Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1201355)

Kevin,

You should stay away from things like this... :D

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/23...f38e0a993e.jpg

Originally Posted by slipk1068 (Post 1201298)

+1

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1201347)

Keith not taken as confrontational at all. I think the answer in terms of a fraud claim, like in most circumstances, depends on the facts of your case, what information do you have based on bid history, etc. suggesting you have been defrauded. Fraud has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence, and alleged with particularity. This is why civil lawsuits are imperfect, as someone alluded to. It can be a catch 22 -- the evidence is in the hands of the fraudster, but without it you don't have enough to state a claim that isn't speculative. Now if Mastro's bidding records are released, for example, and it's pretty clear you were run up on a particular card -- different story.

As far as a claim against anyone for inflating the overall market, it would seem very difficult to prove that any particular card you may have bought was overpriced for that reason, as there could be a host of explanations. Then again, I tend to think like a defense lawyer, so don't take my word for it.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy (Post 1201355)

Kevin,
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/23...f38e0a993e.jpg

Originally Posted by glchen (Post 1201305)

Scott, the problem is that the arguments around this get too personal. People are basically calling each other idiots if they don't agree w/ the opposing opinion. There's no "I respect your opinion, and let's agree to disagree." Instead it's more like, "you are an idiot who doesn't know what the #%#$%$ you're talking about, so just shut the %$#%$# up before you embarrass yourself further."

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1201343)

You just keep revealing your ignorance. There are all sorts of meritorious individual claims that do not work as class actions because of very precise and technical requirements you obviously don't know anything about. But keep it up, you are impressing my friend Ron. :D

Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder (Post 1201463)

i didn't say all of them work that way. you are injecting words into the conversation.

i never claimed to know everything, but at the same time i have not said anything unfactual. period. if you want to debate that, then lets debate that.

what specifically have i said that is not accurate?

kevin

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1201496)

If you insist.

"enough claims for a single case or series of events will get compiled into a class action suit."

WRONG

"are you telling me that if a company has a large number of civil cases for a particular series of events they would not push to have those cases settled as a class action instead of fighting them individually"

WRONG

"someone with attention to suits being filed against a particular defendant can also easily bring class action on behalf of the class. whether the defendant pushes for it, or an entity involved in a civil case brings it to a class action......with enough people filing civil suit the chances of it becoming a class action from civil suit goes up."

WRONG

Originally Posted by calvindog (Post 1201324)

Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living respected the professional opinions of people who are dispensing information gleaned directly from decades of practice in that professional field instead of claiming that their lay opinions of said field are instead more accurate there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Maybe if the people who sell widgets for a living didn't fabricate their opinions for reasons of greed or dishonesty in an attempt to protect the fraudsters -- and instead actually gave honest opinions -- there wouldn't be the problem you talk about.

Respect is a two way street.

Originally Posted by glchen (Post 1201539)

Jeff, so basically you're saying for certain topics on this board should be for lawyers-only to discuss.

Leon, can we have a lawyers-only subforum?

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1201358)

Yeah, but I was sitting on the couch watching the debacle and literally laughing out loud. I had to tell my wife what was going on. Hilarious. There is a fool born on this board every day. I can't imagine arguing a subject I barely know anything about with someone that does it, and has been doing it for decades, for a living.

Originally Posted by calvindog (Post 1201552)

No, Gary, what I'm saying is that when the issue arises which calls for an analysis of the law or for anecdotal information about how a practice of law occurs, the idiots with no training or education in the field (except from watching TV) should STFU and not say that we're wrong and insist upon flaunting their ignorance. It's a waste of sound information and it's only being challenged in order to protect a fraudster (or prevent someone's loved one from being raped or something).

Leon, can we have a passive-aggressive asshole subforum?

Originally Posted by tschock (Post 1201577)

Hey Jeff, I have no formal training in the field, but even I know that you can't be "proven innocent" in court, as some have insisted in other threads. And that if you are found "not guilty", that has nothing to do with whether or not you are actually "innocent". ;)

Other than that, I tend to usually defer to the "experts" in their respective fields. :D

Originally Posted by Vintageclout (Post 1201674)

Well said and the PERFECT example of your common sense is when Judge Landis banned the "Black Sox Eight" the day after they were found "not guilty" in a court of law!

Joe T.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1201676)

OJ

Originally Posted by Gradedcardman (Post 1201360)

12 pm is a work night ?