Any new news on GAI?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Are reports of their demise greatly exaggerated, to borrow from Mark Twain? Have they moved yet? Are cards being returned, either slabbed or unslabbed? Inquiring minds would like to know

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

It will all be better on Monday.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am told they are back in business, there was a large influx of capital...and they are accepting submissions. This is from one of their submission center alliances. I don't know anymore.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

I feel bad for whoever invested in them - the way they handled the recent situation is did severe damage to their customer base; if they were floundering before, I don't see how they survive now.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

It will be an up hill battle at best......Again, the news I heard is from one of their submission center folks that called me today. He said he has spoken with Baker and Rocci (sp?) in the last 1-2 days....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

the "We made room for a Church" release.


I am wondering if there are any orphans, or puppies, or third world impoverished children that might be slowing their progress to getting their phones and server back up and running.



I for one commend them for going through such a big business inconvenience in order to help that Church get into bigger space.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

with my wife...Morgan Fairchild...who I've seen naked. Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean C

It's "Planned Maintenance!"

http://gacard.net/maint.html

I'd ask how they could say such things with a straight face, but now one has been able to see them to confirm that they are.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Their "Public Relations" is dismal.....

edited grammar

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I wonder if their landlord received any of that large influx of capital. I'm guessing he got fluxed instead.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

So you've been chatting with Mr. Giddings. Lucky you! Does he talk with the cap lock button depressed as well?

BTW. Your comment regarding dismal, you are truly the master of understatement. My hat is off to you sir.

[Archive]

Posted By: 1880nonsports

that the company is lacking a captain - the person who takes the lead in RUNNING a company in it's totality. I would think even a cash infussion will do nothing but delay an inevitable demise. Most here don't buy GAI (as a "I only have GAI graded cards in my collection") so we are not the bellweather but a significant percent of the people that get baseball cards graded. If it's the general consumer that is thier target then the lack of communication (phone/website/public releases) - card show "no-shows" - and unresponsiveness will diminish the submissions to a point of no return......

(edited to correct a simple spelling error before i get chided - I'm too fragile right now)

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Fragile Frankie Merman lives!

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Haas

An update on my previous thread regarding GAI. As you know from my previous thread GAI owed me a sum of money for a '49 Leaf Babe Ruth that they had found a buyer for. Mike Baker told me on Thursday that they would send me a check Monday (yesterday). He called me yesterday and said the post office was closed for Veterans Day and asked if I wanted a credit to my Paypal account? I told him I preferred a money order and sending out Tuesday (today) was fine. Today he called and said the money order went out today priority mail and I should have it shortly.
I must admit he is being diligent in rectifying my problem and says they are doing the same for all. He also reiterates that GAI is still in business.
I'll let you know when I receive the check.

Dave

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Dave,
Just curious did Mike or Darren ever tell you what grade your Ruth card received? Or was it ever graded by them?

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

This kind of gets you thinking about the whole grading phenomena. Can PSA and SGC weather the storm if the economy weakens and people reduce the number of submissions to SGC and PSA? Hmmmm......

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

I just noticed on Beckett Blog that GAI will be relocating in same area San Clemente and that they plan to attend the Sun Times Show in Chicago, this was posted November 13th 2008 at 6:48 PM, right from Steve Rocchi to Beckett magazine...(see google search) I sincerely hope that this confusion is resolved for everyone's sake, especially Mike, Steve, Danny....and the customers.


If they are present in Chicago, a lot of healing can begin. I maybe overly optimistic but there has to be some good news in seeing them in person.

I know some people might be pessimistic and many cannot understand how these events occurred, but I hope their stated venture capital influx can be utilized to rebuild their company goodwill, they certainly have personable and skilled talent. Again, this was only quoted from an article I read tonight and I have no direct information first hand.

Nov 13th 2008 11:55 PM

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

"venture capital influx can be utilized to rebuild their company goodwill

I doubt capital can buy goodwill. Efficiency, good communication and top-notch customer service could do it, but GAI has never possessed those qualities.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Haas

Al,
I had sent the card in for a pregrade which they did prior to calling me. What they didn't know was that I had the card previously graded by PSA and was not happy with their grade. By the way, PSA and GAI graded the card the same.

Dave

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Gai is in the grading business (well was) NOT in the selling of submissions business. You can bet your last dollar that if they sold it it was overgraded.

That is a sin in which I could never forgive them on. Also i wonder what happened to all the other hi end items that were mysteriousely lost during the past few years?


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Steve,

That's a pretty big assumption you are making without any proof to back it up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I don't see that as a 'Pretty Big Assumption'

I see it as a plausible assumption.

Or a very easy to understand assumption.


It is that assumption that hilights why a grading company should not be part of that type of deal making.


And - it is very easy for a grading company to ensure that there is no basis for that assumption.
In this instance, GAI left the door wide open for that type of assumption.


Although.... I have to say I have to believe in the GAI's integrity -
because as we know, they went through a terrible inconvenience to help out a growing Church.
That is very admirable.
I mean... they did go through this to help out a Church, right?




edit: so as not to misquote - Josh said "pretty big" and not "very big" as I originally posted. I changed "very" to "pretty" in the one instance above. My message is otherwise untouched.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Thanks Dave,
Let us know when you get your check!!! Al

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

For a small company, an influx of capital means that somebody sold their car.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Joe,

I think its fair to say that GAI handled their "move" in an entirely less than adequate or forthright fashion. I think its fair to assume that GAI doesnt know $h%t about public relations. I also think its fair to assume that GAI or the individual grader took a cut out of whatever deal they brokered with regard to the Ruth card.

However, given info provided by Dave that the card received the same grade that PSA had given the card and absolutely no evidence suggesting (1) that GAI had a corporate policy permitting its graders to sell consigned cards; or (2) that GAI stole cards from consignors and sold them out the back door; I maintain that there is no evidence to support your assumption that they would intentionally overgrade a card. Im not saying it didnt happen, Im just saying I'd want to see more before I'd make a reckless comment like that. Of course, even if you or someone else have defamed GAI with your comments, they probably lack sufficient funds to sue, so its probably all good.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

It's not good news when a grading co. sells a card that they just graded. The theory is that they are an independent 3d party. Once they stand to make some money on the sale they are no longer independent.

Also the buyer has no idea whether the grading was done last month or the day before, there's only one situation in which the grading should be permitted. If the buyer specifically requests that the card be graded.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Josh - "they probably lack sufficient funds to sue, so its probably all good"

How many cases have there been where a company has sued a message board poster over defamation?

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Plenty

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

no comment

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

I dont have an exact answer for you, but I would bet the post right below yours is very accurate: Plenty.

Heck, arent you personally aware of at least one threat to sue someone over a post on this board?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

You can sue somebody over almost anything. Prevailing on the merits is a different story.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"threat to sue" != Actual Lawsuit

People threaten to sue over almost anything. I'm interested in actual cases. You guys are the lawyers, so I certainly will defer, but if you wouldn't mind referencing one or two such cases, it would enlighten me.

thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

A quick internet search (rather than through an actual legal research site which costs money) found the following examples (look at the last one):


In 1991, CompuServe was sued in New York federal court for Libel (Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 S.D.N.Y). CompuServe was sued because it hosted a daily newsletter called "Rumorville" (which was also a defendant) in its Journalism Forum. Plaintiff published an electronic news and gossip column for the TV news and radio industries called "Skuttlebut". Defendant "Rumorville" published articles which claimed that Skuttlebut was a "new start-up scam" and it's owner had been "bounced" by his previous employer. The court dismissed CompuServe as a defendant by Summary Judgment because CompuServe had no contractual, employment, or other relationship with Rumorville which allowed them to edit or even read what was going to be published in Rumorville. Ii other words, CompuServe was merely acting like a newsstand which displayed other publications and cannot be held responsible for their content.

In 1994, an Australian anthropologist named Gil Hardwick was ordered by the Australian Supreme Court to pay David Rindos $40,000 because he libeled Mr. Rindos on the Internet. Mr. Hardwick claimed that Rindos had lost his job teaching at the University of Western Australia because he was a bully and had sexually molested a boy. These were false statements which hurt Rindo's chances at finding a job and harmed his reputation to the public.

In 1994, Suarez Corporation sued Brock Meeks for publishing an article in his electronic newsletter called the CyberWire Dispatch for Libel. Suarez Corp. v. Meeks, Civil Action No. 267513 (Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio). Meeks had written that Benjamin Suarez, the owner of Suarez Corp., was "infamous for his questionable direct marketing scams" and that "he (Suarez) has a mean streak". The lawsuit was settled for only $64 in court costs, but Mr. Meeks spent a lot in lawyer's fees defending himself.

In 1995, Prodigy was held potentially liable by the New York Supreme Court for damaging statements made by an anonymous subscriber to Prodigy's "Money Talk" board (Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.). Because Prodigy exercises some control over content, it acts as a publisher rather than a mere newsstand like host (as CompuServe had been). The court held that a jury could find Prodigy liable for failing to exercise its control to weed out Libelous statements by its subscribers.

Currently, there is a $200 Million Libel lawsuit pending (Medphone v. DeNigis). Medphone is a Fortune 500 company which makes medical instruments. Prodigy subscriber Peter DeNigis lost $9,000 when he sold off his Medphone stocks and is alleged to have published negative posts stating that the Medphone company "appears to be a fraud".


Edited to add - these cases are all pulled from a website on the internet - I have not checked the accuracy of anything reported in the case summaries.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

To be clear.... I am not saying that GAI overgraded the Ruth Card.

I am saying... my willingness to believe such an assumption is greatly enhanced based on the actions GAI took.

Also - my willingness to call it a 'pretty big assumption' is greatly diminished based on the actions GAI took.

Getting evicted does not necessarily make you bad....
citing a growing Church to cover up that eviction is very bad imho.

Brokering deals on submissions is very bad - any way you cut it imho.



I happen to like the people I have had the chance to talk to from GAI.
I hope all works out for them.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Joe,

I understand perfectly what you were trying to say and agree in most respects. My original post, however, was responsive to Steve who clearly was asserting that the card was overgraded:

"You can bet your last dollar that if they sold it it was overgraded."

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

I also know for a fact that several web hosts (such as AOL) have been sued for material posted by their members. These cases ultimately led to the enactment of a federal law that essentially makes providers like AOL immune from defamatory postings by other parties using their services. Of course, that immunity doesnt extend to the actual person making the post.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Josh - thanks for posting those - the only one which seems relevant is the last one:

Currently, there is a $200 Million Libel lawsuit pending (Medphone v. DeNigis). Medphone is a Fortune 500 company which makes medical instruments. Prodigy subscriber Peter DeNigis lost $9,000 when he sold off his Medphone stocks and is alleged to have published negative posts stating that the Medphone company "appears to be a fraud".

I'd be very interested in the resolution of the case, since personally, I would have a hard time convicting the guy for only saying the company "appears" to be a fraud (as opposed to stating as a fact that the company IS a fraud). The other suits are against the board provider and not the poster (except for the one where he called the guy a child molester...).

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

And I think I speak for many of my colleagues here: Eeewww!!!

After all the craziness I do not consider them fit to grade a 3rd grader's math test and would not trust them with a 1990 Topps common.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

You ARE liable for what you say....but I am not liable for what you say (I am liable for what I say though)


What is this "Section 230" thing anyway?

Section 230 refers to Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230). It was passed as part of the much-maligned Communication Decency Act of 1996. Many aspects of the CDA were unconstitutional restrictions of freedom of speech (and, with EFF'S help, struck down by the Supreme Court), but this section survived and has been a valuable defense for Internet intermediaries ever since.

What protection does Section 230 provide?

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to "traditional" Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities as "interactive computer service providers."

How does Section 230 apply to bloggers?

Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs.

Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."

So if you are actively going out and gathering data on your own, then republishing it on your blog, we cannot guarantee that Section 230 would shield you from liability. But we believe that Section 230 should cover information a blogger has selected from other blogs or elsewhere on the Internet, since the originator provided the information for publication to the world. However, no court has ruled on this.

Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?

Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own. Likewise, if you link to an article, but provide a defamatory comment with the link, you may not qualify for the immunity.

The courts have not clarified the line between acceptable editing and the point at which you become the "information content provider." To the extent that your edits or comment change the meaning of the information, and the new meaning is defamatory, you may lose the protection of Section 230.

Is Section 230 limited to defamation?

No. It has been used to protect intermediaries against claims of negligent misrepresentation, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, intentional nuisance, violations of federal civil rights, and emotional distress. It protected against a state cause of action for violating a statute that forbids dealers in autographed sports items from misrepresenting those items as authentically autographed. It extends to unfair competition laws. It protected a library from being held liable for misuse of public funds, nuisance, and premises liability for providing computers allowing access to pornography.
Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do?
Yes. It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

That was a fairly quick search that didnt even check any actual court databases. I would be willing to bet there are hundreds of cases out there. If you are really interested in libel suits brought as a result of internet posts, Im sure there is a lawyer or two on this board who you could hire to do a memorandum for you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Leon: too much damn information. Stop reading legal statutes as your hobby.

For the rest: as I've said earlier, why on earth would anyone use GAI now unless you had a gun pointed at your head -- especially with SGC around?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Peter C said:


"For a small company, an influx of capital means that somebody sold their car.

Peter C."


hhahahaa. Good one Peter. That one gets you a coupon (at least from me) for one free thread. Sold their car. hee.

Not saying it applies to GAI - just very funny.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

Some more links:

Here's an article about a school principal that sued students over posts on myspace:

http://www.news.com/2100-1030_3-6174506.html

Check out the case log and archives down the left hand side of this website:

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/cyberlaw-clinic

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Josh - thanks so much for the information (you can bill me for the time )

My question is, what is the legal definition of what message board statements would result in a conviction for defamation? Without what was posted above, I would have thought that a claim that a company "appears to be a fraud" would be fine since it wasn't stating the company actually was a fraud; it just appeared that way. So is it problematic to use any negative adjective when describing a company?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

JOANN,
Please dont encourage Peter!! LOL No free threads for him.
You will be sorry!!
Leon,
As we know YES you can be sued !!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul Moss

Our very own Alan Hagar sued 20 or more entities and individuals including members of the CU message boards for statements made regarding his coin grading company. One poster suggested that Mrs. Hagar was a "Screaming Fishwife" (whatever that is) and found himself served and spending five figures in legal fees before he was dropped from the suit when it was revised....................some were dropped, others added. There have been MANY cases of message board posters being sued, even within the card collecting community. Trust me on this one, I have an inside track.

One of the reasons you don't hear about it is that as soon as a person is served and obtains council, the first thing any attorney is going to tell you to do is to shut the hell up and not discuss or say one thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Al,

I know! I thought about it! lolol. I really did. But the sold their comment was so perfect I couldn't resist. I've tried to stay out of the recent threads concerning Peter's posts b/c I feel like I've made my views so strongly known before now (and because I note that it really does seem like he is trying to do better and different).

But in this case I couldn't help myself - I laughed out loud an an airport bar when I read that one. Peter's "influx of capital" comment + 1 pint Sam Adams = out loud laugh at airport bar.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycle

Don't state your opinion as fact, state your opinion as your opinion. People are allowed to express their opinions. If you give what is clearly expressed as your opinion ("I think...," "It is my opinion...," "I don't know, but it seems to me..."), your statement as a whole is factually accurate in that it is indeed your opinion just as you say it is. The opinion itself may be dubious and you may later correct it, but no one's going to win in court trying to prove that it was not your opinion. If you don't know something as fact, don't state it as fact. If you don't know that a company committed fraud, don't say they did-- especially if it later turns out they didn't. Of course people are allowed to give their opinions and criticiz companies, products, practices and point out flaws.

While one should be prudent about what one says (in my opinion), if a company is evicted from its offices, its web site and telephone communications go down for a lengthy duration-- objective outsiders, including judges, will excuse a few conspiracy theories that came from the understandably nervous customers left in the dark.

Also libel requires that you know what you are stating is wrong. If you innocently get your facts mixed up, that's not libel.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Joann,
Glad someone is having a GOOD time! As they say have 2 there small!!
Just waiting for Peter to fall off the wagon! With one of those Knee slappers! Like show us your wax stained cards! Or heres a good one Plastic or Lucite which one is stronger!! Have a drink for me!!!