This amazes me as well. It's as if Nash thinks by doing all this research and exposing all these other "frauds", it either creates a diversion to the fraud he has committed, OR he thinks it will somehow vindicate him and people will think, "Yeah, that Pete Nash... he's not so bad!"

Yet another bizarre facet to this crazy hobby we all love.

According to this link, bold-faced liar is acceptable usage.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/57985...bold-faced-lie

Thanks, Barry.

I fill in for him now that he goes to bed at 8 PM.

You can call it beating up on him, a witch hunt or an inquisition. I call it being disappointed. The facts are Leon has/had a card that he knew full well had potential issues. He was made aware of these issues long ago by qualified people with nothing to gain. He's a person of standing in our hobby and someone who touts their honesty, integrity and dedication to this hobby. A person that demands people to stand behind their comments.

Regardless of the laws regarding ownership, legal issues, innocence or guilt. I find it disappointing and hard to believe. That almost a year after these issues were brought to his attention he never noticed or looked for a stamp connecting this card to the NYPL.

I'm sorry but if the Federal Bureau of Investigation takes an item from my collection for review as potentially stolen. From that day forward that would be the focus of my collecting world to clear the misunderstanding and resolve any questions around my item long before it ever hit an auction block. To say after it's at auction "oh yeah now that you mention it I do see the mark, wish I had seen that before" seems dishonest at the worst end of the spectrum and extremely naive at the other end.

But I'm an idiot for seeing it this way that's been clearly pointed out, so this idiot will let this auction pass him by.

If the card was sold legally, why would someone go through the trouble/effort/risk to remove the seal from the card?

I don't really get it, the close up scan shows enough indisputable proof that the word "library" was there as well as other marks to remove any doubt from my (completely unbiased) mind that it was the NYPL mark.

I think Heritage's caveat of "a collector stamp or the mark of some retailer" is pretty lame and touches, if not crosses, the border of stretching the truth.

I don't collect these and knew nothing of all this until I read this post, but it sure seems to me the card has major provenance issues and until the truth is completely resolved have trouble seeing it up for public auction. Why not pull it and do all the research? If it proves clean it will only increase the value when up again, instead of having a shroud of guilt lingering that will only taint the whole sitchie...

Seems like there are enough questions to slow everything down and get it right.

Rob G

Based on the chronology presented, I infer that the FBI took the card from Leon, examined it, and returned it to him. What if they told him they had no reason to believe the card was stolen? (I don't know that to be the case, just drawing possible inferences.) Why could Leon not reasonably rely on that assurance, at least until other information was presented, which appears to have happened for the first time yesterday? It seems to me the criticism here involves some degree of hindsight, and some assumptions that may or may not be true.

In any event, hopefully this will reach a resolution soon.

I have no opinion on anyone involved or what is right or wrong. I'm just posting about logistics of the NYPL making a deacquisition.

The last time the NYPL made its collection available for sale was in 2005, when it sold some items from it's art collection. It was big news when it happened and is readily searchable. However, I can't find any information on them holding an auction for pieces from their baseball card collection.

The way Heritage and Luckey handled this card has lowered both companies from the status of "esteemed auction house" to the same level as the eBay hucksters in my mind. Over and over we've seen the smart people on this board bust some of the big-name auction houses over fraudulent descriptions. Keep it up guys!

A more realistic inference to be drawn is that they told him what they saw on the back of the card was inconclusive, especially considering they looked at the back of the card not inside an FBI lab with FBI equipment but with whatever they could find at the PSA booth.

If there was inadequate equipment on site to make a proper assessment, and they had some suspicion the card might be stolen (which I assume to be the case since they took it from him), why didn't they (if you know) keep the card for further evaluation rather than returning it to Leon?

You'd have to ask them.

WOW! Serious detective work with the scans and pointing out the remnants of the stamp.

I am contacting Heritage to remove my bids on this item.

On a good note... that will free up some coinage to pop something else in this KILLER auction! Oh how I wish I had more to spend :(

C everyone in CHI-TOWN

Dan

I guess how I would come out then would depend a lot on the exact words used when the card was returned.

But without knowing that, if the FBI took a card from me, and then gave it back to me without requiring further evaluation, that would give me some comfort. I'm not sure I would then feel obliged to conduct my own forensic examination, if the FBI itself did not feel one was warranted, or could yield any evidence relevant to the issue.

With hindsight, we can see that more could have been done. But it's hindsight.

Did you read the transcript?

I did but it was a little hard to follow and also it was before it was returned, right, because Scott was saying he didn't think it would be returned and Leon was saying he thought he would get it back at least for now?

I won't kick a dog when he's down. Even though there are a few items I'd love to own in my collection listed. I'm going to follow John's lead and won't be bidding on any items from Leon's collection. In case this is considered a controversial post and you need my first and last name its Scott Hassel.

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

I can imagine the FBI could have a million reasons to do this. Remember the FBI is not concerned with matters of truth but of law. You can be 100 percent sure something is stolen, but even if you witnessed the theft yourself it doesn't mean there's anything you can do legally without proof that would hold up in a court of law. The truth and the determination of the law are two very different things.

But at the end of the day the FBI's opinion doesn't matter that much to me. This community knows more about baseball cards and their history than any FBI agent. We know the card has an NYPL stamp, we know the NYPL has reported that exact card stolen, of which there are two known copies in the world. There are no records that I know of of the library selling that card (if there were, it would be a different story). The card was altered to remove the stamp (by the way, the fact that it's holdered with a number grade should be enough to take the auction down right this second...) and there's no mention of the library in its supposedly extensive provenance records.

I think this is a pretty open and shut case. If it looks, quacks, then duck, etc.

And honestly for Leon to classify this as a witch hunt I think is ultra-hypocritical. There have been so many auction busting threads in the past, but suddenly when it's one of Leon's items, Leon's response is that the community is out to get him. The very community with all his supporters and the people who consider him to be one of the pillars of the hobby. I mean honestly, give me a break.

There you go Joann.......throwing some logic on the fire.......

I'd agree on the thorough vetting of it. On the surface, it sure looks like the NYPL card. What recourse would Leon have with who he bought it from and their consignor? I'd pursue that avenue too.

Hopefully it gets resolved soon.........

We have known SINCE YESTERDAY of the NYPL stamp. Show me where "the community" knew this before yesterday.

It's not a question of whether they want it back. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through. Recovering a stolen item back isn't an easy process when you're a government-owned institution, you have a lot of bureaucracy to get through.

Only reason I take issue with it is because in the past libraries have had things stolen from them, and even when it's proven, the libraries haven't had the resources to formally request the return of the item. it's actually really sad.

Wow, it seems like years since you have posted. Welcome back. How is your law practice going?

That's kinda my point...

FBI didn't notice the stamp, community did. And the FBI were the ones actively investigating it. Wouldn't you think the FBI would think to check for the stamp from the institution where it was reported stolen? It took the community to figure that out, not the FBI. And yea it took some time but it still happened before the FBI, which doesn't do much for my confidence in them. That's all I'm saying.

True, probably. But IMO that still doesn't mean that Leon is somehow a jerk for wanting to know with some certainty that it's stolen, have a simple request for its return, and gosh maybe some time to think about it before he just tosses a mid-5-digit card in the mail.

Badgering him to commit RIGHT NOW right here in this forum to returning it forthwith, hang the proof of stolen and with no request, is really absurd. No one else would. Lord knows I certainly wouldn't.

:) Thanks Peter. I do crawl out from under my rock every now and then. The practice is going well. I'm enjoying the flexibility but can also see that it would have been better to do this when I was younger! Hope all is well with you.

I wasn't asking him to commit to anything with the knowledge we have currently. I was asking him in the hypothetical situation where the NYPL confirms it's stolen but does not have the resources to formally ask for it back, whether or not he'd return it.

Honestly I think if this were about someone else, Leon would be chiming in right now saying he'd return the card if it was his and everyone else would do the same. But because it's Leon's card I think people are treating it differently, which is a bit unfair. Or maybe not, who knows really.

Seems to be a very common theme to a many of these threads.
Add in some aggressive lawyer(s) who insult anyone who takes up a stance against their assumptions.
Over and over the presumption of innocence until proven guilty seems absent.
It sure can take the joy out of Mudville, in my humble opinion
Paul Chern

Amen, If this was my card I would do my due diligence as well. I don't know Leon but will assume 50K is a big number to him.

The grandstanding on this thread is a little over the top - one guy claims he would spend night and day trying to find the history of the card. My guess is that guy would sell the card private and wash his lands, like the large majority of folks on this board would do.

I also can't think of any other forum on the internet where the owner lets the members take runs at him, it's fascinating to watch.

You may well be right in hindsight that the FBI did not do its homework, I don't know. But again, at the time in question, I am not sure Leon was on notice of that, such that he should have (as John is claiming) undertaken an independent forensic investigation to "clear" the card.

This is an easy fix. Leon has 10k in this thing. Mastro has an upcoming sentencing and has every reason under the sun to make major public issues like this go away before he sits in front of a judge. Leon should get his 10k back or more from his good buddy Bill inbetween picking up gifts, then make an effort to return the item to the NYPL if in fact stolen. Which it is pretty clear that it is, as nothing from the Splading collection was ever sold or released from the NYPL to my knowledge.

Working around the shades of grey, legal technicalities, carefully worded auction descriptions and playing naive in order to let this go to auction for a profit is what was happening prior to this all coming to light. This whole story may be news to some here but this wasn't news to Leon.

In the end he won't be out anything he just won't profit from a prior theft. My issues are why wasn't this addressed by him long ago? Not like he wasn't made clearly aware.

Oh I totally agree with you there. I think Leon did all the due diligence with the card in regards to the FBI. I probably would have done the same thing. That being said, I don't have all the evidence and a lot of people are accusing Leon of knowing more than he let on. Again, I'm not really entrenched enough in the hobby to make that determination myself, but if it's true it would be really disheartening.

I was just kinda concerned about the way Leon was reacting to the evidence of the NYPL stamp, but I also understand why he's defensive about it considering he spent so much money on it and is probably reluctant to part with it. I just hope he's as morally rigorous when it comes to himself as when it comes to others. But it's too early to tell that, we'll know by the end of the auction.

Nice post Joann. Hate to sound all lawyerly here but has anyone considered that Leon might be the lawful owner of the card? A minority of states (and I believe Texas is one) allow a thief or his successor to convey good title to a bona fide purchaser. Before we bust out the tar and feathers I think we need an answer to that question.

I find that hard to believe, I thought the rule throughout the US was nemo dat quod non habet -- a thief cannot convey good title, therefore a subsequent purchaser cannot acquire good title. Always happy to learn though.

EDIT TO ADD I suppose there could be some variance in state statutes of limitation, but again, I would be surprised if any state allowed a subsequent purchaser's rights to prevail over an original owner whose goods were stolen. As the common law doctrine says, nobody can give what he doesn't have.

You and your damn French. ;)

Tom C

Interesting full faith and credit implications, or at least issues concerning interstate commerce. If seller is lawful owner under his State's law, does buyer's State have to recognize the sale as valid if it would otherwise not be? If any buyer in the chain of title after thief lived in a State that recognizes a BFP as having a valid interest, are all subsequent States where buyers reside bound to that same determination? I've actually got to go bill some time now, but crackerjack researcher and scholar Peter_Spaeth no doubt will have an informed response upon my return:)

For these very reasons, and the fact that we have a Uniform Commercial Code, I very much doubt the law varies according to state. But I am not going to research it any more than to note a quick google search reveals a scholarly article stating the principle I stated as the American rule.

In case anyone is interested, the NYPL library contact information is:

Robert J. Vanni
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations
Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street
New York, New York 10018-2788
tel. (212) 930-0744
fax (212) 391-2503
rvanni@nypl.org


I'm not sure if this is still current. When I contacted Robert on an auction item a few years ago, he advised that it had been de-accessioned. He also welcomed queries on any other item where title might be in question.

Max

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnOcwy3Jle0

Unfortunately the UCC is not uniform across jurisdictions. Many states enact their own modified versions. I ran across one such variance between states in a case and it made a difference in the outcome.

Did you win or lose that one Adam?

While I'm sure all of the civil lawyers mean well, I think you're doing a disservice to Leon who, as noted in the Heritage catalog, was engaging in "philanthropy" by selling his collection to pay for his daughter's education. I say this sincerely that I think the last thing he would then want to have happen is to use a legal loophole to keep a card stolen from the New York Public Library. Kind of the opposite of "philanthropy," you know?

This civil lawyer does not believe such a loophole exists, assuming the card was stolen. But if someone can point me to something contrary....

I'm controlling myself from making the obvious joke here....

Peter, I can't speak for everyone but I knew about it that's why I brought it up (post #195) to Leon before it ever hit Nash's website.

Many people knew of Leon's visit about this this card from the Feds it's a small hobby. Most figured he would work it out or get the questions on this item cleared up before hit ever hit an auction block or was sold privately. Seems that didn't happen....and it seems from the auction description some folks were aware and were covering all the angles.

Look owning a stolen item doesn't make you a crook not in the collectibles world that's for sure it could happen to any of us. In that way I have sympathy for Leon. To me it's how you handle the item and the choices you make after you're made clearly aware of issues that defines the situation. That's my issue with Leon in this situation. Not the stolen or potentially stolen card, but the way he handled the situation with this item and letting it hit the auction block. To play naive, innocent, call people names and play the victim of a witch hunt afterwards just further frustrates me. Get over yourself you're not so important that myself and others are out to get you. What I did here with Leon is nothing I haven't done with other folks Leland's, Chan, Paragon, Allen, Goldin etc. in those cases it was good work kudos or silence from Leon. Now that he's in the hot seat I'm an idiot, Jeff has a shady law practice and we all can pound sand,

Cheers,

John

P.S. I just got your email I would agree a bit it could be a good thing to talk about over beers at the national if you're heading out. At the very least give us a reason to drink. :)

Won it, Dan.

It depends on how the item was taken. A burglar gets nothing by way of title in the USA. An embezzler, check kiter or similar criminal fraudster gets voidable title that may be cleared by a bona fide purchaser. It depends on which version of the UCC the state uses. Quite apart from that is the issue of limitations. A lawsuit to reclaim an item after the theft of a readily identifiable item that has gone through multiple public sales over decades may be deemed to be untimely even if the original thief obtained only void (no) title.

As for the rest of the commentary re lawyers, I hope that every lawyer would analyze the issues based on getting his or her client what he or she wants, regardless of the outcome. My client may be a crook but he is entitled to the full benefit of the law same as I am. If there is a chance that the client has good title I need to advise accordingly even if I disagree. We all represent our share of scumbags, right counsellors?

fWIW if it was my card involved I would force them to prove it was stolen before I hand it back. Sorry but I'm not going to hand $50k or more to someone on the basis of anything written here no matter how well intentioned.

John, yes to be sure his is not the first time questions were raised about the card, but I am wondering why you think Leon was obligated to conduct his own investigation after the FBI gave him back the card rather than keeping it to do further forensic analysis. If the federal agency investigating the theft that obviously has sophisticated crime labs tells him there isn't anything further that can be done to trace it to the NYPL because they will never be able to read the stamp, why isn't that a clean enough bill of health? And what's the burden of proof here -- does one have to be certain beyond a reasonable doubt that a card is not stolen in order to be able to sell it?

Adam if the card was stolen then it was stolen by someone who walked out of the building with it, not by some means by which the thief acquired voidable title. That seems reasonably clear. And I agree with you there possibly could be a statute of limitations issue, as I previously mentioned, but that is a separate question from whether a bona fide purchaser could acquire good title.

Wow, so you mean you don't conspire with your clients when they do bad things? Because I've heard otherwise.

If you have anymore guesses in the future Matt, will you at least try to make them educated guesses?

This thread starts out questioning the sentence of a profligate lawbreaker and ends up berating an individual for not returning an item, not legally proven to be stolen, and finally to trust the same legal system to help him recoup his possible losses from who knows who. Yeah, sounds like a good idea. I would say this would be a time for caution, not haste.

Peter good question. Look let's be honest the Feds come and take one of your items as potentially stolen. Then let's say it's returned with "hey this thing is fishy but we are limited on resources and limited by law on what we can do here. However heads up this is an issue you may want to look into, in the end can't tell you what to do."

I think the better question is why as a collector would you not want to exercise all due diligence to either clear the misunderstanding up. Or better yet look to make yourself whole if in fact you were duped. This is what the avg. collector which I consider myself to be would do. Now let's set a differnt set of rules on top of this that wouldn't apply to the average collector like many of us.

Leon is a public figure who is outspoken and bold in talking about fraud. He's an owner of an auction company as well as the owner of the hobby's premier message board. A message board famous for outing and detailing issues like this within the hobby.

These reasons and the others I have previously posted is why I think a bit more due diligence was needed from Leon on this. Before offering this card for sale public or private. Also let's be really candid we didnt need a CSI crime lab to figure this out. Chris and Nash did it in a matter of seconds using non original scans and what PhotoShop and a PC?

Leon has the card in his hands what he doesn't have a computer? How does he post from Western Union via telegraph? He doesn't have access to a scanner? That must make putting up those auction lots for B&L tough? He doesn't have access to countless experts, hobbyists and people with computer skills that he could call on for help. I don't know some sort of web based community or something. If one could find such a community. I wonder if there has ever been a situation where folks of this so called community were able to look at marks on cards and determine something that helped obtain a clear outcome for all parties involved.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=112134

Sorry to be so sarcastic but if Leon wanted to know the deal he could have.

Cheers,

John

If it was Burdick's Wagner from the Met instead of this card, and otherwise the same circumstances, would we even be discussing loopholes on how to keep it?

This. Leon's a good guy in my book. I dunno how his integrity can be in doubt. FBI looked at it, told him it was fine, now it turns out it might not be, so he's in wait-and-see mode. What's he supposed to do, take a polygraph in the town square?

Wonka-Tonka

Instead of all of these posts, you could have taken this precious time to drive that new shiny rocket ship down here to Maryland!

We could have had a blast today!

Dan

Referencing a post by Dan McKee on that other FBI thread. So why isn't SGC coming on here and saying how this Peck and Snyder card got such a high grade with major erasure and defacing and remnant stamp markings on the back of the card? The erasures even erase part of the natural lettering? Is it because of who now owns it? I don't get it. Where is SGC?



McKee:

A little andendum to John's recent post. I and I am sure we would also like to thank SGC for their cooperation and WILLINGNESS to listen to advanced collectors and then to immediately act and offer assistance.

If PSA had taken this attitude with the Nodgrass, they would have been looked upon as helpful. Instead, Joe had his grader re-examine the Nodgrass and said it was still legit, even after me, John and Rob Lifson stated it was bad.

A true difference in service by the 2 leading grading companies in these particular situations.

Maybe this could be a solution: If the card is confirmed to be stolen, Leon should return it to the NYPL if that is what they desire. Or, with their consent, he could have the card sold by an auction house, take his 10,000 back, and then the NYPL could have the rest. Maybe they need the money more than the card back and would be much happier with that scenario. Just my worthless two cents.

Joe

i spoke with the NYPL. The card is being pulled from the auction while a solution is found. Thanks for all of the support. I doubt I post in this thread again and don't care to talk anymore about it publicly.

Of course not, if it were anyone else the board would be crucifying them. Not that that's necessarily acceptable either, just pointing out the blatant double standard.

I mean looking for legal loopholes for ways Leon could keep the card? Seriously? The hypocrisy is pretty slimy.

I agree, there wouldnt be any discussion on how someone could keep it, it would go back to the met, period, end of story. Working out some 'deal' is foreign to me as there is a nypl stamp on the back of the card.

It is a conspiracy if I help him steal it. If I am presented with a situation like this and the client has a contested right to keep an item he purchased at a public auction in good faith I am not conspiring to do anything if I advise him of his rights and suggest that he put the alleged owner to the test in court.

Some other assumptions here about how the item came to Leon are just that: assumptions. Until the library and Leon sort it out, which is what's going to happen apparently since the item was pulled, all the vitriol is premature. Fun but potentially wrong.

As for "loopholes" that is such nonsense. It is either legal or not.

I agree with this. Take this same set of circumstances and each and every comment made then replace Leon with....Dan McKee, Jeff Lichtman anyone for that matter including myself and that would be a good time to be in the pitchforks and torches business. Might even make a sale or two Leon himself.

You just sent a chill down my spine Wonka! Jeff is much tougher than me, let him take the brunt of it. :)

I agree with Adam. When it's our interests that are making their way through the legal system, it's about our rights and testing contested positions in court. When it's someone else's interests making their way through the legal system, now it's seeking loopholes.

People go to court every day for trivial items. When it comes to 10's of thousands of dollars, those who think ownership should simply be surrendered are largely those who don't own the item.

It likely won't get to that, but if Leon (or NYPL, for that matter) end up using the legal system to sort out ownership, there's no wrong in that.

Ok I have a huge issue with this. You are conflating legal right with moral right. They are two different things.

I can steal a million dollars and get off because they didn't read me my miranda rights. Does that mean that taking that million dollars is suddenly ok? If someone rapes someone and the statutes of limitations expire before they come to trial, does that make the action ok? No, just because someone has the law on their side doesn't mean their actions were morally acceptable.

To hold onto a stolen item by virtue of a legal technicality would be morally wrong wrong wrong and wrong no matter how you try and rationalize it to yourself. It doesn't suddenly become acceptable just because there's no legal recourse.

You'd be surprised, but there are a lot of people out there who would return the item without trying to leverage the legal system to keep it, just on the basis of it being the morally right thing to do. Then again there are a lot of people out there who wouldn't do the right thing and have a hard time understanding someone who would...

New gerneral counsel is

Michele Coleman Mayes, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary

212-642-0115

I like Leon...and I like Net54 even more. For all those critical or disappointed with Leon, why don't you find another sand box to play in? Leon is far nicer with the lynch mob types in this thread than I would be if I was the owner. I think most come here for enjoyment of the hobby but there is a group who always seem to be bickering with others. Let's remember who keeps this forum going.

Jeff

What keeps any forum going is its users, and Leon knows that, he's not naive. And the fact that he doesn't rule like a tyrant is what has made this forum successful. Forums run with an iron fist never last long, it just creates an exodus to a new forum.

But onto the real issue. Just because Leon runs a website that you like, that shouldn't be enough for you to sacrifice your principles. Otherwise why even bother having principles at all if you're only going to apply them when it's convenient for you?

Dude, you have no idea about who I am or what my principles are. Have you ever met Leon? Have you ever done business with him? I have, so at least I speak with a little bit of knowledge.

I knew when I made my post, it will get all of the Leon haters in a tizzy. I WILL not waste my time defending myself to faceless strangers staring at a computer screen. Have fun getting your kicks attacking a pretty good guy.

Jeff

The countless collectors/members and advertisers. Not mention many members have been a part of this community before it was "Leon's Sandbox" as you call it. This community is that a community. If this was all about Leon it wouldn't be a community it would be a twitter or Facebook page.

Jeff FYI known Leon for years. Done business with him, driven him to shows, paid for dinners big and small, talked cards, politics you name it. He even sent Jeff Lichtman and I picture of the cover of the catalog to get our feedback. This isn't some cyber bully picking on the great Leon this a fellow collector calling him out. Perhaps I could have done this in private but that's hypocritical of me. If I can call out others here why should he get a pass. I'm not saying he's an evil person just think he dropped the ball here instead of manning up he's resorted to name calling and gathering his minions.

Bottom line a few weeks ago I was a good guy, and potential bidder for him. The minute I called out this card. As well as the hypocrisy of taking gifts from Bill Mastro while claiming to do more about fraud than 99.9% of the collecting community.

That day I became and "idiot", sorry if I feel Leon's tag line of "if you do wrong in this hobby I'm going to be your worst enemy" sounds better than "if you do wrong in this hobby I'm going to be your worst enemy, unless there are gift bags".

Cheers,

John

I don't buy your premise Brendan. This is a property ownership issue. Leon didn't steal the card. He bought it from a public auction. Morally speaking he is innocent. So the issue is which innocent person gets hurt. That's why we resort to the law. It is our way of handling these otherwise intractable issues.

You were saying it's wrong to be critical of Leon because he's been nice to you and runs a forum you like. That's fine that you believe that (no sarcasm), but I happen to disagree. Up until this incident I thought Leon was basically the most upstanding member of this hobby, I've had nothing but positive experiences with him either. I would have thought it a cold day in hell when I would side more with Nash than Leon...

But I disagree with his handling of this whole thing and I don't think it's fair to tell people not to criticize someone just because he's your friend or he's in charge of a forum. I would criticize the person in this situation regardless of whether or not it was Leon, and the fact that it was Leon actually made it more difficult for me to do so. But my principles are my principles and I will always try to apply them universally and fairly, even when it means applying them in ways that are hard for me.

I didn't think I was attacking you any more than you were attacking me, and I certainly don't feel attacked. This feels like a moral discussion to me... I didn't mean to make you feel personally attacked though, so I'm sorry. You're free to have your own opinions, I just like debating them :)

You're absolutely right! Owning a piece of stolen property is not morally wrong if you don't know it's stolen. But I think a lot of people would agree that if you are in possession of a stolen item, regardless of how you acquired it, that item should be returned. Or at least I think that, maybe you disagree, which is totally within your right.

But whatever the law decides wont change my moral principle which states that stolen items should always be returned to their rightful owners. And I think there are people out there who would agree with me on that.

At the end of the day, we don't know at this point what Leon's plans for the card are, so it's too early to judge anyone. I was addressing the people who were trying to find ways around returning the card, which at this point I am comfortable judging as being the morally wrong way to approach this situation.

I'm curious, you're suggesting that Leon is prepared to litigate this issue? Are you representing him? Is that a Dorskindian 'we' or a traditional 'we'?

I knew we served some socially useful function, just couldn't remember what it was. Thanks Adam.

Whatever did or didn't happen with Leon's card, it is incredibly disheartening to see a thread about one of the alleged grandest perpetrators of fraud in the hobby degenerate into something so minor in comparison.

So many of the same people bickering in this thread about the most quibbling of differences profess to have an interest in cleaning up the hobby, yet when presented with the choice of spending 20 minutes writing a letter that may make an actual difference or wasting it away arguing here, there seems to be no shortage of those that choose the latter.

Now I certainly don't know Mr. Lichtman, but by all accounts he seems to be an excellent lawyer. I certainly also know absolutely nothing substantive about the law other than to find an excellent lawyer and then follow his or her instructions. For those of us that are vehemently against writing a letter, what could the potential drawbacks be? Please note this is not a hypothetical question. I intend to write one myself as a bidder in his auctions unless some unforeseen consequence is presented.

That is a false ""choice" you are presenting. Nobody has suggested they didn't have time to write a letter, and instead spent the time arguing here. Please. People may or may not have good reasons for writing a letter or not, and you are free to disagree, but to posit that they haven't because they spent their time posting here is baseless rhetoric.

I certainly disagree, but again, we are getting bogged down in the details that ultimately don't matter.

What are the legitimate reasons for not wanting to write one? I believe (and correct me if I am wrong, as I certainly could be) you stated earlier in the thread you did not feel yourself categorized as a victim, which is obviously an opinion as valid as any other. Are there negatives to writing one the layman may not see? I understand this is simply a discussion and not legal advice.

I don't see any downside. You should feel free. As long as you are comfortable with the letter being a matter of public record.

Greg, thanks for the compliment :) Yes, there's lots of hot air on this thread about legal maneuvering to keep a stolen card from a public library which was the victim of a crime. However, as Peter points out certainly lack of time is not the reason why some people won't write to the judge about Mastro.

Personal choice is a reason: not everyone wants to 'get involved' in situations such as this although that makes little sense to me. Anyone who claims they are not a victim to Mastro's fraud is just providing a convenient excuse as I said earlier in this thread. If somehow you never bid in a shilled auction (and it's difficult to know for certain as bidding records were destroyed by Mastro or otherwise not revealed to the public) you certainly are impacted by the artificially inflated prices from Mastro auctions which will affect the market going forward. Plus you've also been victimized in another manner: the hobbyist's level of trust in auction houses has forever been lessened due to Mastro and his group of thieves.

The only downside to writing a letter that I can see is if that if the prospective letter writer ever committed fraud in a Mastro auction; Mastro's lawyers should rightly inform the judge that the writer is in no position to criticize Mastro to the court when the writer has unclean hands himself. Other than that I can't even imagine any drawbacks to writing such a letter.