Open letter to STAT and Christopher Morales
 

Posted By: <b>Bill Panagopulos</b><p>800...stay tuned!

Open letter to STAT and Christopher Morales
 

Posted By: <b>Nick</b><p>Well the offense is 2 fold....the fact they would get signatures at a homeless shelter, as Diana was one of the most giving and humane people in the world....she was not perfect, but she truly was helping people.<br /><br />The 2nd is that they put that in their auction to give it further proof, or provenance if you will. I would like to see a letter from the consignor on that....<br /><br />...actually 3...if the piece is not genuine...they used someone's good name, and reputation for helping people, in an attempt to better their own financial position.<br /><br />Is it more of a crime to state things such as where it was obtained, time, date, etc if it is proven to be untrue?<br /><br />While they may not go to jail....they certainly will have some questions to answer at "Those certain gates".

Open letter to STAT and Christopher Morales
 

Posted By: <b>Richard S. Simon</b><p>And of course the homeless person just happened to have a nice white baseball at the time of the visit of Diana and Sarah.<br />What is the over/under on the number of bids this baby gets???<br /><br />--<br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.<br />Unknown author <br />--<br />We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.<br />No retreat baby, no surrender.<br />The Boss

Open letter to STAT and Christopher Morales
 

Posted By: <b>DJ</b><p>Members of the Royal Family do not give autographs! This is a strict policy that people who meet the Royals have to understand and a rule to abide by. Have you ever seen signatures of the Queen Mother, Prince Andrew or Prince Harry?<br /><br />Immediatley following the tragic death of Princess Diana in 1997, out from nowhere surfaced LARGE quantities of Princess Diana autographs on everything from photos to index cards to a number of signed baseballs. Before her death, none of this saw the light of day. <br /><br />I remember watching a documentary last year to honor the ten year anniversary of the tragic passing and there was this story told that Princess Diana was at this homeless shelter (or a charitable function) and one of the people who worked with Diana asked for a signature. She looked around and noted that she is not allowed to do so, but asked if she could shield away the Royal security, she would quickly sign the autograph. <br /><br />Diana was a generous person and many of her hand signed thank you notes and letters have come to light. As well as her Holiday cards and a few photos. But knowing what we know about the difficulties of even getting within a block of Royalty when they touch down (security?), is it feasible that when she leaves a place, she goes down the row to sign a bunch of signatures outside...say Letterman like a movie star? <br /><br />Wouldn't you love to talk to that consignor and get more information from them?<br /><br />DJ<br />

Open letter to STAT and Christopher Morales
 

Posted By: <b>NickM</b><p>While I will never get back the time I spent reading his pitiful whining, misstatements of the law, defense of himself and his fellow crooks, and empty threats, one good thing has come of it. I now know what that piece of human waste looks like.<br /><br />BTW, I hope Morales and/or Taylor actually does sue. One of the first things any defendant would seek in discovery (assuming the case doesn't get kicked out before discovery on an anti-SLAPP motion, with the plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendants' attorneys fees) is the complete consignment records of the plaintiffs. Imagine the fun when those come out - especially when the next step is to discover the asset acquisition records of the consignors. <br /><br />A Morales/Taylor libel suit would end up like the famous Oscar Wilde libel suit.

Christopher Morales 2005 SCD Interview Revisited
 

Deleted doe to the sensitivity of the subject matter.

Let me ask you a question, Christopher . . .

Do you have authorization from SCD to reprint its copyrighted content?

+ Beating a dead horse, on the wrong side of the board.

No one is buying Chris Morales cert'd stuff on Net54....NO ONE.

Sigh.

Mr. Lemke, being that I no longer had that issue in my possession, I wrote to the editor of SCD and he sent me a copy of that article and Mr. Tom Bartsch of Sports Collectors Digest gave Steve Cyrkin permission to use the entire article on Mr. Cyrkin's AutographMagazine website. Thank you for asking.

Mr. Bartsch also sent me the Drew Max article. I want to thank Mr. Bartsch publicly for sending me that article.

So as not to ruffle any feathers over HERE I will remove my post.

Longest thread in the history of Net54baseball
 

Here is the longest thread ever in the history of Net54baseball. Sit back and enjoy....since we have an autograph section I will move it there....

Does anyone happen to know which page the invisible man "Chris Morales" makes his appearance? :eek:

Bob Lemke wrote:

Bob, I'm just curious, when you were working for SCD, did you ask management or ownership to stop accepting Coach's Corner advertisements? I would really like to hear your stance and what steps you personally took to prevent Coach's Corner from ripping off collectors. Did you have a holier-than-thou attitude with management and ownership too? Or just people like Chris because you have no guts to do the right thing and stand up for what's important? I seem to remember that Coach's Corner ran advertisements in SCD for years in spite of collectors and other auction houses calling out SCD on the disgusting relationship SCD had with Coach's Corner.

Refresh my memory, Michael . . . when did Coach's Corner start advertising in SCD?

Bob,
Around 1920 I think :D.
I have not read the magazine in many, many years and they were a regular back when I read it,,,

As usual, Richard, you are a fountain of useful information.

Sounds about right, Richard.

Now we have full-page ads from CSC Collectibles to look forward to. A New Era of advertising begins.....

Bob as the man at the top of SCD one would think you would have archives to look that up. I can tell you that I know Coaches Corner advertised from at least 1997 to well past 2003. I remember a good guy named Rocky at SCD being so upset with the garbage they where selling that he left you and went to another part of Krause. I also remember you not allowing me to defend myself when UDA wrote an op ed that was filled with lies. Your big thing was, so long as they have someone authenticating their stuff you where free of blame, just like the three wise monkeys. You saw no evil.
Tracer Code became a very short term authenticator for Coaches Corner but since the authenticators there (myself included) thought virtually everything from Coaches Corner was garbage that Coaches soon dropped us and moved on to others. And you still let Coaches go on and on, despite all the complaints, despite all the protests SCD kept cashing all their checks. SCD was an enabler, a big time enabler.
Why Bob? Why?
Unless you had blinders on you had to know the truth.

Coming from someone who oversaw the publication that helped facilitate an organization that stole millions of dollars from collectors, I don't even know how to respond to you. Maybe I can ask you how many times did you help law enforcement eliminate the trash in the hobby?
Maybe I can help you with other useful info :D.

Well written, Shelly.

I believe SCD accepted advertising money from Coach's Corner until 2009. It's a stain that SCD will never be able to wipe clean and the millions of dollars of crap that will infect the hobby forever.

Bob, I don't know you and I was not sure when I posted my question if you had the spine (or integrity) to answer my question. I never thought you would just respond with a silly question and not an answer.

Now can you please share with this group what role you played in doing the right thing for the hobby while Coach's Corner was allowed to advertise for several years in your publication?

thanks,

+1

Yep, regardless of when this crap is stopped, it's effects will be felt for YEARS!

http://www.auctionzip.com/cgi-bin/ph...zip=33545&kwd=

Another Florida auction surprising!!!!

Michael, that wasn't a silly question. I have no access to SCD "archives" and couldn't possibly discuss the subject without some timeline reference.

Many of you (Shelley, etc.) are under the mistaken impression that I was at the helm of SCD from the time we bought it in 1981. The fact is, I left as publisher of the sports division to take on a corporate role in acquisition and development sometime in the early- to mid-1990s. At that point my involvement with SCD was strictly as an occasional column contributor.

I believe I spelled all that out when this thread was "live" the first time. Feel free to look it up; I'm not so inclined.

I can say unequivocally that when I WAS publisher of SCD, Coaches Corner (if indeed they were advertising then) was in compliance with our customer service requirements, which at that time were much stricter than those that came into effect after Krause Publications was sold to a private equity investment firm. Under KP, an advertiser could be banned (and I banned dozens of them) if they failed to satisfy even a single reader complaint based on the "rules" that were published every issue.

Bob, if not you then who was in charge at the time cc was big in your magazine?

Bob - so the private equity firm (Bain Capital perhaps?) (sorry I could not resist) was responsible for the quality of advertisers in the magazine?
So Bob, are you telling us though you were not personally not involved with SCD at the time of CC advertising, you had zero knowledge of what they were doing. No office grumblings going on? No staffers complaining to you at anytime about CC? No office gossip floating around, that derided the offerings of CC, that you were privy to? You were in corporate and never heard one word about the crimes being committed on the pages of SCD? Is that what you are telling us?

Shelley,

Again, specific dates would be necessary to determine who was the publisher of SCD at any point in time. And it is the publisher, not the editor or the ad manager who makes the ultimate determination as to who advertises.

Those who succeeded me as publisher included Steve Ellingboe, Hugh McAloon, Kevin Isaacson, Jeff Pozorski (I believe) and Dean Listle, who finally pulled CC's ad privileges.

I reiterate, after the company was sold, the customer service department was gelded, then gutted, and finally eliminated.

And yes, Richard, I am telling you that after I left the helm of SCD, I had no knowledge of CC or any other problem advertiser. I don't recall ever hearing about any hobby concerns with Coaches Corner until they surfaced on this forum as the boggie man. That was after I had left the employ the F+W in 2006.

And that is what is so great about so many corporations,, public be damned, abetting a criminal enterprise? who cares, let us just keep cashing the checks until we can't.

Bob,

As I understand it, you are currently involved with SCD.

Since it sounds like you took no steps in the past to alert the public to Coach's Corner, what steps and actions are on your agenda to alert the collecting public who read your publication about the crap that Coach's Corner and Chris Morales are still involved in?

Do you have any plans to do investigative journalism on Chris Morales, or Coach's corner going forward? Or will the philosophy at SCD continue to be head-in-the sand and see-no-evil hear-no-evil participation?

Michael,

My only "involvement" with SCD is my blanket permission to editor Tom Bartsch to pick up anything he cares to off my blog and reprint it in SCD. I take no remuneration for such use, other than a complimentary subscription.

To suggest that I "investigate" this type of thing now, when I have not been an employee of F+W since 2006, is inane.

Tom can have anything he likes from my blog page and I would consider not giving me a subscription to be my payment.

www.richardsimonsports.com/hofauto2.htm

Lots of good stuff on that page.

Bob,

Coach's corner was advertising in 2006 and for years before and after 2006. So you were there when the relationship between SCD and Coaches corner was going strong.

It sounds like you are somewhat involved with SCD in someway, although it is not exactly clear to what extent. I know I have heard your name mentioned in that publication so you must have been working with and communicating with quite a few of SCD's employees.

So, let me ask again: What are you planning to do to help alert readers of scd and new hobbyists about Christopher Morales and Coach's Corner?

How about I answer first: I was constantly writing in the blogs of SCD and calling out TS O'connell for years. Eventually TS O'Connell shut down the feedback section of his blog so I started my own blog on the matter.

I must have been heard since the boys at Coach's Corner tried to intimidate me. I stuck my name out there and had to deal with the possibility of Lee and his associates coming after me.

So instead of channeling your efforts into worrying about whether Christopher had permission to use an article, I wish you would show some effort in helping rid the hobby of these crooks.

I answered my question, now will you?

Bob, I am really not trying to insult you but if you can please reply to question below I would greatly appreciate it.

Do you remember Ted Taylor of Stat Authentic's? Now better known as "TTA" one of CC's best known experts. Could you or all the other people that you blame not see the conflict of interest between SCD and CC then? At some time in your comments it would be nice if you just admit somewhere along the line you let a lot of this happen.
It also would be nice if you could stop what is happening now. I would think that you still have some say with the people at SCD

I think the standing offer of allowing scd to pick up any of his blog posts in return for a free subscription should be rescinded by bob in light of this.

or maybe make a lot of blog posts about what is currently happening in the hobby regarding these organizations that continue to offer this junk and urge scd to pick up those posts?

Michael, Now you are simply being obtuse. You are evidently not going to let facts get in the way of your crusade. You're going to have to continue your rants without further participation from me.

Evasive action always occurs on Net54 when the person being questioned cannot answer the questions any longer.

This all started because because Mr. Lemke asked me "Do you have authorization from SCD to reprint its copyrighted content?"

Why would you care, Mr. Lemke?

First of all, I asked Mr. Bartsch if he could send me past articles from SCD containing the interviews SCD had with Chris "I Never Saw An Autograph I Didn't Like" Morales and Drew Max. I wanted them for a blog I was going to write titled "Christopher L. Morales May 2005 SCD Interview Revisited."

The moderator of the blog received direct permission from Mr. Bartsch to use those articles and Mr. Bartsch emailed those articles to me.

So why would you care?

Why the defensive attitude?

Richard,

I'm not hiding. I'm just refusing to play Michael's silly little game and participate in his self-aggrandizing agenda.

I believe I answered, some more than once, all of his questions. It seems to me he is unwilling to accept the facts as I have presented them.

Christopher,

That question was posted about two years ago. It was my subtle attempt to point out that while you were so strident in your self-appointed role as hobby savior that you were also engaging in (technically) illegal activity, i.e., copyright violation.

If I seem to be defensive, it's because I feel that I am being unfairly assailed for events in which I had no hand.

I'll be here as long as anybody -- except Michael -- has legitimate questions for me, providing they have not alreay been asked and answered in this interminable thread.

Mr. Lemke, it is not possible that you posted that question two years ago, because it was only earlier this year (2012) that the Blog Moderator and myself requested prints of those interviews.

Why would you care if I was in copyright violation? Would that affect you, Mr. Lemke?

Are you against, as you put it, my "self-appointed role as hobby savior?" I have never called myself a hobby savior. And I have never profited a penny from the hobby. I am not a dealer, hobby shop owner, etc. I am simply a collector who over eight years ago became fed with the crap and scum that have infected the hobby. Anything wrong with that, Mr. Lemke? Were you ever upset at my bashing of SCD? Not that I give a damn. SCD has earned any bashing they have received from the hobby.

Were you upset that I "Revisited The SCD Interview With Chris Morales?"

Why would you be upset at what I do, Mr. Lemke?

I would also like to state, Mr. Lemke, that it's your right to either like or hate what I do.

I don't do what I do to win any kind of popularity contest. if I didn't have one single supporter of my blogs and videos, I would still do what I do.

Mr. Lemke quite succinctly explained why he cared, Mr. Williams. He found it hypocritical, Mr. Williams, that you, the self-appointed guardian of truth, justice, honesty, and correct hobby behavior, would--even while calling out others--himself be in violation of the law. Or doesn't the law apply to you, Mr. Williams?

Ad infinitum,,,, :D. Let's see how this plays out :D.

Gee, Dick. How many times have you announced that I'm on your "ignore" list? Either you're stupid enough to comment on something you haven't read, or you were just lying.

Just started humming an old Styx song "Why must you be such an angry young man".

The last person to call me Dick was around 12 years old and I was around 11.
Very mature, Mr Atkatz, very mature indeed.
And yes you were on my ignore list for a long time, but when I returned from my vacation I saw what appeared to be a spirited conversation between you and my good friend DanC. So I admit, I unblocked you to see what was going on. I felt I needed a good laugh then and I knew DanC had the capability to chop you up. Just like Jeff L------- did a long time ago.
And you getting into it with people like Dan and Chris, people who have done tremendous things to help the hobby, is, well dickish.
I think it is time to go and put Mr Atkatz back on block,,, bye David. Not to worry guys, no more bickering.

Ignore List

David Atkatz

Check / Uncheck All

Oooh... Got me, Dick.

Christopher,

You've got me there. I see I posted that question in Oct., 2011.

Which brings up a point that is going to remain a constant in this thread. I may be a little vague about dates because I have no resources with which to pin down specifics of my career at Krause/F+W. I'm only relying on my increasingly muddled memories.

Your unauthorized use of copyrighted material did not, and does not, affect me; I was merely pointing out the irony.

To sum up the rest of your questions . . .
Yes, I am upset at the way in which you go about your self-appointed mission. That is, without regard to facts. You earned my enmity when you continually attacked my friend T.S. O'Connell without regard for the fact that as editor, he had no "jurisdiction" over advertising matters. You persisted even when I point that out to you. Your ham-handed personal attacks are now, and were then, unwarranted, yet you blithely persist with complete disregard for the facts.

Bob-
Who specifically had jurisdiction over the CC ads for all those years?
Who approved the CC advertising?
Do you think or know if this person(s) was aware of what they were doing in regards to CC?
Can you speculate about the CSC ads now and why people who contact SCD seem to be getting a complete runaround. One day they are told CSC will be gone and poof a short time later they are back again.
Specific answers would be desirable.

Bob - I guess the editor may have no "jurisdiction" over advertising matters but would he not have serious influence in the organization? Would he not be involved in crucial policy decisions? Would he not know of CC and what they were doing at the time he was editor? Could he not make an attempt to get involved with the decision making process, that would be involved, in whether to allow CC to continue to advertise.