Thank you for providing us with the current information and answering my questions. I appreciate it. Hopefully as time passes we will learn the full scope of what took place. Lets hope that the amount of these that were sold is small and that everyone can be made whole.

Over a 10 year period?? I highly doubt it was "small". I think you would be amazed at the number out there.

Buy the card not the holder

Given the lack of communication from Larry this thread might be more aptly named..."not really that ashamed".

At 930pm last night he was banned so can't post anymore. OF course if he wants to and gets ahold of me I will let him. But for now he is no longer on our board.

.

I would suspect he hit the silence button because, lawyers help me out here, does that not constitute mail fraud?

Who knows...I am sure he infringed on a few peoples toes. But yes, the mail fraud thing is huge, and I would think messing with Topps brand is huge also.

Can't speak for other jurisdictions, but each individual incident would be a felony charge in the state where I practice (NC). Would also be a felony under federal law.

Mail Fraud = Yes
Copyright Infringement and Fraud = Yes and I'm sure Ebay has been notified.
Interstate Fraud = Yes
Wire Fraud = Yes
etc.
etc.
etc.
--------------------
Mail

18 U.S.C. § 1341 provides: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a Presidential declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Wire

18 U.S.C. § 1343 provides: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Honest services

18 U.S.C. § 1346 provides: For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

Elements

There are three elements to mail and wire fraud:

Intent;
A "scheme or artifice to defraud" or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
A mail or wire communication.

To be fraudulent, a misrepresentation must be material.

Mail fraud applies only to United States domestic mailings and use of interstate carriers (UPS, FedEx) which must originate in one state, and successfully terminate pursuant to the address label inside another state, a transportation that is termed "interstate" (over which Congress has power to regulate) and does require that the mailing cross at least one state line into another state; wire fraud has been expanded by Congress to include foreign wire communication or interstate connections via (e.g.) an e-mail server or telephone switch or radio communication.

So is this rube being charged and prosecuted?

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=240701

Go to post #6, they all look sliced and diced to me.

Even though I have been involved I am not sure if any punitive situations will occur. My main goals are to help people get reimbursed for bad items and try to make sure the perpetrator quits doing what they are doing. I am not sure the dollar amounts justify a ton of authorities but anyone is always free to do anything they want to.
So, In the meantime Larry can be reached at -
lharri3600@gmail.com

.....I think he will happily accept a return provided the card is returned first. I would strongly recommend signature confirmation because of the nature of all of this. Please PM me with any specific issues and I will try to help best I can...Happy collecting.

.

Due to the nature and extent of the scam, I would be leery sending him anything, even WITH signature confirmation. He obviously isn't fearful of authorities and what not. What is to stop him from collecting returned cards and reselling them again? He is obviously money hungry.

I was talking to a friend of mine about this and, as unpopular as what I'm about to say might be, I'm not sure Larry did anything illegal. Unethical? Sure, absolutely, no question! But illegal? I'm not so sure.

The first thing you have to understand is that these are not Topps buybacks. Look at the Topps box packaging. Nowhere do they use the word buyback. This is a term that collectors dubbed them as. They couldn't be buybacks because they were never a Topps product to begin with.

Larry (or you or I or anyone for that matter) have as much right to repackage a T206 as Topps does. Look at the Topps cards. Nowhere does it have their copyright/trademark. They can’t because it’s not their product. Now, they can with their own T206 bat cards, jersey cards, autographs, etc., but they cannot do it with the actual T206 cards because they do not belong to Topps.

At least that’s my understanding. I can post more on this later.

Again, I’m not arguing whether or not it’s ethical. It’s not! But I do question whether or not it’s illegal.

Hmmmm, definitely interesting, David!

That is an interesting question, but I think it's important to separate out the two different issues here.

The first question is whether there was any sort of copyright or trademark infringement. I'm not an expert in that area, but since Topps may not have a copyright or trademark on the buy back holder, I can see why that may create some gray area in this particular situation.

However, as to the question of whether this violates any criminal laws, I would still say yes. Criminal liability usually attaches where there is an intent to defraud. Here, I think there was pretty clearly an intent to defraud based on the way he packaged the cards. He was clearly trying to deceive the purchasers. I believe that would come within most state and federal fraud-related statutes.

Forget all of the copyright stuff as it could be illegal or could not be..who knows?

I will tell you what IS most likely illegal. It is knowingly and intentionally selling something that isn't what it is purported to be. I think that is fraud.

If anyone doesn't want to send a card back to Larry, with Signature confirmation for a refund, which is crazy as there is no way in heck Larry is not going to make it right at this point, then I will be a middle person to send the card to. Once it gets to me, I will make sure the refund is done and the card gets to Larry.

Yup.

The way to make money is with trimmed a d altered cards. There are definitely a few that fit this description in this instance, and generally people felt safe buying the buy backs because they were vetted.

A funny thing is, and if I'm correct in thinking what were the T206 'buybacks,' Topps usually used really low grade cards, didn't assign a grade, once in a while inserted the wrong issue and people here wondered why people would give a premium to a low grade T206 just because it was in one of those Topps holders.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not arguing with you, or defending Larry, but it is what its purported to be. It's a T206 card. It makes no mention of a specific card or grade - it's just as the Topps box says - a "Genuine T206 Card." Again, illegal? I'm not sure. Unethical? Very much so.

In the literal sense, sure.

It does beg the question why I may pay more for a card or group of memorabilia that may be framed and presented nicely as opposed to one just in a slab, and why that may be different than being misled about a buyback or not? After all, this is just an old card presented nicely, right?

It's like one of those tricky mind games you see on NatGeo Network where they say A and B and never say C but by human nature your mind connects the dots and says C, even though it's not actually C at all.

This dude is a scumbag. Maybe you can serve as a character reference for him in the future, not because you want to defend him, but to explain potaytoze versus pahtahtoze. He knew exactly what he was doing.

David -- I know you enjoy being a contrarian, but the bottom line is that obviously Larry was representing these as having come directly from Topps, when they did not, they were franken-cards that he assembled himself. And obviously the reason he did it is that people for whatever reason are willing to pay more thinking they had come directly from Topps. So it's fraud. Is it the biggest fraud in history, no, it barely registers probably. But still, I think you are off base here.

Here's the description on the eBay auctions from the OP/seller:

"1909-11 Topps Buyback Bobby Wallace HOF Piedmont 350 back.

I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs. These will be listed in the near future. "

It is a representation that it is a Topps product, which it isn't.

Not a contrarian, just a realist. You're right, he was representing them as having come from Topps (as T206Collector also pointed out as I was typing this). I'm not arguing that fact. I'm arguing whether or not it's illegal to do so. The card itself has no trademark or copyright, so what is he really infringing upon here?

Tell, you what. If you think it's illegal, why don't you do the hobby a big favor and report it? I'll even save you some time. Larry lives (or I believe he did at one time) in Buffalo, NY. You can email the Buffalo police department at tips@bpdny.org or call them directly at (716) 847-2255. Please report back and let the board know what they say.

I keep repeating myself but obviously some don't get it. I think what Larry did was totally unethical. I'm not defending him, I'm sharing my opinion of what I believe to be true (whether or not it's a crime - that was the original question which I responded to). But, again, here's your chance to prove me wrong. I'll be waiting.

He isn't infringing (or at least that part I am not sure of) but he is committing fraud. Fraud is illegal and is a crime. As far as getting an authority very involved for what amounts to a few Happy Meals, I agree. It probably won't happen. But don't think for a second what he did wasn't criminal. It was. It is black and white and not any gray.

Topps T206!
 

His whole story stinks. He claims it was his Brother that listed the cards on EBay yet in June 2017 he is trying to sell them on Net 54 to a member. Unless it was also his Brother that made him do it.
Sorry I don't buy his BS story.


John P

[QUOTE=T206Collector;1689394]Here's the description on the eBay auctions from the OP/seller:

"1909-11 Topps Buyback Bobby Wallace HOF Piedmont 350 back.

I just acquired a huge lot of Topps Buybacks with Hall of Famers, Southern Leaguers, and tougher backs. These will be listed in the near future. "

It is a representation that it is a Topps product, which it isn't.[/QUOTE

I didnt think these typically had "tougher backs?"

There have been people caught putting phony period stamps (e.g. Toy Town, F Scott Fitzgerald, etc.) on the backs of T206s to deceive the guys that collect back stamps. These obviously sell for a premium to the ones that collect them. Do you think that's a crime as well or just unethical? I'm not looking for a debate as I don't believe there is really a right answer. Just an opinion.

I think that's a pretty good comparison though because the objective is the same in both cases.

Look up 18 USC 1343 if you want to play lawyer. Oh wait, someone already posted it. The issue isn't infringement, it's fraud, plain and simple.

I'm not looking to argue either. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I believe what he did/has been doing (multiple times) is a crime. He did what he did with the intent to deceive. He did this for monetary gain. Once he is done with being ashamed and making everything right, he should be banned from the board for life with the possibility of parole in 15 years. Sadly, there is too much shady crap in this hobby. That is why I now collect only items which no one has ever seen or even heard of.

if you have purchased a topps 206 "buyback" in the last several years there is a BIG chance that it is from the OP and not from topps. People buy and sell cards all the time. They may have changed hands several times. There would be no way to tell at this point. So unless you bought from him directly it's not going to make things right for lots of people in the hobby. Over such a long period of times I'm sure there are hundreds. Just my 2 cents

Using an old English "F" stamp on the back of a T206 card is a closer case. No law against that. But context is everything. If he said "I stamped this card myself" or "this stamp came from the desk of F Scott Fitzgerald" do you really think his legal culpability is the same?

Now the thread has turned into Bleak House.

Roll away

The dew

t 206
 

Its a tragedy. A modern tragedy at that

Yes, it is common-law fraud. Period. It is probably mail and wire fraud as well. I suspect it is actionable both civilly and criminally, assuming the statute of limitations hasn't run, federally and in every state in which it occurred. Since a lot of states have the discovery rule, I suspect that he may have some issues to confront. I don't have a clue on the criminal side.

I thought he was a lawyer, but perhaps I was mistaken. In any event, if I was him as a lawyer or if I was actually his lawyer, I would tell him to STFU and really wish that he had done that much earlier. In any event, sad deal.

For someone like me who is more or less a casual collector, delving into more serious collecting , something greater than the couple hundred bucks a card I may purchase now, becomes less likely the more I read of issues like this.

I don't see how this can be debated, the mail/wire fraud part is crystal clear. Anybody who's seen "The Firm" knows it. :)

So nobody else was impressed by his miraculous comeback from terminal cancer in 2009???

Exactly. I myself have several of these buybacks (none purchased from the OP) that I was planning on selling or trading in an effort to put those resources more into items I'm focused on. Probably not a good time to sell now. Always known and unknown collateral damage caused by fraud.

Probably because that is all they know how to do. If you gave a min wage job to the guy he wouldnt like it because its laborous work. Tell the guy he can make the same dealing with something he enjoys from the comfort of his home. Hell yes. To make those tens of dollars in the real world you actually have to work. Hence the fraud.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

can only imagine what he has done AND not gotten caught with, ? hard to believe this is his only fraud among his friends....

One of the first thoughts I had reading the 2009 thread and almost commented on that but deleted it. Not only did he scam people with these t206 cards but played to the emotions to anyone reading that thread. Surely almost everyone knows someone impacted by cancer and felt terrible for the OP. But it speaks to the cockiness of his scam. It seems he can't keep himself from telling lies and using manipulation any chance he gets. So besides the act of altering buy backs, I wonder what other bs he peddled in PM etc.

On a different thought --- and I say this because I remember how excited I was to hear about these when they came out back in 2002 but I'd wager Topps believed the whole concept of putting an original T206 card into one of these holders would be sufficient for collectors. Shoot, who would have thought these cards could be "played with".

In retrospect, I'm sure Topps would have done a sealing such as they do today to prevent this scenario from occurring. The do "sealings" with autographed and other cards they send today so I would suspect the same situation would now have been done had these cards been issued in 2017 and not 2002

Rich

I am sure many of us wanted to comment on that including myself. I know I didn't because I have had a friend that was told he had 6 months to live from cancer and now 20+ years later I still play golf with him. Also had it the other way. My cousin and great friend got the news and was told don't worry we found it early, he was dead in less than a month.:(

As for the whole scandal it sucks that he really did not stop when caught the first time. It makes it hard for people to believe some of us former scum bags can change and be helpful to the hobby we once took advantage of.

I think in this case it would be wise to not be trying to play devils advocate or LA Law, and even appearing to take his side or trying to argue semantics of what is legal or unethical is not the point. The fact that you are even trying to stay on the other side of the line is what is interesting, and if I was a collector or dealer and read your rhetoric I would not have any dealings with you now or in the future.

What he did was fraud which is illegal and punishable by law - period. Not too hard to understand. Not a matter of did Topps copyright it or trademark it for it to be fraud. Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period. Not sure what there is to be confused about on this one.

KC

I wouldn't come down on David. He was clear that he was not defending Larry in any way. I think, rather, he was exploring some ideas and provoking discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

+ 1

Peter - I don't think I am coming down on him, but my friendly advice is when someone commits fraud, deceives a bunch of people out of money, it crosses state lines... that is a criminal act. To argue that it is not copyrighted by Topps as a way out does not make sense since that is not the main crime. The crime is that this person took hard earned money from a bunch of people by deceiving and cheating them, and whether you think you are right for standing up for them and arguing the merits of the law it is not a good look. People will associate him with this guy whether it is correct to do so or not, and I think the smart play would be to not be on the side of the "T206 buybacks guy" or appear to be on his side. Just my two cents - your mileage may vary.

I didn't read David as being on his side at all. He clearly said in his opinion what Larry did was obviously unethical. Rather, I read him as thinking (incorrectly in my view, but whatever) about the legal ramifications of Larry's conduct, more as an academic exercise than any defense of Larry.

FYI, Larry admitted to me yesterday that he did 75-80 of these. That is around 10x what he had admitted to me on the 2 previous calls. Not sure if I want to speak with him again. :eek: And yes, the MO was at least partly, "no one will ever think to look for these measly amounts". Another just brought to my attention...



http://jvscauctions.com/LotDetail.as...ntoryid=37005#

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-1911-T2...p2047675.l2557


.

With ~80 of these, at $15 profit per card (hypothetically) you are over 1k in money made off of scamming people.

Not on par with a Mastro-shill bid scandal but its not inconsequential either.

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.

Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

If you do talk to him again, the number may keep going up.

I find it very hard to believe that Larry's latest admission is remotely close to what the reality is. He was identified by Jantz in 2009 doing this. So he only did 10+ of these a year if Sept of 2009 was the first time he did this? I am sure the number is significantly higher than 75-80. I really do not see him as remorseful as much as scared.

And while it is great that buyers who are on Net54 and now aware of this will have an opportunity to send these fakes back to Larry for a refund, there are probably many others who don't know they are sitting on a Lharri special.

I disagree with your opinion on this matter, although I get where you are coming from with it. But I agree I don't know why people would be upset with you. All your previous posts on the matter are clear as day. You present a logical argument but still find what the OP did as offensive as how other respondents feel.

If you search his ebay seller feedback there are 149 feedbacks left for Topps buyback cards. That is just on ebay and only the people who left feedback. It doesn't mean that all 149 were fraudulent, but I wouldn't feel very confident that any particular one was a Topps product.

David - you might want to switch to decaf and drop the internet tough guy schtick, or maybe don't be so sensitive - your call. Just letting you know puffing your chest out is not impressing anyone but have at it.

Your integrity was not called into question(maybe your common sense on this matter trying to decipher law vs ethics), and everyone can read what I posted - "I would not chose to deal with or have dealings with someone whose Pov was one that still doubles down on trying to explore the nuances of what is fraud, what is illegal, what is unethical... pretty sure in this case it is clear cut that what he did was fraud and was carried out over among time and with 80+ people.

If someone makes fake Jordan rookies and sells them as legit 86 Fleer cards and makes money off of them is that fraud and illegal or just unethical so let them have at it. Need to clean the language up around here, or at least make it interesting for everyone to read :D

KC

It's pretty clear that this activity began sometime after 2002 and before 2009.

Is there a more specific date when this all began?

Someone has to know.;)

Is there a way to tell a legit Topps t206 from the ones this guy created?

In your example, the one making the fake Jordans is representing them as real Fleer Jordans - a real Fleer product - a counterfeit. My point was that these were never a Topps product to begin with. Thats the major difference. Even BVG doesn't acknowledge them as a Topps product. Look at the picture below. Where does it mention that it's a Topps product on the flip? Ask yourself why not? Even Topps don't acknowledge them as a Topps product. Its a novelty item that Topps fabricated and put their name on.

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/vpIAAO...QW/s-l1600.jpg

Now, maybe Topps might have something to say about Larry using the Topps name, I don't know. But as far as the actual fabrication of the cards, it's not illegal no matter how much you want to believe it is.

If I want to put raw T206s in plastic screw downs and write "Donruss" on the holder and sell them like that it's not illegal. Again, maybe Donruss might have something to say about using their name and it's surely misleading and unethical, but not illegal. People are letting their emotions and hobby passion get in the way of reasoning.

All that said, what he did was wrong and Leon did the right thing by bringing it to the boards attention and banning him. By the way, I thought I read that someone made Topps aware of the situation. I'm just curious as to their response.

Do collectors of the Topps Buyback realize that they aren't numbered and the frames aren't tamper-proof? Hence there should not be a premium for T206 cards in the Topps Buyback frames. Anyone can make them and I doubt Larry is the only one to have done this.

I couldn't disagree with you more on the law or your facts. On the facts, to say Topps doesn't acknowledge these as their product ignores the word "Topps" on the top of the cardboard frame and that these were sold as promotional inserts to drive customers to their product. You make counterfeit inserts, you don't think Topps' business is hurt by that? People would buy fewer Topps packs than they would because of the counterfeiting. Pointing out that grading companies may not authenticate or grade the holder is besides the point. People collect these for what Topps says they are. This is an indisputable fact.

The law is clear as day, and has been cited by many folks on here accurately and correctly. He may not get sued in civil court by Topps or his unwitting customers, and the FBI and local police may not charge him in criminal court. But, the lack of formal process here doesn't make the conduct legal.

One example would suffice, because in my decades of practicing law, knowingly misrepresenting an item for sale with intent to deceive is as pure an example of FRAUD as there is. Now of course there are exceptions and defenses: if I know you're lying, I can't rely on your misrepresentation, for example. But Larry misrepresented his franken-cards as originating from Topps, knowing he was lying, and intending to deceive people into paying more than if he had said for sale is a franken-card I put together myself. It's an open and shut case as far as I can see.

And to respond to your red herring, it probably wasn't illegal to assemble the cards. But so what. Selling them in interstate commerce via a misrepresentation was illegal.

What am I missing?
 

To my fellow friends and hobbits,
I write these words with shame well there's no excuse for what I did. I've already spoken to Leon about this issue and he's been nothing but a friend. Some of those tops by bikes that sold we're putting holders by myself. And I truly apologize we're bringing shame to the Hobby and to myself. I am working with Leon on this issue and I will make full restitution. With that said I humble myself before you and and ask for your forgiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------
Some dude has a come to Jesus moment and apparently confesses to some misdeed (albeit in first grade grammar at best). To the OP, at a minimum, please identify who are, explain exactly what you are apologizing for, and account for how much restitution you owe for "bringing shame to the Hobby..."

He's banned. You won't be hearing from him.

Ok, here you go. Keith told me I should switch to decaf. I tried that years ago, but I just didn't like it. Anyway his suggestion reminded me of what I'm about to tell you.
There is a convenience store by my house called Timewise (it's a chain store in South Texas). They serve a brand of coffee called Roasted Bean Coffee Company. I really like this particular coffee. A few weeks ago, I stopped in one morning as I do every weekday morning, and got a cup of coffee. While I was waiting in line I took a sip and something was different. When I got up to the register I asked the cashier about it. She said that they ran out of the Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee and were using another brand (Folgers, I think) until they got theirs back in stock. But wait. All the signage said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. Even the coffed cup itself said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. They didn't indicate that the product was not what it was advertised to be, I had to ask.

So, in response to Keith's statement "Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period." I have to ask, since Timewise represented Folgers coffee as Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee for financial gain, is it fraud and illegal as he clearly states? Please tell me where I can report such illegal activity.

I realize we're talking coffee vs baseball cards, but the action and intent were the same - to replace a product with something else in attempt to mislead the buyer.

And as truly petty as that may sound (and no, it really didn't bother me), what's the real difference in that and what Larry did, other than the fact that Larry did it over and over? Both were misrepresented products for financial gain.

[QUOTE=ullmandds;1689415]I purchased a Ganley with the Piedmont350 back from an AH(not Larry). I'm sure an oversight by Topps and not a "tough" brand, but is a card with a very small population.

David, arguably the difference in your example is that the misrepresented fact was not material to the buyer. But if it was material -- for example let's say they advertised some super premium expensive brand of coffee but instead without telling you substituted some cheap generic junk and you paid the premium prce -- then yeah that would be fraud too. Here, Larry represented his cards were something they were not, and for whatever reason, that made people willing to pay more for them than had he told the truth. Knowing misrepresentation of a material fact. Fraud.

Peter, I'm going to concede the argument because really I don't care. I think it was dishonest and unethical and I hope the buyers involved all receive restitution. At least the matter was brought to everyone's attention and people know about it. But really, to me, it's not worth discussing anymore. I have much better things to do on a Friday evening. Have a great night :D

You too, David.

I definitely understand the argument being made, and have no legal background, but I do see a major difference in your analogy. You asked prior to consummating the transaction and could have changed your mind. This opportunity to rescind was not present in the frankencard deal.

Mark

I rarely post but this discussions worthy of weighing in.

Can people modify items produced by companies with little fear of criminal or civil action brought against them ? Of course. Its done all the time.

Can you take a product that has copyrights ( which EVERY Topps produced item does- check the USPTO website) and modify it ??? YES you may. Its done all the time .

Can you take the product you modify and then go online and either misrepresent that product as being "original", or try and sell it without disclosure of said modifications ?

Um- no.

Depending on the level of deceit we may be talking a tort ( a "civil" action) where values are relatively low and usually get assigned to small claims, or in the case of folks like John Rogers/Doug Allen/Bill Mastro actions worthy of criminal prosecution.

Depending on the length, level, and severity of this persons actions he's looking at either time in small claims should he not make restitution and people care to come after him-- or if he's been stupid enough to take it up a few levels and bring the average transaction above 2500 - he's going to see someone take him to criminal court.

As far as this guys being ashamed- dude shut up. Your a serial liar, a serial fraudster, and need to stop with the excuse offerings. Your not convincing anyone of your innocence. Once or twice- OK. Multiple times over extended years ? Sorry - that's a pattern of behavior that's not likely just happening in baseball cards.

Its doubtful anyone will forgive and very doubtful they'll forget anytime soon.

Best thing Leon can do is make sure your info is properly disseminated to afflicted parties.

My opinion--

Jeff

Same scenario as you Eric with two Buybacks that I've purchased. Neither came from Larry H. and I bought them mainly because of the player/back combination than solely collecting them.

The two that I purchased were Karger & Ewing with Piedmont 350 backs, so I think you are safe with the Ganley.

Jantz

Doesnt this happen a lot of time in the fish industry? From fishermen to middle men to restaurants, often time you are not eating the premium fish you ordered, and if the chain of custody can be traced, people pay big fines, but it's almost impossible in that industry to go step by step.

This is just pure and simple fraud and this scum should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This type of act is what undermines people confidence in the hobby and i dont care if he apologized with simple fact he ripped people off.

They'd sue for the profits realized of course.


.

Question
 

Sorry if I missed it, but where exactly were the new Topps "holders" obtained from?

Also
 

One more thing, obviously this guy messed up big-time. I would be much more forgiving and understanding if he would truly apologize and also provide an explanation of the scope of all that was involved so we would have some sort of idea if this was nothing to worry about or a massive volume.