Brian Drent grades GEM MINT 10 for integrity

[danmckee]

Recently Mr. Drent, the owner of Mile High Auction House, had unknowingly received a consignment that was obtained through larcenous means. When Mr. Drent was contacted regarding this stolen merchandise he was obviously shocked, but too his credit he acted swiftly and simply wanted to see the evidence that the merchandise in question was actually stolen. After reviewing the proof the merchandise was stolen, Mr. Drent simply said "I am returning your card because it's the right thing to do". In a time when certain Auction Houses are being accused of unethical practices, it's nice to know at least one Auction House owner stands up and does the right thing for one of it's hobby members. I would also like to make it clear that the actual consignor was not the individual that stole the card, but happened to purchase the card not knowing it was stolen property.

This is a happy ending to a recent theft.

Dan Mckee

[teetwoohsix]

Thank you for doing the right thing.Did the victim of this theft get their card(or cards?)back?

[BobbyVCP]

Brian IMPO is a stand up guy and trustworthy.

[egbeachley]

When confronted with evidence of theft, what do the owners of other Auction Houses usually do? Do they still attempt to sell it? Wouldn't that be fencing stolen goods?

[danmckee]

I am not a lawyer but I think Brian checked into the legal aspects and was under absolutely no legal obligation to return the card to the rightful owner. Remember, doing that put the consignor out who was also an innocent bystandard in this mess. I don't want to speak for Brian but I think he told me that he consulted his lawyer. Maybe Brian can chime in here to confirm. Dan.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

When confronted with evidence of theft, what do the owners of other Auction Houses usually do? Do they still attempt to sell it? Wouldn't that be fencing stolen goods?

My understanding is that there can never be a clear title to stolen goods if the legal owner doesn't get them back. That being said I think (key word is 'think") there is precedence for when a stolen item is known about by the rightful owners, and they don't act on it in a timely manner, then there is some limitation set for recovery.

I think Brian did the right thing but I would have thought the item would have gone back to the consignor and the person it was stolen from would go to the consignor to get it back. I definitely would have consulted a lawyer, as it appears Brian did. Kudo's to him!!

And to answer the question above. I am fairly certain that knowingly selling stolen goods is a criminal act.

[Rich Klein]

If these are items from the stolen collection that REA blogged about recently. If so; and they are the graded cards; another reason why there are benefits to graded cards

Rich

[egbeachley]

I guess the other alternative would be to give it to the proper authorities.

I'm sure that in this case, the rightful owner got his card back. But it could be a risky move by MileHigh as the theft victim may no longer be the legal owner. If he received insurance proceeds, the insurance company is the owner. If purchased from a Police Auction that filed proper notices, the Consignor is the rightful owner. Etc, etc.

[danmckee]

This is not from the REA theft and yes it was graded but reholdered after the theft and no insurance was involved. Dan.

[danmckee]

oh, and the proper authorities never considered the theft a crime so giving it to any law enforcement makes no sense.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by danmckee

oh, and the proper authorities never considered the theft a crime so giving it to any law enforcement makes no sense.

uh, ok....I believe ya' Dan but last time I checked most (all) thefts were crimes. Where are our board lawyers when ya need 'em?

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Leon

Where are our board lawyers when ya need 'em?

Probably sitting back and chuckling over all of the speculation and interpretations of the law based on assumptions and limited information.

[danmckee]

Actually one board member helped a bunch in the beginning. Adam Warshaw once again came to the aid of a collector but there wasn't much he could do. Law enforcement was contacted and said no crime was committed, Adam can vouch for this. So keep chuckling. Dan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What were the circumstances of the theft?

[Bosox Blair]

None of this makes sense to me. But let me say this: I would not be giving him a 10 for anything if it was me who:

- bought a card, not knowing there was any question about it,
- consigned it to Mile High in good faith,
- found out Mile High decided to send it to some other person asserting a claim to it, and
- found out the police consider the card was never stolen ("no crime") to begin with...

I think I'd be giving him a few things, and a "10" ain't one of them...

Anyways, I'm sure the facts as they have been set out here are either incorrect or incomplete.

Cheers,
Blair

[vintagewhitesox]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Probably sitting back and chuckling over all of the speculation and interpretations of the law based on assumptions and limited information.

That's what I was doing


Wait, so when is a theft not a crime?

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

Wait, so when is a theft not a crime?

When the authorities decide not to prosecute.

[vintagewhitesox]

Deciding not to prosecute just means you wont face the criminal justice system and risk the possibility of being found guilty. The actual act of taking property that you do not rightfully own is still a crime.

[Jacklitsch]

From a practical standpoint I guess the Auction House did the right thing but...

I will first have to presume that he checked with the consignor and got his approval and if not...

The prudent thing would be to file an interpleader action joining Dan and the consignor as Defendants and let the Court figure it out.

[pwilk17]

You said that this is a happy ending to a recent theft. Do you think the innocent consignor of the card (who now is out $ - perhaps many $) thinks that this is a happy ending?

[Exhibitman]

In a nutshell, the card was sold on Ebay and the buyer (from Glendale CA) paid by CC then claimed that he had not received it--despite the fact that signature confirmation was used--he claimed the item wasn't in the box. He instituted a Paypal/CC claim and got his money back and still had the card. The card then turned up in the MH auction. Whether he reholdered it and then sold it or whether it went through more than one set of hands I cannot say. If it wasn't for the kangaroo court system at the Ebay-mandated Paypal, however, this sort of crap could never take place because you could use a check and wait for it to clear. With Paypal, you take the same risks as any merchant w/r/t fraudulent charge-backs.

My experience in LA County has been that law enforcement is as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to false pretense stuff like this; they simply declare it a civil dispute and punt. The scammer in this case used a mailbox store to have his items delivered so that there would be a signature but it would not be his.

So far as title goes, it depends in some degree on how the item was obtained and what jurisdiction you are in. Under some states' laws a good faith purchaser for value acquires clean title even if the seller to that person got the item by larcenous means.

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

So far as title goes, it depends in some degree on how the item was obtained and what jurisdiction you are in. Under some states' laws a good faith purchaser for value acquires clean title even if the seller to that person got the item by larcenous means.

It looks like Brian Drent screwed his consignor. If the consignor obtained the card in good faith and he had clean title, then Brian really should not have simply mailed the card to another person.

[danmckee]

Thank you Adam. Yes law enforcement was not interested at all. And actually, it was a PSA graded card and the scammer didn't actually say he didn't get it, he said that it "was not as described" and American Express did the charge back just before their 9 month max window for charge backs.

Also, they didn't even make the buyer return the item!!

Some of the responses here are exactly why I no longer frequent this board.

If you know-it-alls ever have a card stolen or lost and have to go through what I did with PSA or what my friend did here, then you would understand.

I agree with you that theft is theft but as Adam stated, law enforcement couldn't be bothered and said to handle it in court which is a joke.

This is all I am going to say on this matter and anyone who would like details can look at my past threads here on the new board as I posted as soon as the card was hocked.

I posted this because I felt Brian Drent deserved some good feedback for what he did.

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by danmckee

Thank you Adam. Yes law enforcement was not interested at all. And actually, it was a PSA graded card and the scammer didn't actually say he didn't get it, he said that it "was not as described" and American Express did the charge back just before their 9 month max window for charge backs.

Also, they didn't even make the buyer return the item!!

Some of the responses here are exactly why I no longer frequent this board.

If you know-it-alls ever have a card stolen or lost and have to go through what I did with PSA or what my friend did here, then you would understand.

I agree with you that theft is theft but as Adam stated, law enforcement couldn't be bothered and said to handle it in court which is a joke.

This is all I am going to say on this matter and anyone who would like details can look at my past threads here on the new board as I posted as soon as the card was hocked.

I posted this because I felt Brian Drent deserved some good feedback for what he did.

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan

Dan,

With respect, do you not see that there are two innocents here? There is the one who originally got scammed, and there is the innocent consignor who bought the card not knowing of the scam.

Many of the posters have simply made the point that Brian's conduct prefers one of these innocents over the other. In this case, he preferred the interests of a third party over the interests of the consignor who trusted him to sell his card and do his best for him.

That is not the obvious right thing to do - at least in the eyes of many posters (some of whom are lawyers). And as some have pointed out, the law recognizes many ways to obtain proper legal title to goods that were once stolen or obtained by questionable means. Neither the law nor the moral high-ground in this matter necessarily side with the guy who was originally scammed. You are assuming that to be the case and that is your view, but people don't have to agree with you.

Cheers,
Blair

[Matt]

Originally Posted by danmckee

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan, buddy, take a deep breath. Respectful disagreement (I don't think anyone has been nasty in this thread) is no reason to leave. Stick around, your input is valued.

[calvindog]

It does sound like Drent screwed the consignor by being honest. What I hate most of all are heads of auction houses who screw the consignors rather than conspiring with them to rip off innocent bidders in auctions. Those are the great guys in our hobby, the ones who will help others steal money while stuffing as much in their pockets as possible. Those are the auctioneers we need to protect, displaying our false umbrage on the board whenever the truth comes out and the bad guys are attacked -- all in an effort to obfuscate, to protect wallets.

Better we should all pile on an innocent guy over a $100 misunderstanding instead. Funny how the guys who pile on the small-fries are wildly supportive of the big fraudsters, the great guys. I guess it's only offensive when they lose a few nickels; as long as they're on the right side of the equation when massive fraud goes down, it's all good.

I don't mean to be a downer or become irrelevant so perhaps we can have a good ol' fashioned bidding party and celebrate our ill-gotten windfalls! And before 10 or so of you email me secretly, thanking me for posting the truth, why not have the balls instead to post something here?

[Abravefan11]

Obfuscate...nice!

[Jewish-collector]

I've got the guts to post something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMiw...rom=PL&index=1

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by calvindog

It does sound like Drent screwed the consignor by being honest. What I hate most of all are heads of auction houses who screw the consignors rather than conspiring with them to rip off innocent bidders in auctions. Those are the great guys in our hobby, the ones who will help others steal money while stuffing as much in their pockets as possible. Those are the auctioneers we need to protect, displaying our false umbrage on the board whenever the truth comes out and the bad guys are attacked -- all in an effort to obfuscate, to protect wallets.

Better we should all pile on an innocent guy over a $100 misunderstanding instead. Funny how the guys who pile on the small-fries are wildly supportive of the big fraudsters, the great guys. I guess it's only offensive when they lose a few nickels; as long as they're on the right side of the equation when massive fraud goes down, it's all good.

I don't mean to be a downer or become irrelevant so perhaps we can have a good ol' fashioned bidding party and celebrate our ill-gotten windfalls! And before 10 or so of you email me secretly, thanking me for posting the truth, why not have the balls instead to post something here?

I didn't understand your entire post, but Dan said the consignor did not know the card was stolen. So I don't think the consignor is one of the great guys that you speak of so frequently.

Does anyone have a link to the card in question?

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Obfuscate...nice!

Hey Tim, hope you didn't miss "interpleader" and "umbrage" in the prior posts!

(I just hope that Joann, now that she has passed the bar, doesn't start using words they never taught me in engineering school)

[Abravefan11]

Just reading the posts on this board has ameliorated my vocabulary to the point I wish I could retake the SAT's.

[bigfish]

sorry....wrong forum

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bigfish

sorry....wrong forum

C'mon, my man Toby. I got to read what you really thought and I have to agree with you. Sometimes it does get to be a Shiite storm around here. I can safely say I deleted at least 2 posts before I hit the "submit reply" button. Both of those were a bit farther up the string here. And both of those posts came out a little more bitter than yours also.....so, it just wasn't right for "me" to post them. Now, if others want to vent, that's their business. All of that being said I have seen a lot worse . Happy collecting....

just to be clear I deleted my OWN post before I hit the submit button. I don't delete or edit other posts except for every great once in a while per the rules...like taking care of F-bombs

[bigfish]

I hear you but I prefer not to feed into this mess. Dan is a great guy and I prefer to stay out of this one.

Patriots are down by one score.



Leon,

looking forward to seeing you at the PA show. See you in a few days.

[Wite3]

When I started reading this I had hoped that a certain Magie had turned up...

Still, good job Brian (and Dan and Adam).

Joshua

[fkw]

It has a small crease, VG










JK Very Interesting

[Peter_Spaeth]

No win situation for Brian -- no matter what he does someone is going to be unhappy -- hard to fault his choice to return the card to its owner as the consignor maybe still has recourse against the thief.

[pwilk17]

I am by no means an expert in law. It seems to me that there is now verifiable proof that the thief did in fact receive the card (he had it to sell it) and the matter should be escalated with the credit card company that did the charge back. It probably will be a hassle, however I believe it needs to be done. The thief must have some means as he had a credit card with a limit high enough to purchase the card.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No win situation for Brian -- no matter what he does someone is going to be unhappy -- hard to fault his choice to return the card to its owner as the consignor maybe still has recourse against the thief.

Well the "bona fide purchaser for value without notice" doctrine, which applies in many, many jurisdictions assumes the exact opposite. The consignor in this scenario would take good title to the card and it is the person who was originally scammed who must seek his recourse against the "thief".

This is what I've been driving at - the answer to this question is not obvious and may differ depending on where you live.

Cheers,
Blair

[Republicaninmass]

Sad to see some of these responses, it guess it just shows the integrity and morals of people. I bet they never had anything stolen from them of any value.

When my cards got stolen I called around and within 1 hour, I found them, every dealer seemed to know the sellers were suspicious. When I called, I described possibly what the criminals looked like, and what cards they had. Dealers responses "Seemed strange", "they didnt know what they had" "they had different stories" etc. Not many people walk around with 500+ 1952 topps in great shape. Sure enough ONE dealer eventually bought them. It taught me almost everyone has their price..among other things. Thieves are the lowest form of life..unless you are a bank robber the banks are insured

[Jacklitsch]

I think it comes down to this...

If the consignor was the original eBay buyer from Glendale CA the case closed. The Auction House did the right thing.

If the consignor was not the original eBay buyer then there potentially could be a problem here for the Auction House.

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by Jacklitsch

I think it comes down to this...

If the consignor was the original eBay buyer from Glendale CA the case closed. The Auction House did the right thing.

If the consignor was not the original eBay buyer then there potentially could be a problem here for the Auction House.

What a great summary Steve! You can switch jobs and become a summarizer, if there is such a thing.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Sad to see some of these responses, it guess it just shows the integrity and morals of people. I bet they never had anything stolen from them of any value.

Who has posted here showing a lack of integrity or morals? Nobody.

Cheers,
Blair

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

Well the "bona fide purchaser for value without notice" doctrine, which applies in many, many jurisdictions assumes the exact opposite. The consignor in this scenario would take good title to the card and it is the person who was originally scammed who must seek his recourse against the "thief".

This is what I've been driving at - the answer to this question is not obvious and may differ depending on where you live.

Cheers,
Blair

We have been through this before but a thief cannot convey good title to anyone, even to a BFP. The one complication here may be if the thief had voidable title, in which case a BFP may take good title. So the question is whether obtaining the card in this fashion is theft, or something more akin to fraud.

[pwilk17]

The Credit Card Company made an error in approving the charge back! It can now be proved that their credit card customer received the item and they need to give Dan back his money and collect from their crook. The innocent consignor then should be allowed to sell it in Memory Lane's auction. The crook got his cash from the innocent consignor. If the crook got less from the innocent consignor than he paid Dan - Oh well! The crook deserves to be charged with fraud, however if no one wants to follow through with this (the credit card company should lead the charge on this), then at least Dan will have his original sale price, the innocent consignor will have his card to auction or sell and the crook will have the consignors money. Neither Dan nor the consignor should be out on this and this would right the situation.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We have been through this before but a thief cannot convey good title to anyone, even to a BFP. The one complication here may be if the thief had voidable title, in which case a BFP may take good title. So the question is whether obtaining the card in this fashion is theft, or something more akin to fraud.

Well the original owner did convey the card with the intention of transferring title, right? So assuming this transaction was induced by fraud, it is not "theft" - it would be fraud. Which results in voidable title in the fraudster. Which then becomes good title in the BFP.

Anyways, I did not intend to turn this into law talk (which I enjoy, but I'm sure is boring to most people on the Board).

I'd like the people who think it is so clear to consider it this way:

You spent $5,500 to buy a nice graded green Cobb at a card show - approximately market value. It is a prized card in your collection. Later, you need money for medical bills, kid's school, you lose your job...whatever. You decide, among your many options for selling your Cobb, that Mile High has a great reputation. You are needing to get your money back out of this card (or better) so you trust Mile High to help you sell it and you mail your Cobb to them in good faith. Then, Mile High, acting as judge/jury, in the absence of any hearing or judicial finding of any kind, unilaterally decides that you are not the proper owner of the Cobb. They advise you that you are not getting the Cobb back or any of your money. The card will be sent to someone you never heard of.

Still think this is fair?

Anyways, I've expressed my views on this, so I won't try to make it any clearer than that. If people disagree with me, I respect that.


Cheers,
Blair

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

Who has posted here showing a lack of integrity or morals? Nobody.

Cheers,
Blair

Where did I say it shows a LACK of integrity or morals?


Cheers

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Where did I say it shows a LACK of integrity or morals?


Cheers

Oh - of course, you were sad to see the high morals and integrity. My mistake.

Cheers,
Blair

[danmckee]

This wasn't Dan's card guys, I posted for a friend who is a lurker, but I do appreciate the kind words, Dan.