Today's Wash. Post has major piece re the BB card fraud

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Did you read the thread I posted last night on sales reported by PWCC but not in the ebay database?

Yes I did....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Yes I did....

You had asked about market manipulation. Assuming this is accurate, isn't that market manipulation?

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You had asked about market manipulation. Assuming this is accurate, isn't that market manipulation?

Doesn’t look good....all these people unpaid on cards $7,000 and over.....yeah right ......Bull to the S&&T ....maybe they will try this avenue to approach in prosecution......will be interesting to see.....who knows

I want to see what PSA is going to do ?

Are they remaining silent for these reasons over at Newport Beach ???

PSA might think it's safer to keep quiet until details do, or don't, come out. That way they don't shoot themselves in the foot over something they may not necessarily have to.....

Like if 6 pieces of damning evidence come out, it's better for them if they keep quiet now, and own up to those 6 things, but skate on 7-8 other things that weren't found out, or they weren't implicated in, despite having done them

[36GoudeyMan]

I don't post much, mostly lurk, but this is a huge deal all around, for the hobby and the hobbyists.

From what little I know, as a lawyer, the Sixth Amendment assures that a person charged with a crime has counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not require any particular attorney to take on any particular client (there are even rules that allow lawyers to refuse to take cases for some types of clients). Any lawyer is, generally speaking, free to accept any representation, but typically is not required to do so.

Having said that, I admire someone who has been a critic of a person or entity, who then takes up their "defense," often not to save or salvage the person or entity, but instead to ensure that the person or entity gets the treatment to which they are entitled, to ensure that the system treats the person or entity fairly and properly (and legally). I am not sure that Charles Manson's lawyers wanted him to be acquitted; I am sure they wanted the trial process to be fair and open and legitimate and transparent.

If Mr. Lichtman (who I do not know at al and have never met) wants to ensure that PWCC is treated properly in the process, that's his choice, and I respect it. If his object is to try to get something positive out of PWCC in its relationship to the hobby, I think its a net positive. And I think he's entitled to be paid for his work, too. If his object is to insulate PWCC from its obvious liability, play tricks with the system to get PWCC and its principals off the hook, that's different, but I, for one, do not hear that in his comments here. On balance, having someone intimately familiar with the hobby is a net plus; he knows how it all works, who the participants are, etc. I'd rather have someone knowledgeable involved than an outsider who is in it for the acquittal at all costs.


Also, please understand that there is a great deal he cannot say due to the attorney-client privilege. Do not crucify him if he is limited in his disclosures, especially in the context of a pending criminal investigation.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by 36GoudeyMan

I don't post much, mostly lurk, but this is a huge deal all around, for the hobby and the hobbyists.

From what little I know, as a lawyer, the Sixth Amendment assures that a person charged with a crime has counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not require any particular attorney to take on any particular client (there are even rules that allow lawyers to refuse to take cases for some types of clients). Any lawyer is, generally speaking, free to accept any representation, but typically is not required to do so.

Having said that, I admire someone who has been a critic of a person or entity, who then takes up their "defense," often not to save or salvage the person or entity, but instead to ensure that the person or entity gets the treatment to which they are entitled, to ensure that the system treats the person or entity fairly and properly (and legally). I am not sure that Charles Manson's lawyers wanted him to be acquitted; I am sure they wanted the trial process to be fair and open and legitimate and transparent.

If Mr. Lichtman (who I do not know at al and have never met) wants to ensure that PWCC is treated properly in the process, that's his choice, and I respect it. If his object is to try to get something positive out of PWCC in its relationship to the hobby, I think its a net positive. And I think he's entitled to be paid for his work, too. If his object is to insulate PWCC from its obvious liability, play tricks with the system to get PWCC and its principals off the hook, that's different, but I, for one, do not hear that in his comments here. On balance, having someone intimately familiar with the hobby is a net plus; he knows how it all works, who the participants are, etc. I'd rather have someone knowledgeable involved than an outsider who is in it for the acquittal at all costs.


Also, please understand that there is a great deal he cannot say due to the attorney-client privilege. Do not crucify him if he is limited in his disclosures, especially in the context of a pending criminal investigation.

Well said sir :-)

Many a time in the courtroom I’ve disliked a defendant while respecting his attorney. This is definitely the case in this matter.

[irv]

Originally Posted by 36GoudeyMan

I don't post much, mostly lurk, but this is a huge deal all around, for the hobby and the hobbyists.

From what little I know, as a lawyer, the Sixth Amendment assures that a person charged with a crime has counsel. The Sixth Amendment does not require any particular attorney to take on any particular client (there are even rules that allow lawyers to refuse to take cases for some types of clients). Any lawyer is, generally speaking, free to accept any representation, but typically is not required to do so.

Having said that, I admire someone who has been a critic of a person or entity, who then takes up their "defense," often not to save or salvage the person or entity, but instead to ensure that the person or entity gets the treatment to which they are entitled, to ensure that the system treats the person or entity fairly and properly (and legally). I am not sure that Charles Manson's lawyers wanted him to be acquitted; I am sure they wanted the trial process to be fair and open and legitimate and transparent.

If Mr. Lichtman (who I do not know at al and have never met) wants to ensure that PWCC is treated properly in the process, that's his choice, and I respect it. If his object is to try to get something positive out of PWCC in its relationship to the hobby, I think its a net positive. And I think he's entitled to be paid for his work, too. If his object is to insulate PWCC from its obvious liability, play tricks with the system to get PWCC and its principals off the hook, that's different, but I, for one, do not hear that in his comments here. On balance, having someone intimately familiar with the hobby is a net plus; he knows how it all works, who the participants are, etc. I'd rather have someone knowledgeable involved than an outsider who is in it for the acquittal at all costs.


Also, please understand that there is a great deal he cannot say due to the attorney-client privilege. Do not crucify him if he is limited in his disclosures, especially in the context of a pending criminal investigation.

When I read this post initially, I was also thinking WTF, but after reading Jeff's comments and the various posts throughout, including yours above, I think the bolded sections explain it very well.