I agree completely. We'll never see an auction system that is free of shill bidding; however, at the very least we should expect auction houses not to engage in fraud themselves.

shill bidding
 

Agree completely with Jeff on that one. It's just so annoying to be so very conveniently cha-chinged right up to but not past your maximum bid near the end of the auction by some of these auction houses. I can think of at least two instances where that's happened to me right off the top of my head. I would think the auction house would have to have been involved in those cases, at least to the extent of tipping off the consignor concerning the maximum bid. Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

Good move, by the way, Bill. Oh and by the way, Jeff? My wife tested out at an IQ of 163, and she still doesn't like baseball cards!

Best regards, everyone.

Larry

If you don't trust them, don't use max bids at all. Only put in the next bid that puts you on top. Monitor the auction to the end.

Cheers,
Blair

not once have I ever informed any auction house what my high big was. to me, it's none of their business.

Would you give your credit card or keys to your house to strangers? In most cases, how well do we really know the employees at auction houses?

Max bids
 

Sometimes my schedule just doesn't permit staying up to the very end; otherwise I would agree that perhaps max bids just shouldn't be used with auction houses that engage in these tactics. It would be great if the max bid simply worked as it was supposed to: you simply decide how much you're willing to pay for a given lot, and don't get caught up in the action to the point that you start to feel it's a contest, and that the other guy is bidding on "my" card. That way you get enough sleep and still maintain control over the bidding.

Larry

Why?
 

If you know an auction house has engaged in this activity, why are you looking for suggestions about how to modify your bidding activity? My suggestion would be that you NEVER USE THAT AUCTION HOUSE AGAIN. They stole from you.

The truth is, this is the real problem. Everyone gives example after example of unethical behavior and then continues to bid. It seems there are very few (though I do know some) that are willing to boycott these unethical practices when it comes down to a card they really want. Until we stop accepting it as buyers and put these places out of business, it will continue...and it will continue to be our fault.

Ben Sutton.

Theory vs Reality
 

That's all well and good in theory, Ben, and I agree with you completely "in theory." If you're looking for an item that comes up regularly (which is almost always not what I'm looking for; I much prefer rare and significant, in the best condition available or that I can afford), then there is no problem. With regard to such fungible items, you're right; you simply avoid those auction houses whose ethics are not what they should be.

But if what you're bidding on is an item you've been after for perhaps a decade or more without success, and/or is very, very rarely seen in auction catalogues at all, has a pop report of less than ten, all of which tends to indicate that the examples that do exist have been gathered into private collectors' hands and are intended to be kept that way for many, many years (what is referred to as "strong hands" with regard to great rarities in the realm of coin collecting), then you've got a far tougher choice. As Adam (Exhibitman) has said with regard to '50's cards, it is no great chore to find virtually any example in NMt-Mt or better at almost any time, and one can afford to be choosy with regard to who the seller is. Try doing the same thing with a 1923-1924 Exhibit Ruth, the 1931-32 Exhibit Ruth (beautiful portrait!) from the movie stars set (PSA has graded 3; I have the highest, a "5"), or even a more recent acquisition, the 1907 Dietsche Cobb Fielding Position.

The simple, inescapable fact of the matter is that there are certain cards that many of the members of this board will never have the wherewithal to acquire unless they are purchased when they are available within a certain price range (including me--I don't know about your finances, and that's absolutely none of my business in any event!). These are those cards that come up so rarely, that are so significant to the history of baseball and have such a significant upside in value, that they are best snatched up if you want them in your collection badly enough when they are available. One prime example would be when my wife and I were attending the Strongsville, Ohio show in the early '90's. One of the dealers there had a NMt-Mt M101 Ruth rookie. He wouldn't budge on it for less than $7,000. I had only $5,000 to spend, and couldn't make the deal (I ended up later settling for one in poor to fair condition for $1700, if memory serves correctly). The last (only?) sale I am aware of for that card in that grade was not so long ago (2009?) for $140,000. I highly doubt that I'll ever be in that market for a card (now the wife says she would have come up with the additional $2,000, but hindsight is 20/20--she's not a Babe Ruth fan, but she most definitely is a fan of $140,000!). The fact is, if I wanted that card in that grade in my lifetime, then was the time. And almost certainly the only time.

It depends upon your perspective, I guess. Mine is that sometimes you simply have to bite the bullet. If you feel that there is no room for compromise in your stance under any circumstances, I tip my hat to you.

Best wishes to you in your collecting endeavors!

Larry

Ben is exactly right. Larry is part of the problem that allows these criminals to continue to rip people off. Larry and just about every other member of this board who continues to bid with an auction house they know is ripping people off. The "bite the bullet" theory certainly contributes to the fraud that is so prevalent in the hobby. Bullet-biters are not nearly as responsible as the criminals themselves. But they do have some culpability. It's more like they're helping fugitives hide from justice in their house.

It's called greed, plain and simple. Not for money, exactly, but for that great item you just can't live without.

I had an item like that, one that I NEEDED, come up for auction a few years ago. But it was being offered by a fraudulent auction house. I don't want to name names, but it rhymes with "Mastro." Anyway, I was asked by someone if I'd be bidding on it. I told them that I, of course, would not be bidding with scumbag thieves who had stolen from me and many other collectors I know. So this person bid on and won the item for $1,500. Then they sold it to me for $3,500.

The moral of this story is, there's money to be made in the business of selling out your integrity. If you're willing to abandon your principles and any moral compass you may have had, there is profit to be made in this "hobby." If you're not after profits, you can always build a world-class collection of must-have items that you would have missed out on it had you not found a way to silence that pesky conscience.

Happy bidding.

-Ryan Christoff

Don't chip your teeth on the bullet!
 

Dear Ryan:

See the last two paragraphs of post #87. Let's set the record straight: beyond any rational, reasonable dispute, there's absolutely nothing amoral or greedy, let alone criminal, in sometimes biting that bullet--the key is simply in knowing enough to make an informed choice, and being able to consider all relevant factors in pursuing our collecting endeavors.

Good luck in your collecting!

Larry

Hi Larry,

I re-read the last two paragraphs and wasn't sure what you wanted me see. I wasn't trying to single you out. Many people agree with you. Actually, I think MOST people on this board probably agree with you. I happen to disagree and am of the opinion that it actually causes harm to the hobby, albeit unintentional. But more importantly, I think it would really HELP the hobby if everyone stopped bidding with and supporting scumbags who are stealing their money.

You know how if you feed a stray cat, it will keep coming to your house and scratch at your door until you feed it again? I'm saying, stop feeding Doug Allen.

-Ryan

I guess this is the part I don't get.
A sensible bidder can't really be "stolen from" because a sensible bidder bids what the item is worth to them and no more. If everyone bid that way shilling would be pointless Because all the bids would be nearly the same and a shill would end up buying the item or only making a small difference.

But the way some people bid in a competitive manner is foolish. I might go a bid or two beyond my max at a live auction if the opposing bidder seemed weak and I really wanted something. But I wouldn't be the guy hanging on the phone raising any bid till I won. (Ok, maybe on a couple items, but I can't afford any of them) The other danger is thinking "it's worth 500 but I'll bid 1000 so I'll be sure to win" In any case shilling or not that sort of bid is a sure fire way to overpay and/or be unhappy with the price.

In the example you gave, obviously you'd have been happy to win it for 3500 since you eventually bought it for that. What's the difference between bidding 3500 and paying that or close to it, and paying that in a private sale?

Steve B

Hi, Ryan. No offense taken to your comments. As a lawyer, I'm more than used to dealing with different points of view (I always prefer the judges to share mine, however), and wouldn't even begin to suggest you are not absolutely entitled to yours. One of the greatest values of this forum is the opportunity to not only share information, but discuss such different approaches.

As to the stray cats, I'm a confirmed cat lover (have two, and have had as many as four at one time through two distinct periods of time), and I probably would not only feed a stray cat, but endeavor to find out if it had a home, and if not, take it in!

I sincerely wish you the best in your collecting! Thanks for the discussion,

Larry

I really don't quite understand what you're saying here. A sensible bidder CAN be stolen from, even while paying no more than what they were "willing" to pay. Auctions aren't set up for the winner to pay what he was "willing to pay". Auctions are set up for the winner to pay just more than the next highest bidder was willing to pay. Anything above that IS stealing, no matter how sensible a person's high bid was.

Steve,

A sensible bidder can absolutely be stolen from. In fact that's exactly what has been happening. It doesn't matter what you're willing to pay for something. If you are willing to pay $3,500 for an item in an auction and you wind up paying that exact amount for it, you're saying you should be happy, right? Well, what if the next highest legitimate bid was $1,000. That means you should have gotten the item for the next bid over $1,000. We'll say $1,100. Are you still happy that you had to pay an extra $2,400? Will you be happy when you try to sell your item and find out that you can't seem to get more than $1,000 for the item you paid $3,500 for? Surely, if you paid $3,500, that means at least one other bidder was willing to pay somewhere close to that amount, right? No, you just had $2,400 stolen from you. STOLEN. S-T-O-L-E-N.

It's not ebay where you can put in a snipe at the last minute. On ebay, I've often won items for 10% of what my snipe was. Other times, I've won them very close to what my max was. Either way, I'm happy. I think that's the kind of example you were trying to make, but it simply doesn't apply to these auction houses. It just doesn't.

I think part of the problem is that most people are generally good and it's hard to imagine that there are so many shady people in a hobby that is also filled with a lot nice people who you wind up becoming good friends with. There are many people that I've met over the years in this hobby that I would remain friends with regardless of whether or not either of us collected anything. That's one of the great things about this board.

But people who steal from you are not your friends.

-Ryan

Inside Job?
 

Many bad apples in the barrel, Kevin, so stipulated. But after watching the documentary "Inside Job" recently, I'm having a hard time seeing lawyers, financiers, economists, politicians, etc., and other professions in a very good light these days, either. At least our bad apples won't take the world down with them!
And I'm not a pollyanna type, I can be as cynical as the next guy. But I'll be doing the Oaks show next week with 300+ dealers and if there's going to be crooks there, I wish someone would tell me who they are, because after 15 years of doing shows, I don't think I could name any. And half the auction houses are crooked? Really? I'd sure appreciate knowing which ones, so we can all stop doing business with them. When I requested some evidence and some names, all I got was insulted for being so dumb as to ask. I'll match wits with anybody on this board, but what I can't understand is why all of us smart and educated people are still involved in this cesspool of illegal and unethical behavior? My business has actually held up very well during these lousy last couple of years. And in general, I just don't see the business folding its tent anytime soon.
Why is that? Are our customers so stupid or ill-informed that they don't know or don't care about the serial scandals that have been rocking the hobby for years? No, I'd guess it's because they know that in spite of all that, the great preponderance of dealers and yes, even auctions houses, go about their business earnestly and honestly and are not trying to steal their money. Bad apples? Plenty. Conflicts of interest? Sure. Rip-offs? You bet. Let's all work and campaign tirelessly to get them out of our hobby and into jail, if warranted. But let's not blow it all out of proportion. There's still a lot more good than bad, I'll say it again, and I just thought the good needed to be spoken for.
Hank Thomas

I'm absolutely not saying there are no or few shady people in the business. Anytime there's enough money shady stuff will happen. Even some of the biggest names in antique auctions and stamp auctions have been found out.
Christies and Sothebys for price fixing, and a bunch of stamp guys for collusion over several years. I think for them the fine was something like 3 Million, a couple guys did a bit of time and one major company was cut loose by the parent company and closed.

If I've bid 3500 and win it over a shill with the next legit bidder at 1000 and cant find a buyer later at anything over 1000 I've bid 2400 more than I should have. A mistake and a painful one and compounded by the shilling, but still my mistake for them to take advantage of. Without the large overbid, there would be no room for a shill. If the shill was the auction house or the auction was feeding someone information it's illegal and they should be punished. In most cases it's hard to tell wether the underbids are legit.

Some of what's been described does look very bad. being bit up to a maximum within minutes of placing the bid would put me off bidding if it happened regularly. Or more likely I'd bid lower and on fewer items.

I've seen some crazy stuff at live auctions. I used to work for a car dealer taking used cars to an auction. The auction got away with more than anyone would have thought. Shilling was common, by the auctioneers, competitors, friends of the seller, even a random guy one day who "won" a car and literally ran off when he won. The guy I worked for always stood against the back wall so there couldn't be any "bidders" behind him. Plus reverse shilling. If a car sold for over 1000 there was recourse if it had problems like a bent frame and the auction had their own mechanics for inspections. once in awhile a care would rapidly be bid to 900 and sold as soon as the bid was placed. Usually accompanied by arguments from guys who thought their bids had been missed. A fine environment to learn how to walk away at a certain price.

Steve B

Ryan -- I disagree on your conclusion on relative legal culpabilities but I applaud your sentiment. Kudos to you, you are to be admired for taking your stance.

Hank -- just because you have lots of great deals with people at shows for relatively minor dollars does not mean that the industry is mostly clean. It's not. There are millions of dollars of fraud committed by auction houses and other cretins in this hobby. Just because they don't advertise their fraud in neon lights doesn't mean it's not so. Maybe there will be a documentary about it someday and then you'll believe it.

Can't wait for the movie
 

I'm going to take your word for it, Jeff, that there are "millions of dollars of fraud committed by auction houses and other cretins in the hobby." So stipulated. And I'm going to assume that you know a lot of things that haven't come to light yet, since as far as I know, even the Mastro /Legendary activities have only been investigated to this point. No indictments yet, right? And you are certainly correct that I've never been involved with auction houses for big money on the buying end, only selling, so maybe I've actually, and unwittingly, been the beneficiary of some of this.
So why are you big money guys still doing it? I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the sleazy morass you describe. And are any of the auction houses clean? Would you advise a total boycott of auctions? If not, how are the less well-informed going to proceed if you don't tell us who we can trust and who we can't?
I really do need the documentary because I live in another world altogether. And I still say, and maybe you will so stipulate, that if you take the dollar volume of all the honest dealings in the hobby (I'm talking web sites, eBay, shows, stores, private deals, honest auctions if there are any, etc.) it vastly outweighs the dollar volume of the scamming. What do you suppose the amount of sports memorabilia business on eBay is every day? Has to be in the millions, doesn't it? So maybe that volume equals the total of auction house fraud in a year? Does this bring our positions any closer together, then? Hopefully, at least the dialogue has improved, and that's progress.
Hank

strange
 

I sort of agree with both Hankphenom and Calvindog at the same time. On one hand I truly believe there are hundreds of good, honest hard working dealers out there. On the other hand, it's impossible to dispute that there are some well-known bad apples that have a lot of influence in our hobby.

Jeff,

I didn't mean to imply there was actual legal culpability. I just meant they're partially responsible. A tiny percentage responsible. Still, a tiny percentage is more than the 0% it would become by not bidding with or consigning to shady auction houses. Some of the individuals discussed in this thread do actually have very real legal culpability, but that's not who I was talking about when I mention culpability. I try to leave the legal discussions to the experts, which there are many of on this board. Or maybe a better way to put it is that I try to leave those discussions to the guys who went to law school.

-Ryan

Is shill bidding relegated to only "house owned" lots? As a consignor, would you "turn the other cheek" if you figured a house was shilling in your favor?

James -- I mean Captain Obvious :) -- why do you think there is so much love still on this board for certain auction houses which are obviously crooked? Why do you think I took such a beating 5 years ago for proclaiming that Mastro was crooked?

Does anyone know why it is not possible (or is it possible) to set up a snipe service for auction houses? I use auctionstealer for Ebay whenever there is something I want badly and most of the time I get the item for a fraction of my max. Is there a technical reason why a similar set-up would not work for an auction house? Perhaps the overtime periods?

Sorry Jeff, it takes some of us longer. On consignor items, do you think shilling is/was done upon request or without their knowledge or both?

You'd have to ask Doug Allen that question. I could answer but I'd hate to step on his toes in an area of which he's more familiar.

Adam, the provider of the software used by auction houses must provide an API so developers/programmers can write applications consistent with the operating environment.

Doesn't Heritage own the Gavelsnipe.com software? I use it for ebay, but I'm not sure if you can use it in their auctions.

Sniping
 

The format for the types of auctions that the Auction Companies run, makes sniping tools irrelevant, with the extended bidding periods, there is no reason to have sniping tools.

Dan,

Thanks for the mention. Gavelsnipe does indeed function for Heritage auctions, but (as an earlier post addressed) the extended bidding format does still allow the sniper to be outbid before the auction close. It's still a useful tool though, and great for eBay as it's free and as effective as any other sniping program out there.

The latest......
 

.....from Michael O'Keeffe

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-...icle-1.1061842

This is an interesting and important lawsuit if for no other reason than the hobby prominence of the two men involved.

I found this sentence in the O'Keefe article particularly interesting. "REA attorney Barry Kozyra had argued that the case should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had expired and that the auction house expressly disclaimed any warranties." Leaving aside the legal merit (or not) of this defense, what do people think of an auction house disclaiming any warranty of authenticity as to items it sells, as a business practice? (While REA is the auction house relying on a disclaimer in this case, my question is a more general one.) On the one hand, I can understand that it would be impossible for an auction house to verify the authenticity of items, particularly memorabilia. On the other hand, is caveat emptor appropriate where presumably most items are described in a fashion suggesting they are authentic, and where presumably the willingness of bidders to bid, and the hammer price, reflect at least in part that the auction house has apparently put its imprimatur on the item?

I don't know the answer, but find this a very interesting aspect of this lawsuit, as it likely has implications beyond its four corners.

Incidentally, what the ruling means is that the court found that the plaintiff (Corey) alleged enough facts in his complaint to proceed with his lawsuit. It should be emphasized that this is a preliminary ruling and not a ruling on the merits. Assuming the case follows the usual trajectory, the next phase will be discovery, in which the parties exchange documents and witnesses (including nonparties) are deposed.

Well stated Peter. I'll only add that this doesn't seem to help Mr. Nash's credibility either.

It was brought to my attention that my previous post incorrectly stated that the disclaimer of warranty at issue in the case was that of Mastro, when in fact it was that of REA. My bad. I have corrected my post.

Interesting that the article's author had to state that '3rd Bass' is pronouced “base”...so as not to think that Nash came from a school of large-mouthed fish.

We're not all outdoorsmen like you and Steve Carlton, Scott, and these things have to be pointed our for the rest of us. Growing up in the city, I always thought the tin can was the tuna's skin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After 7 years, this case recently went to trial, and the jury reached a verdict several days ago. I was able to download in PDF form the verdict sheet and the jury communication regarding punitive damages from PACER, but you would need a PACER ID to see them. If I can figure out a way to post the PDFs in full, I will.

In the meantime, this is what happened, based on my review of the publicly-accessible record which of course is all I know.

While there were several counts in Mr. Shanus' Amended Complaint, the only one that went to trial was Count II, which charged Mr. Lifson and REA (Robert Edward Auctions, LLC, which subsequently changed its name to R.L. Americana, LLC) with fraud, and specifically, with "engag[ing] in a systematic scheme of misrepresenting and reporting sales with the intent of artificially inflating the auction prices of items being offered for sale." The Amended Complaint alleges as examples of such items the "Origins of Baseball Letter" and the "Fashion Course Trophy Ball," and alleges that the purchase prices of these items in REA's auction were "false and fraudulent." Those two items, and no others, are mentioned in the verdict sheet.

The jury answered a series of questions tracking the elements of fraud, separately against each defendant. It answered all questions in the affirmative.

The jury awarded no damages against the REA entity, and $55,100 against Mr. Lifson. The jury also awarded punitive damages against Mr. Lifson of $52,900.

A couple of notes:

1. This has nothing to do with Bryan Dwyer.

2. This is a civil case and there may, of course, be post-trial motions and/or an appeal.

3. I don't know the evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Beyond the pleading stage, most of the significant filings and even the court's summary judgment opinion were not publicly-accessible through PACER, which was frustrating to me as I tried to follow the case over the years. And the transcripts of the trial, though referenced in the PACER docket, are not publicly-accessible at this time.
__________________

Interesting. Case certainly dragged long enough. Wonder what the reason for the name change was?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Interesting. Case certainly dragged long enough. Wonder what the reason for the name change was? """

Probably having to do with Brian taking over REA. Since Brian bought REA he is using that name while R.L. is Rob's initials. My instinct, for the three cents it is worth tell me that change is not nefarious in any way

Rich

Can we surmise that " systematic scheme" means there are far more problems that those in Mr Shanus' complaint? Or no?

No. Just allegations by a plaintiff. Most of Corey's case was dismissed by the judge, one count went to trial and he won that and received 100K in compensatory and punitive damages. Of course this will be appealed and will go on another year or more.

Speaking as an appellate attorney handling civil cases in both the federal and state court systems for 40 years, most of which have had at least $100,000 at stake, I believe Jeff is absolutely correct as to both the likelihood of an appeal and the time involved. Some cases which are initially appealed will also settle while the appeal is pending. We most likely do not have the final word in this matter at this time.

Best wishes to all,

Larry

Initially speaking

REA includes Lifson’s first and middle initial.

RL Americana includes his first and last initial.

Hopefully this info is REL. (relevant).

I just read this entire thing, start to finish. All I can say is, I'm so glad I didn't go into law. Studying legal history in college is one thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the hundreds of hours I spent researching precedent cases in Lexisnexis and Westlaw. And every single element of mock trial fascinated me. But the actual practice of law in the real world is so very different than the young idealist in me could have ever anticipated. Jeff, Larry et all, I don't know where you guys find the patience your chosen profession requires. Chapeau.

To briefly touch on the point that was discussed earlier, comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.

Silence in response to a jury verdict for fraud and award of punitive damages is nearly deafening. Had same thing happened to Probstein we’d be at outraged and or gleeful post 625 by now. Jury verdict seems to be given back of hand by even attorneys on the board who champion rooting out fraud in the industry. Odd to say the least.

I’ve had friends in the financial world who have been cited for serious securities infractions and have carried it around their neck like an albatross for years. They haven’t simply walked down the street and gotten another job doing the same thing. They have continued their careers but believe me the leading brokerage houses were not rolling out the red carpet to offer them another position.


QUOTE=the 'stache;1775566]I just read this entire thing, start to finish. All I can say is, I'm so glad I didn't go into law. Studying legal history in college is one thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the hundreds of hours I spent researching precedent cases in Lexisnexis and Westlaw. And every single element of mock trial fascinated me. But the actual practice of law in the real world is so very different than the young idealist in me could have ever anticipated. Jeff, Larry et all, I don't know where you guys find the patience your chosen profession requires. Chapeau.

To briefly touch on the point that was discussed earlier, comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.[/QUOTE]

I am not overstating it when I say that, in my particular industry, ethics was everything. It's a pretty big part of the Series 7 exam. I only worked for one broker-dealer firm, but they hammered it home that our fiduciary responsibility was at the forefront of everything that we did, especially when I began preliminary studying for my 66 to work as an RIA (registered investment advisor). I held that responsibility inviolate.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA (which used to be called the NASD) tracks every single registered representative within the industry, and continues to provide information on these representatives even after they are no longer a part of the industry. Case in point, here's my profile on FINRA's Broker Check. Even though it's been more than eight years since I was forced to leave the industry when I went on disability, everything I did as a registered representative is still available to the public. The licenses I held, and when they were passed, the firm I worked at, and the exact period of time that I was licensed. If any kind of regulatory actions had been brought against me, or if I had been terminated for cause-that information would be there. If you screw up, the black mark on your record, as far as I know, never goes away.

Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk about it.

To be accurate, the Amended Complaint which is public had three counts.

So you’re saying OJ might actually be guilty???? How dare you!

[QUOTE=calvindog;1775580]Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk

I will definitely use the “relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit” language in a press release next time one of my clients gets whacked. Useful. Thanks.

[QUOTE=Snapolit1;1775594]
A reasonable estimation of legal fees for both parties, if known, would lend credence to the characterization of a “reasonably tiny jury verdict” as an accurate assessment of the result.;)

[QUOTE=Snapolit1;1775594]Congrats on having clients, surprised me.

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.


Mark Medlin.

I just spoke to Leon about this. Yes, Rob was found responsible by a civil jury on the one surviving claim of Corey's. Yes that's bad. But spending seven figures in seven years to make 100K just can't feel like a win to me. The lawyers -- who I both know and are good guys and better lawyers -- won here.

I often wonder if you, and other lawyers on here, ever ask yourselves, when you continue to see members bidding/consigning with questionable A/H's and known unscrupulous others, why you continue to do what you do?

To answer my own question, I am sure you all do, but that aside, I am glad, despite the resistance, name calling, unfavorable reviews, etc, you still soldier on in the name of justice.

Thank you! :)

Well, Bernie didn't walk down the street and get hired by another Wall Street shop, did he? Which appears to be the norm in this industry. Last I heard he was sitting in a federal prison until his day of death.

[QUOTE=calvindog;1775616]

:eek::D

I’m out hustling ... one day at a time.

I didn’t defend or assess issue with the opinions regarding the op. My statement was merely addressing the responding posters statement about the “cleanliness” of the investment industry. IMO, anytime there is money at stake someone will be trying to angle the system.

Mark Medlin

I believe this is the "Fashion Course Trophy Ball."

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ophy-baseball/

And this the "Origins of Baseball Letter."

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ll-collection/

I wasn't referring to large-scale malfeasance as exhibited by one perpetrator like Bernie Madoff. I was referring to the sheer number of individuals engaging in unscrupulous activity in our hobby as compared to professions like the law, or investments. My comment was in reference to, and in support of what Jeff said here:

To wit:

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of LARGE-SCALE
1 : involving many people or things.

If you needed clarification, you could have asked, and I'd have happily expounded on the point I was making. Instead, you made an assumption, and decided to respond like a smart ass. Furthermore-are you f'g kidding me with this? Do you think it's even remotely possible a licensed stockbroker could not know about Bernie Madoff? What, did you think that just because I went on disability, I magically developed amnesia, forgetting about what I'd done for the prior three plus years, while simultaneously losing touch with my professional contacts/colleagues/friends still gainfully employed within the industry? Did you think because I was no longer actively working for a broker-dealer that I would stop investing in my own trading account(s), and no longer stay abreast of investment news?

Clearly there are examples of people in the legal profession, and in investments, that have operated in illegal activity on a grand scale. No system is fool proof. But it is infinitely more difficult to further this kind of activity in investments than it is in the baseball card hobby. As was previously referenced, there is no collective body overseeing auction houses, no form of recourse available outside of civil court. And that can take several years, as evidenced by the central discussion of this thread. That process has not even been completed. Broker-dealers, and their individual employees, are subject to oversight and fines, which can be substantial, and happen quickly. These fines can be levied against entities and individuals without them ever stepping foot in a courthouse. Check out the last episode of Billions on Showtime. Dudley Mafee is a trader for the Axe Capitol hedge fund. The SEC fined him $181,000 for a tier three penalty, termed "fraud, and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements." When Mafee's complicity was brought to the attention of the SEC, the fine was imposed within mere days.

Hey Bill
You had me until the bolded part below. You might want to ask Bill, Doug and some others about that? I will probably post a little more later but this caught my eye :)

I didn't make it personal. You did. I merely pointed out that money corrupts and contrary to your assertion, no industry is safe from those hell bent on gaming the system. Call me smartass if you want, I just pointed out facts! I am surprised that all the stock brokers knew, yet he rang the bell and was held in esteem.

Mark Medlin

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/libor-scandal.asp

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-32.htm

Because clearly this....

didn't sound at all condescending.

:rolleyes:

Where did I assess that any industry was safe from fraud?

Here's part of my first post:

Clearly, people are not going to engage in fraudulent activity if the system is foolproof, are they? That's tantamount to walking into prison, opening a cell door, and closing it behind them.

If it's your belief that I stated, in essence, "fraud on a large scale was an impossibility in the investments industry", statement of fact to repudiate my assertion would look something like this:

"Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme cost his investors an estimated $50 billion."

You didn't do that. So, don't try to demure now, ok?

I was a bit steamed when I wrote that, Leon. And my apologies for the F bomb.

What other forms of recourse are there besides civil court? Can an auction house and a complainant enter into binding arbitration?

We sure seem to have strayed from the jury verdict, if we ever were there at all.

That's partly on me, Peter.

I think the jury verdict is interesting, but, as you alluded to, the whole thing is not yet set in stone, because there could be further motions submitted, or an appeal.

As things stand currently, I'd be more likely to discuss the verdict in depth if I could pour over the court transcript.

Bill hopefully at some point they will be released, or with only minor redactions. That day is probably some time off. But even knowing what we know, and subject to the caveat about further proceedings which I noted in my post, it still seemed an event worthy of reporting and discussing. I would guess that if the defendant had a different name, we would be having a much livelier discussion.

Honestly, Peter, for my part, the name(s) involved don't have as much to do with my hesitancy to jump into this with both feet, though I could certainly see this being a factor with other posters who have had long-standing relationships with the co-defendants. I'm just somewhat leery of participating in discussions of legally determined guilt-where what we say becomes, in essence, part of public record-without knowing everything that transpired. Am I being overcautious? Probably. But absent complete information, it's too easy to misstate something, and get into hot water.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and it's possible I overreacted to Mark's post, too. I've never had any issue with him, but it sure seemed that he was being patronizing. I've been up 16 hours without sleep...

Mark, if I did misinterpret your comment, then I apologize.

Peter, I'll come back to this a little later tonight, after I've seen my pillow for a while. When I'm lucid again, I can tiptoe through my feelings on what's transpired, thus far.

There was only one defendant. Neither of us are lawyers but I apparently have slept at more Holiday Inns.

REA and Mr. Lifson were both defendants.

Ok there were 2, my mistake. But I am pretty sure Bill was inferring the hobbyists knew both defendants and he meant Corey and Rob not meaning members knew Rob's other company....Bill originally, probably meant to say "litigants". But I am wrong, there were 2 defendants. More to come I am sure....

Since several people in the discussion in the thread are from the DFW area we can hash this out in person. And I have the ideal venue, my next show on June 9-10 at the Comfort Inn and Suites Plano East. There is a nice sitting area where they serve the breakfasts and I'll be happy to facilitate the discussion. :)

Rich

There's a thread hijacking for the ages. :D

Nothing to see here . . . keep moving.

Can't we resume talking about suspected shilling of $100 cards at PWCC and cabals of unknown people reporting fake sales prices for items? Faceless people always far preferable than friends.

Bill, sorry I missed your question, private parties can certainly agree to arbitrate almost any dispute, and I see no reason they could not have done so here. However, it's frequently the case that one side, or both, perceives that they will have the advantage with a jury. Parties can also enlist a mediator to help them try to resolve their dispute, and that's popular these days in certain types of cases and sometimes useful. Certainly both alternatives are more cost-effective.

I thought the suit was about Corey recovering what he paid for some trophy balls which were alleged to have been painted with a type of paint that did not exist in the 19th century? Am I wrong, or was this part of the suit dismissed?

Count I. The case went to trial on Count II.