showthread....ight=legendary

As for learning from Jeff, I'd be happy to do so as much as possible if he writes in a respectful, non-abusive manner. Before I wrote my insult, here's some of the things he wrote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Do you talk out of your ass all day? I mean is that what you do for a living? You have no idea how the process works and yet you continue to blabber on like a fourth grader. Why don't you focus on what you know? Like your scanner.

Originally Posted by calvindog

You're a jackass... What have you done besides drone on like a braying jackass?

Originally Posted by calvindog

Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bonep@rth is exhibit A.

I would like nothing more than to make up with Jeff and get along well. That is why I apologized for the role that I played in the conflict. I would love an apology from him as well, but if that is not forthcoming, then hopefully we can still find a way co-exist in a civil manner.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Brent is a "small time ebay dealer"? Are you serious? He has 22,000 feedbacks in the last 12 months, and as we know that significantly UNDERSTATES the number of items he has sold. What planet is this thread on?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Brent is a "small time ebay dealer"? Are you serious?

Well, even if he isn't small time, this is just how I feel about him. I went to his website and the photo of him smiling with his significant other. You can tell that they really love each other, and I'm sure that there are all these people in his life who really love him.

When you think about the amount of suffering it would cause to imprison him, it is scary. Based on where he lives, I am guessing that he would go to San Quentin. I have seen a documentary on that prison and it is really scary. There is a tremendous amount of violence in those environments.

The trouble is that when someone is the victim of violence like that, it creates a tremendous amount of trauma and suffering that can stay with them for many years, decades, and their entire life, even. It is a very sad thing and people who experience it often never fully recover.

I myself did volunteer work in a prison when I was a college student. The prisoners are very friendly to you and will smile, but what goes on behind the scenes is really ugly. I was counseling a gang leader in Springfield, and during my time with him, he and his "friends" beat up a rival gang member very badly. That guy had to be transferred to another prison and was in very bad condition. So the dynamics that go into play there are intense.

Now, I understand that Mastro & Co. did millions of dollars worth of fraud and their sentences will be well deserved. It was a tremendous and courageous effort on behalf of Jeff and many others, and I admire that tremendously. But the situation with PWCC seems far from that right now. The best evidence we had right now is just a hockey card scan missing a print dot.

Now, I realize that most likely more went on, but if the only concrete evidence of fraud we had is that hockey card, as well as some scans that are slightly brighter than usual, then to send him away to a place like San Quentin just for that would be incredibly cruel. And that I why I've found myself so upset about this issue.

[Cardboard Junkie]

"You can tell that they really love each other." ha ha ha ha ha hah hah hah ah aha ahahaha hahha hahhha hahhhhhh!

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Well, even if he isn't small time, this is just how I feel about him. I went to his website and the photo of him smiling with his significant other. You can tell that they really love each other, and I'm sure that there are all these people in his life who really love him.

When you think about the amount of suffering it would cause to imprison him, it is scary. Based on where he lives, I am guessing that he would go to San Quentin. I have seen a documentary on that prison and it is really scary. There is a tremendous amount of violence in those environments.

The trouble is that when someone is the victim of violence like that, it creates a tremendous amount of trauma and suffering that can stay with them for many years, decades, and their entire life, even. It is a very sad thing and people who experience it often never fully recover.

I myself did volunteer work in a prison when I was a college student. The prisoners are very friendly to you and will smile, but what goes on behind the scenes is really ugly. I was counseling a gang leader in Springfield, and during my time with him, he and his "friends" beat up a rival gang member very badly. That guy had to be transferred to another prison and was in very bad condition. So the dynamics that go into play there are intense.

Now, I understand that Mastro & Co. did millions of dollars worth of fraud and their sentences will be well deserved. It was a tremendous and courageous effort on behalf of Jeff and many others, and I admire that tremendously. But the situation with PWCC seems far from that right now. The best evidence we had right now is just a hockey card scan missing a print dot.

Now, I realize that most likely more went on, but if the only concrete evidence of fraud we had is that hockey card, as well as some scans that are slightly brighter than usual, then to send him away to a place like San Quentin just for that would be incredibly cruel. And that I why I've found myself so upset about this issue.

Why do I get the feeling we are being punk'd? Where are you hiding Ashton?

[ullmandds]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where's Sy Sterling?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Why do I get the feeling we are being punk'd? Where are you hiding Ashton?

I don't think you can make this stuff up. "Once upon a time", is all it is missing.

[autograf]

Probably a lot of dudes that love their significant other in the slammer right now......doubt that would sway a jury.....odd line of reasoning (or lack thereof.....).....

'Chao, party of one.........'

[Peter_Spaeth]

Chao is looking good in the rear view mirror.