I just saw this posted on Facebook. I don't know if it has been posted here.

http://www.sportscardradio.com/gary-...E1HC8J1wLRDR2A

What are the odds that a year from now, there is a significant change to the viability of PSA and/or PWCC as a company? Is this a bump in the road, or the beginning of a major change in the hobby? Will card prices continue to rise, especially for higher grade examples, or will we see a bear market? I think it all hinges on any legal proceedings and prosecution of the guilty.

I think you’ll find that CLCT options have bid/ask spreads wide enough to navigate a VLCC through and, even with those spreads, the volumes available are really small.

Most investors will avoid like the plague because they as a whole, I know I do despise uncertainty…… Too many big-time people own big cards in their holders PSA will be fine…… Short term glitch yes correct Correction in the market? I can see that big time…… Best time to buy is when the prices tank…… Verify first then trust… Until court in plastic holders pay me a quarterly dividend I will avoid

Is my parsing of the statement (in bold) about right? :)

Nice try, but how many people have been screwed buying this crap. This will now have a hard impact on the hobby. You turned into a greedy pig and I hope you go to lockup for it. Your a disgrace.

For the non-lawyers here is the statement translated from legalese.

"Nobody will work harder than me to find the killer." -- O.J. Simpson

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This!!

So if nothing potentially illegal occurred why is Brent working with law enforcement? Your wishful thinking doesn't change the scope of the law which several here have explained.

I didn't say nothing illegal occured. Why not just answer the question, counselor?

How many times do I have to say it. Mail fraud and wire fraud. 18 USC 1341 and 1343.

I am not a lawyer but this doesn't seem to fit those statutes. Try again. No one committed fraud if they didn't do anything illegal? Still no answer and I am all ears as Steve and some others are. No one is saying this is good. But how can you say someone is guilty of mail fraud or wire fraud when they didn't do anything illegal. Trimming a card isn't illegal. Doing it AND saying you didn't would be.

It is illegal to use the mail or wires to commit fraud. Selling something while intentionally misrepresenting or concealing a material fact is fraud. Doing it repeatedly is a scheme to defraud. I can't do this over and over. If you think you know the law better than I do, that's fine, I really don't care at this point honestly.

Oregon State Consumer Protection Laws
 

Let’s start here:

“The Oregon Department of Justice is committed to ensuring a fair and safe market place. If you feel you’ve been taken advantage of, there are steps you can take — both online and on the phone.”

Report “scams & fraud” here:

https://www.doj.state.or.us/consumer...t-scams-fraud/

Right now there do not appear to be any consumer complaints filed against PWCC. We can all fix that by clicking the link above.

There was no material misrepresentation and no fraud unless the trimmer said he didn't do it. Trimming a card isn't illegal. Sending a trimmed card through the mail isn't illegal. You can quit now.

I am not condoning any of this mess I am just not sensing the strong case you think there is UNLESS there is some paper trail evidence that comes about. I expect there very well could be. But you are the lawyer. I guess we will see. I hope heads do roll for whomever is committing fraud. And I think this whole debacle sucks and is bad for the hobby short term and good for it long term.

I'm done. You're not listening and or you don't understand. I'm not debating the law with non-lawyers any more. If you think you know the law better than I do, God bless.

You keep directing us to these Codes. We're not lawyers, but we're not stupid either. The act to which these Codes applies has to be illegal. We're just questioning if the act (doctoring) is legal or not?

We're not question the morality of it, just the legality of it.

In other words, at what point does it become an illegal activity? It is illegal to trim a card? Is it illegal to send that card in for grading? If it receives a numeric grade, is it illegal to sell it? At which point, which one of these steps, does it become illegal and how?

for us non-lawyers the following two links explain peter's point:

1) very simple (look at questions 47-50): https://quizlet.com/56869821/chapter-13-flash-cards/

2) more comprehensive if one is looking for a greater understanding: https://guide.iacrc.org/the-basics-o...investigators/

Last time. It's not the doctoring itself, it's the fraudulent selling of a doctored card, or participating in a scheme to do so, using the mail and or the wires. Fraud is the knowing misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact.

where, as alluded to before, fraudulent is this:

Legal Definition of Scheme Or Artifice To Defraud
www.lectlaw.com/def2/s003.htm
SCHEME OR ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD. A scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 18 USC; Any plan or course of action intended to deceive others, and to obtain, by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, money or property from persons so deceived.

So, by your answer, if its sold using mail or wire it's illegal, but if they sold them it shows it wouldn't be illegal? Yeah, that makes sense. :confused:

He got you there, Pete!

I didn't draft the statutes, David, they are what they are. There are jurisdictional limitations on the reach of federal law. Other laws might apply to your situation.

Understood. But some could argue that it's not fraud if it improved the condition of the card as some truly believe. See my example above. If I re-wire a house because it has old, faulty wiring and then sell the house, do I have to disclose that it was re-wired? Do I have to disclose other upgrades? Do you not see where I'm coming from?

I guess what I'm saying is that Moser, Brent or whoever could argue that the customer wasn't deceived, but instead they were done a favor by improving the condition of the card.

Failing to disclose a material fact is fraud by non-disclosure, also known as fraudulent concealment. You don't have to affirmatively lie by saying something that isn't the truth. Failing to speak may also be fraud. I think that may be part of the disconnect.

If you trim a card, get it by the graders (which seems to be much easier that I had previously thought it might be) and either consign it to be sold or sell it directly yourself as worth whatever numerical grade it was given, that is fraud. The numerical grade is a material fact upon which the buyer based their decision to pay $XXX.00 for it upon. If you trimmed it (or knew it was trimmed) you have committed fraud by non-disclosure because you knew it didn't deserve a numerical grade. You have a duty to disclose that, plain and simple. Every time. If you use the mails or wires as part of your selling scheme, you get to look at mail or wire fraud.

What Peter is trying to say is that federal mail and wire fraud statutes don’t cover the entirety of all criminal fraud statutes.

I'd be stunned if this goes anywhere criminally. But I am not a criminal attorney. The board has a really good one, and it ain't me.

In a similar vein, let's see if anyone goes after Boeing criminally after a few hundred thousand scathing articles in the press and a few planes dropping out of the sky.

I do...It's knowingly duping people out of their money. It's the same thing that Mastro did, and did jail time for. Hence the name Brent mastro. Are you guys kiddin or just taking the asses point or just moronic? Pretty laughable you don't think its a crime to steal money from people. To each there own. "Youre not justifying it :D:D:D what a tra la la goon D A

Nice Bugs Bunny reference. A+

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxGgnI6kCrs

thanks for helping these few gentlemen that are very confused about stealing $$$ from people being criminal.

Now Leon's a lawyer and this is all fine a good. Thanks Leon. I thought you were better than that.

Nice spin, Chuck. None of us were defending their actions or questioning the morality of it. We were questioning the legality of it.

In another thread I was willing to give 4:1 odds that says Brent is not indicted. Wanna take that bet? Got balls, or are you dickless?

if it comes to it, they can argue whatever they want...a spade is still a spade...or at least it should be if shown to be:rolleyes:

re: this: "could argue that the customer wasn't deceived, but instead they were done a favor by improving the condition of the card."

"deception" and "favor" are not mutually exclusive, nor does the law say they have to be to show fraud i would imagine. in other words, if an act is fraudulent whether it is determined to be beneficial does not make it something other than fraud...that would be my layman's assumption at least.

Oregon State Law
 

The reason you need the interstate commerce piece -- mail and wire, etc. -- is to get into Federal jurisdiction. But, you can sue civilly or file a criminal complaint against PWCC relying on Oregon State Law (ORS 687.011):

"Fraud or misrepresentation" means knowingly giving misinformation or a false impression through the intentional misstatement of, concealment of or failure to make known a material fact or by other means.

Here's a direct link for filing an on-line complaint (notice that the website contemplates that you can file the complaint from any state, not just Oregon):

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Consumer Protection Fighting Fraud.


https://justice.oregon.gov/consumercomplaints/

There is a space for identifying the entity you are complaining about if it is a website, as opposed to a brick and mortar shop.

Quit being so dramatic. I am no lawyer I am just having a discussion.

Some of you guys have a really short memory. Remember the Joseph Pankiewicz threads? Cards going from 7s to 10s? Whatever came of that? Other than being exposed, nothing. If you're not sure what I'm referring to, just search this site by that name.

Same thing will happen in this case. Nothing. I keep repeating it, but most don't want to hear it. The grading companies are in on it. It's all fixed. I alluded to that over 5 years ago (post 429 in the thread below). Still the same 5 years later. Nothing changed, nothing will change. Most are focusing on the wrong parties involved instead of focusing on PSA. Until the focus is put on PSA, nothing changes. One thing I can say is that Brent has posted a few times about this subject. How many times has PSA posted? And that's all good. Keep ignoring PSA's involvement and using their service and buying their cards. We'll have this same conversation in another 5 years when another doctor is caught.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?p=1274471

Laws like that are actually common. The legislators figure the people that can sell through the mail have 1000s of more potential customers that someone that has to have someone show up at a show. So they are trying to catch the bigger players. Not saying there are loopholes are that it isnt silly but thats the justification of that conflict...

I think most here would be happy if Brent and Moser went to prison and were paid a visit by "Bubba" every night. I don't blame you if that's how you feel. But let's say that does happen. Problem solved? No! For every Moser that's caught, there is another to take his place. You guys just don't get that. As long as the doctors can get numeric grades on doctored cards, it's going to continue to happen. So the problem isn't with the doctors, it's with the TPGs. If they did their job, none of these threads would even exist, right? Sorry you don't want to see PSA take the fall and the value of your cards take a hit, but that's what's going to have to happen to see change occur. Otherwise we can continue to have these same old tiring discussions year after year.

David I am hopeful the magnitude of this will make a difference, but like you I am far from confident in the outcome.

It's sad to see so many essentially sticking up for the trimmers. A couple articles

First, when it becomes acceptable to use a nonsense story about "I didn't know" and what happens after.
https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/20...-it-heres-how/


And the "is it really a crime" thing...…

https://www.autoblog.com/2019/02/07/...ed-each-night/

Sad to see comprehension of the English language is lost as well. Nobody stuck up for the trimmers.

I'll take the bet that Brent is indicted by Jan 1, 2021 or that he turns state's evidence against BGS and/or PSA and one of their principals is indicted. $500

Who actually has been harmed and what cards. Maybe if we had names and cards and saw a growing list of specific harm it would be more tangible.

Maybe im in the minority but everything to me is too vague as to the harm when there arent really any specific victims complaining and what amounts are being alleged...


general market value going down is too vague.

I know it will be hard to identify some true victims but if you cant identify any than it is what it is..

That wasn't the bet. I will you $500 that Brent is indicted by 1/1/21. Your $500, my $2000. That's the bet if you want it...and I'm actually extending the timeframe in your favor (I originally said within 1 year).

David, Brent has admitted that he is already dealing with law enforcement after about 2 weeks of this. You’re making like this is Monty Python and that’s just a flesh wound. Who knows what happens next? Does he roll on Moser? Anyone at PSA? If he does and they have issues and he just has to pay back a small fortune in restitution but doesn’t get indicted, does that make you a winner in the bet? I’m not sure you’re clearly seeing what’s going on here. 2 weeks in and already law enforcement involved. This time is different.

You can take my bet or not. No harm. It didnt look like you thought PSA would get damaged in this.

Not to pile on....
 

There is NO doubt that PWCC is engaging in a criminal activity. I'm a lawyer with 40 years experience, including RICO cases. But so what? We shut down a dealer and someone else becomes the outlet for fraudulently altered cards. It becomes Whack-A-Mole.

The bigger issue is TPG authentication of clearly altered cards. The blessing/imprimatur of TPG authentication is a public statement that the card is, in fact (not opinion), unaltered (inasmuch as TPGs have categorization ability for altered cards). Is the TPG is unaware of the alteration, then its competence has to be questioned, and its exposure to "buy back"guarantees must be disclosed publicly, if it is a publicly-traded company. If it knows of the alterations and authenticates it anyway, it is engaged in fraud and a conspiracy to commit fraud by use of instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

I am not generally considered an hysteric. Most of you have no clue who I am, or care, and that's fine. However, this is a really, really huge issue, and implicates the SEC and FTC in their regulatory powers over TPGs. I say this with all due caution: this scandal can destroy this hobby. Everyone who has any affection for this universe of collectibles needs to start demanding public accountability. File complaints with the SEC (CLCT, etc.), and the FTC, before this becomes so pervasive and rampant (or has it already) that there is no dependable collectability of these treasures any longer.

I think PSA is going to be very damaged from this. At some point the directors of their parent CLCT are presumably going to have to put out a statement to alert shareholders because the losses to them are potentially massive and they’re holding an 800K reserve.

Relatedly I have thought and mentioned that if analysts became interested, due to the loss reserve implications or otherwise, PSA would have a harder time ignoring them than it historically has had ignoring collectors (see WIWAG scandal).

Thank you! :D

Brent/Moser going to jail or not does not stop the problem. As long as TPGs continue to assign numeric grades to altered cards, this will continue. Like I said a few posts above, people need to hold PSA accountable, even if it does have an impact on the value of their collection.