Quote:
Originally Posted by thehoodedcoder
Sure.
While it certainly doesn't look or sound good and there probably is something wrong here....
Let's face it, you still have nothing which concretely proves something wrong was done. Period.
Add the definitive proof. Let me know when you do that. Until then this thread is just like the rest... Circumstantial and inconclusive.
Kevin
|
I understand that you only do class action law and not traditional civil or criminal cases but you do understand this isn't a court of law, correct? That we're not a sitting grand jury examining evidence and sending out subpoenas, right? That all we
could have at this point is circumstantial evidence and that all we are trying to establish is that "there probably is something wrong here"? No 'definitive proof' can be established short of a confession or Rick allowing me to see his bidding and consignment records, neither of which will happen. I suspected Rick owned the Mathewson ball which was obviously shilled and Rick claimed he did own it -- before it was sold privately to some unknown buyer who later rejected the ball and supposedly put it back in a Probstein auction. And yet the ball was shilled in this Probstein auction at the price
Rick paid for it in REA a
nd not the higher price the unknown buyer got it for from Rick. That's circumstantial evidence enough for me to believe that the auction stinks. Maybe you pretend lawyer types need more definitive proof; I don't.