Yeah, a minor criminal record discharged, pleading the 5th on where his items came from, a recent bankruptcy, lawsuits out the ying yang, a huge amount of alleged fraud, lots of hot checks, outstanding civil judgements....yeah I wouldn't discount him either. Great guy.....

oh yeah forgot to mention his 50 different personalities on his site.....that commands a lot of faith in what he says too

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.

Repetitive Nature?
 

Doctor Atkatz,

Nothing personal at all, just good factual reporting. Are you getting emotional about this?

Not "good factual reporting" at all. I did not state that "some of the Pet Gnash posts on the Hauls of Shame website are not well researched and are indeed false." You inferred that. (And inferred incorrectly to boot.) And the rest of the post--a poor attempt at satire--is pure gobbledygook.

That's right, Leon. It was never in the NYPL collection. You just decided to donate it to them. And the NYPL stamp was there by... magic? You did not have good title, regardless of what you--or your lawyers--might claim. The stamp proves it was--and remains--library property. When you learned of the stamp is irrelevant in proving title. I must take you at your word that you didn't know it was library property. But that does not change the fact that the card indeed was.

it has a nypl stamp on the back and they never had it?

Their letter to you, which you posted, said thank you for RETURNING it to the nypl. you can't return it if it was never there in the first place.

You can say whatever you want to but it won't make it so and won't change the facts. I am most likely done with this thread. It's really a moot point as what is done is done. I am happy with the way it all turned out in the end. Thanks for your opinion. Have fun with your fraudulent friend....

The fact is the card belonged to the NYPL. The evidence--the library stamp--proves that. The lack of other records--assuming there are none--still does not negate the fact that the card was stamped. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Be "done with the thread" all you want. But there isn't a person here who doesn't believe the card is NYPL property.

I concede it might have been theirs, there is just no proof beyond an almost illegible mark. You can't change those facts either. Maybe you should ask your good friend Pete, who was wrong about it already. You do trust him right? Birds of a feather I guess.... LMAO..

I made my mind up to get rid of it at that point so didn't contest the letter. Had I not accepted that letter and wanted to keep the card I would still have it....and have it forever or until I sold it if I wanted to, just like the other one that is still out there. I had good title to it until I gave it to them. But with what I do in the hobby I felt I should give it to them to end the controversy.

I didn't say he was a great guy -- I just said that he should hardly be discounted because of his past. Some of his work is valuable and most of the objective, experienced hobbyists here agree. Just because you don't like him doesn't make this untrue. Ask Dan McKee.

Maybe he should be discounted because he is psychotic and a habitual liar. Mckee is probably the only real guy that has posted over there. How could you possibly believe a guy that acts in the manner Nash does?

Biased & Emotional?
 

Doctor David Atkatz,

Inferences are made everyday as part of good factual reporting. It seems you may be biased as this report was about you. This often happens as a defense mechanism and is rather expected. Perhaps a fresh look or different perspective would be helpful for you? Let me know if you would like some suggestions but I must say there could be a conflict of interest.

You supported Mastro and Allen for years and you're the arbiter of who should be trusted?

The question was, how can you believe him when he has lied and committed so much fraud? Him taking the 5th on where he got some items means he basically admitted guilt. And he has been sued (and lost) so many times, all in recent years? How do you believe a guy like that?

I used to ask you the same thing re Mastro and Allen.

As for Nash, he's supplying facts with much of the stuff he does -- not opinions. If Dan and David, two of the most knowledgable guys in this entire hobby, can find some value in Nash's work maybe, just maybe, you're missing the boat here.

"almost illegible mark"?

are you still disputing that it is NOT an nypl mark on the back of that card?

If you are not disputing it, why say 'almost illegible mark', why not just say an NYPL mark, because that's what it is.

Scott, I do, but have you ever eaten chocolate and popcorn at the same time? It is pretty good...

If you concede it might have been theirs, then it is not a clear title, it is a disputed title.

If you have clear title like you are stipulating all along, then what's the controversy?

A lot of people choose to 'get rid of' 80,000 dollar cards. i don't believe you could have sold it without possibile liability down the line if the person who bought it from you was ordered to return it to the library. They could have charged back to you claiming you knew it was nypl property being told by a field agent himself according to you on a tape in which every time you uttered the word NYPL, it was in hushed tones. As well as cleverly devising a description at auction which describes it as 'possibly being a library mark' as the first option of what the mark on the back might be.

A court decides who has good title. Not you. Not your lawyer.
And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there.

Give it up, Leon. No one supports you on this. You're all alone.

Your ignorance is mind-boggling. But my spelling isn't very good :).

I don't see anyone standing up for you. I don't see anyone--anyone at all--who's willing to state he doesn't believe the card was NYPL property.

And that's not mind-boggling at all.

I have only been here a year or two but as a newcomer to this site just have a few basic questions.......Is all this bantering back and forth serious or is it just the boys "busting etch others balls"? I realize the subject matter is serious but at at the end of the day are you guys still friends?

Little Guy?
 

Truly amazing,

Doctor David Atkatz now controls the court of law as evidence in his statement "And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there". How would Doctor David Atkatz have any clue what the court of law would decide unless he had insider information or had some sort of control over the judge. Tell us Doctor, how do you know what the court would decide...? I will say Dr. Atkatz, you are good - you are really good.............. Your powers.... wow

I too would like to know who thinks the card was NOT NYPL property.

And as for Leon saying he accepted the wording on the letter in order to return it and didn't want to dispute the wording of the letter that says "thank you for returning the card" implying that returning means it was theirs in the first place.

Leon, YOU POSTED THE LETTER! There was nothing to refute or correct because you didnt have to show the letter to anyone!

Shawn, you are an ass. We get it. But do you have to prove it over and over?

Sorry but ive been reading this whole post and one thing ive noticed is you keep getting ignored...lol...k carry on

I see the following collectors and prominent people have commented over there, not just Dan McKee.

Dave Grob
Richard Simon
Bill Hedin
Josh Evans
Theo Chen
Linda Ruth Tosetti
Richard Bond
Bill Panagopolous
Dorothy Seymour Mills

and more as well as myself. As well as contributions to the articles by Grob, Brandon Grunbaum, and responses to questionnaires put out by Halls of Shame by many auction house owners, major dealers and others.

There is just no leg to stand on trying to single someone out and trying to isolate them as the only person who comments over there like you tried to do to Dan McKee. That's pretty low and/or not fair.

In bed with Petes Nash
 

Dr. Dave Atkatz,

My point was proven much earlier (by you) when I reeled you in - hook, line and sinker because you felt the need to defend yourself against the absurd & ridiculous comments I made about you being tied in with Petey Nash... I truly chuckle at it... By you defending yourself against my insane comments lends zero credibility to anything you have to say, much less anything the "pop goes the weasel" has to say. You missing the boat is semi "LOL"... Also, your lack of the English language is quite telling... My wife, and shall I say my children resort to foul language & curse words due to a lack of up-bringing and adolescence. Some may find it hard to take you serious unless you speak more intelligible...

The word you're looking for is "intelligibly." Oh, and "seriously," too. You see, "take" and "speak" are verbs. They must be modified by adverbs. Which end in "ly."
But I'll work on my "lack of the English language." I get it! You were just joking, weren't you?! The humor of a guy who thinks "ass" is foul language is sometimes hard to discern.

Very good Doctor,

I can see that you are starting to lighten up. Your "self awareness" obviously benefits - well, "yourself" - that's a good thing. The ease at which you move from topic to topic / subject to subject is still of concern. lets focus a little bit on that and see where we can improve. Trust me, I am not belittling you but trying to empower you.

I'll try. But ever since I stopped taking my meds, focusing has been kind of tough.

Where was I?

The ole joke
 

What's the ol joke Doctor... "De Nile"?

I am trying to figure out if Leon's contention that everything Nash says is a lie, or if Leon's previously statement is what he wants to go by today. No doubt.



"However, in fairness to him I did start a thread on the autograph side concerning him which wasn't very flattering. That being said he really should get his house in order before he tries to clean other houses. That's just my opinion .....and yes, of course, some of what he says is true, no doubt. "

Travis, I am not understanding your post? Not trying to stir anything up - just trying to figure out whats up? Is there another thread going on that is connected to this thread?