I don't believe that for a minute. You can look that sort of stuff up. I am not saying that you are screwed regardless, but I am certainly saying that both are the worst venues, at least in California, that a plaintiff can file in.

We have one of these Districts here. We will not even file a case if we think it might be removed there. That's been the case for 15 years. There is one sitting judge there (who was in my section in law school and who I went to strip bars with back then), one roving judge, and one Senior, who was mean as hell but would let you try your case. Been there twice, both times after being removed. Actually got the Senior Judge once, who remanded the case within a day after getting the briefs, and even my old law school buddy kicked the other case back, finally.

Those districts exist. You know that they do. We both know that. The fact that they exist is, unfortunately, just a fact IMO. I wish they didn't and that everywhere was fair. But they are not.

There are 29 federal district judges in the Central District of California. I am sure their politics and temperament cover the whole spectrum. Your generalization, to me, without much more analysis, makes no sense at all.

https://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/judges...les-procedures

There are apparently even more in Orange County though I did not count how many handle commercial litigation.

https://www.occourts.org/directory/j...-officers.html

Again, come on.

You can't cite a single fact to support your proclamation that these are the worst venues for plaintiffs in California. You haven't analyzed the question at all.

And I guess that who appointed them will or can make a huge difference in terms of outcome. I am not now, nor have I ever said, that they are all unfair. They are fair, according to their beliefs. If you are a criminal defense lawyer, do you want a career prosecutor as your judge? I would suggest probably not. At least I have been told by some friends who do that they are the worst, particularly on sentencing. Dunno, not my area.

If you do insurance law like I do, do you want an insurance defense lawyer who you have tried cases against as your judge now? I can assure you that I don't. Some are better than others, sure. But it is still a problem. I get that whole "fair" thing. But that is often in the eye of the beholder. Justice is certainly not blind so far as I can tell.

Peter,

Have you looked at the demographics in Orange County? I have a first cousin who lives there. My mom and most of my brothers and sisters live one county away. I have a pretty good idea of what's going on there. When I'm confused, I just talk to my cousin. Then I am back on track.

You seem to be straying far from your original argument which was that, as a general matter, plaintiffs do not do well in the Central District of California or Orange County. And that that somehow motivated PSA to name its home district in its forum selection clause, something which is standard corporate practice for most American corporations. I don't even know what points you are trying to make now.

But I like agreeing with you, so I'll agree with your last message, the one before Orange County that is lol I can't keep up with you.

So what's going on there, Kenny? And how does it connect to the court system and its what, 50+ judges?

Do you seriously think they are completely unrelated? i don't.

So Orange County's demographics favor PSA in a suit by one of its customers over a baseball card, as a general proposition unrelated to the facts of the case. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And what about the Central District, you also made the same argument about that court system. Probably as diverse an area, overall, as exists.

Yes, Orange County's demographics favor corporate defendants such as PSA over individual plaintiffs. Wont and cant go into the politics behind that, but that is obviously a huge part of the reason why. As a general proposition I absolutely believe that Orange County is a really bad venue for any individual plaintiff. Period. Not insurmountable, but a problem. You can go try a case there and win, sure, but it is just much harder there than in other areas. It is what it is and life goes on.

Again. Based on what analysis? What facts? What statistics? What anything? You're just making shit up as far as I can tell, for what purpose I don't know. It also sounds to me like you're engaging in some serious stereotyping, but let's leave that out of it. And again, you made the exact same statement about the C.D.Cal., an incredibly diverse and huge area.

Go look it up. I am somewhat constrained by the ban on talking about politics, but its pretty easy to get there. How about you do that before you shoot anymore?

Venue written as exclusive and mandatory is a logistical decision - nothing more.

Of course. Every corporation in America, or most, use such clauses to mandate home jurisdictions.

Ridiculous stereotyping if I am reading you correctly. And I take it you have backed off the statement about the C.D.Cal. now which is where you started?

Moreover, guys who go to Orange County to pursue PSA over a baseball card are probably going to be of the same demographic you are hinting at.

No. I believe that to be true from what I understand. And, I would ask, if you were drafting a forum selection clause for a client in a real liberal venue, would you do that? I would think probably not. That would probably be stupid and would be a disservice to your client absent other concerns. If there was a venue close by that was better for your client, wouldn't you do that? This the same thing, only in reverse. If Orange County wasn't way conservative, do you seriously contend that the forum selection clause would be there, as opposed to a real close but more conservative venue? Not seeing it.

Spare me. It isn't the plaintiff. Its the judge and the jurors, assuming you get there. You know that.

I infer nothing other than PSA is in Newport Beach or Santa Ana or whatever and chose its home forum as a matter of convenience, as most companies do. Your argument is assuming its conclusion, namely if Orange County wasn't conservative PSA wouldn't have chosen it.

Now if you said, they choose Orange County because they think a judge or jury might favor an Orange County party, well that might make some sense, but that has nothing to do with the demographics of the forum or its residents or judges.

I think you will find the vast majority of forum selection clauses are home base clauses.

OC isn't nearly as conservative as it used to be. They just voted in a liberal in the Laguna/Newport district. Demographics are much different in Santa Ana than they are by the water. I know nothing about how judges in the area tend to rule, but if you're saying Santa Ana is a politically conservative area you probably haven't spent much time here.

Why would the judge and jurors side with a small company against someone of their own demographic, if you think that demographic somehow plays into it which I don't buy? Are you saying being of a certain demographic makes one inherently pro-defendant regardless of the identities of the parties, the nature of the case, the evidence, etc.?

LOL. OK. That is a real easy conclusion to draw, particularly if you take the time to actually look. But whatever. We, at least, both agree that this debacle is awful. Ultimately, I would suggest that is what's important.

No question there. We can only hope justice is done this time. I just don't see the forum selection clause, at the end of the day, as a particular obstacle is all I am saying.

And I do. Time will tell.

right no lawsuits needed, everything is working out great.

I think if PSA /pwcc sent an email to all prior submitters buyers and told them about this issue and to submit that would get them off the hook when a buyer later 'learns' of the issue years later, perhaps when a wronged buyer submits to an auction house 4 years from now (and first learns of the issue) the statute of limitations being argued as a defense if the required times passes i would think would indeed get them off the hook

The defense may work either way but its more solid PSA/PWCC and the like just notified everyone to look at their tainted cards potentially.

Yes more claims will be submitted as well so there is risk/reward. But it appears even if the card market tanks, everyone will be paid fairly years from now and everyone will agree what their damages are from a sale the past 2 or 3 years.

Any more refunds, or refusals, to report?

Honest question, doesn't this whole fiasco elevate PSA further above other third-party graders?

It's pretty clear that BGS/BVG, SGC and PSA are all having difficult times detecting altered cards. If I'm not mistaken, only PSA will make you whole for their mistakes.

Has any refund been issued by SGC or Beckett?

Have we actually seen evidence of PSA paying out anything yet? Their “official statement” directed people to get refunds from the seller (not from PSA).

PWCC has, on several occasions now, issued refunds on altered PSA cards. But I have yet to see where PSA has actually paid out a penny. Someone please correct me if this is wrong.

Furthermore, most of the exposed cards are residing in PSA holders. So I fail to see the purported “elevation” of PSA over and above anyone else. They’re all flawed in different ways. But they’re all equal in terms of happily accepting money for a service that most of us could perform far better for free.

Didnt their quarterly report say that they paid out claims from the Insurance?

They have a reserve, no insurance.

Sorry, the reserve pool went down, so they paid out something.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Maybe... Can someone here verify that?

Would love to see what appears in their next quarterly report, as awareness of the scandal hadn’t yet impacted that particular time-Frame. All we’ve seen to date is denial and deflection to the “bad actors” and the sellers.

According to this post on CU yesterday, PWCC blocked a guy after voiding at his request the purchase of an outed Moser card. But told him he could still consign. :)


https://forums.collectors.com/discus...mment_12382315

I purchased a 1953-54 Rocket Richard parkhurst card in March for $2800 that was certified high end. That card turned out to be a Moser altered card. After I discovered this was an altered card, I asked to void the transaction as I had consigned items with PWCC at the time and the card in question was still in their possession. After two weeks of deliberations from PWCC I was getting nowhere so I contacted Brent directly. They did void the transaction.

The consequence for me as a buyer in demanding the transaction of a proven altered card be voided has been that I am now blocked. Here's the text of the email...

_Hi Nathanael,

Thanks for reaching out. Yes, there was a block placed on your eBay user I.D. as a result the 1953 Parkhurst Rocket Richard. Unfortunately it is to close to that incident date to consider removing the block on your account. However, that block only has to do with your eBay account and it's ability to bid in our auctions, you are still more than welcome to consign with us, that wouldn't be a problem at all._

Just thought people should know what to expect when asserting yourselves in returning proven altered cards. The idea that I could consign but not bid seems kind of strange.

-Nathanael

WOW...what a POS Brent/PWCC is!!!!

I'd send him a thank you note for blocking me, but that's me.

So I haven't seen anyone post that they got an email from PWCC (or anyone else) informing them that they purchased altered cards and to please return them for a prompt and cheerful refund.

Has ANYONE gotten an unsolicited notice of any kind about cards purchased through PWCC, or are they only oiling the squeaky wheels?

Jeff?

I’ve been watching this all unfold and thought I had been unaffected. I didn’t see any of my certs. Today I received an unsolicited refund offer from PWCC for a $600 card I purchased in 2014.

Wow; glad to see they still have some cash in the vault to refund you.

Why is PWCC doing the refunding? The card is in a PSA holder, shouldn’t they be the ones contacting and refunding?

The authenticity and guarantee comes from PSA. Didn’t see anything on PSA website about going through PWCC. Maybe I need to read the fine print.

Ask Jeffrey he should know

You missed Steve Sloan's statement, advising people with altered cards to contact their seller and only to contact PSA if the seller was "unknown."

Never too late to make amends when there's a guillotine hanging over one's head.

Since PWCC has been accused of perpetuating the fraud against customers and PSA, it was recommended to PSA that to reduce their liability, that the buyers of affected cards try to get refunds from the scammers first before making a run on the bank of Collector's Universe.
If the place you bought it from determines that they do not want to take the return, then you contact PSA about their grade guarantee. One of the big takeaways from the stockholders conference call three months ago was that PSA actually reduced their reserve fund, while everyone on this board expected them to increase it because of the scandal.

There is some hearsay that says that the big submitters to PSA and SGC were invited to meet with them and both companies highly recommended that if the submitters wanted to keep their privileges to submit, that they take all the returns and eat the losses themselves. That would absolve PSA and SGC from having to take as many returns of altered cards. COMC is refunding people who bought altered or fake cards on their site as well, and claim that they're going to inform buyers of exposed cards that they should return them for full refunds to COMC. Maybe after paying out all those refunds, COMC takes all the altered cards and submits them to PSA under the grade guarantee since they weren't the alterers, just a venue for sale?

I'm surprised nobody in this conference call asked if PWCC regained their submission privileges, or if any other scammers had their submission privileges taken away. If so, what are their names? Why isn't the "Never Get Cheated" company supplying us with a list of known alterers/trimmers?

I got one in September, returned the card as requested, got a check shortly after that. The card was post-war (1950). The check cleared.

PSA should have to buy all The Wrongfully Graded Altered Cards Back.

In my opinion they’re the root cause/major facilitator of all this.

Which card and are you returning it?

None of this makes any sense at all.

PSA has the guarantee of an unaltered card, encapsulates said card, it then gets exposed as tainted and they say go back to where you bought it?

Why would PWCC or for that fact anyone other than PSA refund cards that were altered?

100% Correct I’ve been asking this question since day one! Falls on death ears I believe because people are making millions off PSA brand selling their product ECT. It’s the old don’t bite the hand that feed you silence that continues to facilitate the grandiose Debacle of Greed.

One would think if PSA was able to prove the submitter in bad faith submitted bad cards that were altered in an attempt to be graded with a number grade that they would have to go after that submit to civilly recover the money They had to pay back to the owner of the altered card. I’ve heard of this being done before by PSA. PSA has a guarantee make them prove that these alleged bad actors doctored/attempted to defraud them.

If PSA gets off Scott free without any responsibility this S will only continue the bad guys will just get more sophisticated in hiding their identities, who consigns to who purchases what handles are used etc.
I thought people on here wanted to HAVE Good Grading Company that didn’t grade bad cards, isn’t that the purpose of them?

In my view you’re going to see a major battle between PSA an alleged major problem submitters.

Have you been paying attention? PWCC and their submitting friends (Gary Moser, Brent himself?, Sotheby's restorer, Dick Towle?, etc) are implicated in doing the card altering themselves. Since PSA has the submission form state that when you sign, you promise you did not alter them, PSA does not have to pay restitution/guarantees to those who attempt to defraud their services.
So why wouldn't PSA push the financial burden onto a different company who is also at fault for the fraud. PWCC is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation right now. They're walking on eggshells. If they're willing to take the returns, PSA gets off with a whole lot less complaints and fiscal hit to their shareholders. Joe Orlando even said this scandal WASN'T MATERIAL TO THEIR BUSINESS!

If PWCC refuses to refund, then they likely face stiffer penalties from the FBI investigation. PSA at that point would be liable for the guarantee.

Nicely stated.