How about some answers for this? Where are you Peter Nash?

[shelly]

Leon, if he commited grand theft then it should be criminal. I just dont understand how everthing the guy did is a civil case. If you commit a felony you get arrested.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by shelly

Leon, if he commited grand theft then it should be criminal. I just dont understand how everthing the guy did is a civil case. If commit a crime you get arrested.

I didn't say he committed grand theft. I don't even know the specifics of what it takes for that to be the case. Maybe he has the coaches corner syndrome. Does everything to the brink but not over it, concerning getting pinned. I don't know, that is just a guess. I don't think I have seen a criminal case against him either.

[slidekellyslide]

I guess what makes me angry about this thread is that all of the Peter Nash supporters won't even address his past issues with fraudulent behavior, we're supposed to ignore that and listen to what he is saying today. Or they try to downplay it calling it all a "Civil" matter. I think it's a bunch of crap. This guy ripped people off for a lot of money, he stole items that he was loaned and apparently has some connection to the mysterious "Cooperstown forger". I think some of you guys would take child care lessons from Casey Anthony.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I guess what makes me angry about this thread is that all of the Peter Nash supporters won't even address his past issues with fraudulent behavior, we're supposed to ignore that and listen to what he is saying today. Or they try to downplay it calling it all a "Civil" matter. I think it's a bunch of crap. This guy ripped people off for a lot of money, he stole items that he was loaned and apparently has some connection to the mysterious "Cooperstown forger". I think some of you guys would take child care lessons from Casey Anthony.

+1

I never trust people's assertions, I always judge of them by their actions.
- Ann Radcliffe (1764 - 1823), The Mysteries of Udolpho, 1764

[thecatspajamas]

Something else I don't understand are the blanket assessments that EVERYTHING Nash is saying now is truth, or EVERYTHING he says should be thrown out. Like it somehow has to be ALL one or the other. Personally, just from what I've read of his writing, I don't think the man is capable of speaking straight black-and-white truth. Everything he writes is mixed with personal vendetta and hidden agendas, so that it all comes out muddied and gray and leaves you guessing where the lines between truth and fiction are crossed.

There is an old saying: "The best lies carry an element of truth," and I think the converse also holds true. Something like, "The purest truth is tainted by a little lie," which is akin to Jim's oft-quoted analogy involving a drop of urine in a glass of water. I'm sure the debate regarding Nash will continue for as long as he mixes at least some truth into what he writes, but I would caution anyone to carefully examine whatever he serves up rather than pinching your nose and swallowing it all down. Maybe he's turned over a new leaf, maybe not, but I would suggest using caution with anyone who has been caught pissing in the water cooler...

[shelly]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I guess what makes me angry about this thread is that all of the Peter Nash supporters won't even address his past issues with fraudulent behavior, we're supposed to ignore that and listen to what he is saying today. Or they try to downplay it calling it all a "Civil" matter. I think it's a bunch of crap. This guy ripped people off for a lot of money, he stole items that he was loaned and apparently has some connection to the mysterious "Cooperstown forger". I think some of you guys would take child care lessons from Casey Anthony.

Dan who on here has said that he did nothing wrong. I have read a lot of remarks and outside of Travis everyone agrees that he did bad things. The only I I said if he did all these things why where they not felony"s. Every thing being said about him is over civil cases.
I dont beleive everyting I read and I sure as hell dont believe everything that is said

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by shelly

Dan who on here has said that he did nothing wrong. I have read a lot of remarks and outside of Travis everyone agrees that he did bad things. The only I I said if he did all these things why where they not felony"s. Every thing being said about him is over civil cases.
I dont beleive everyting I read and I sure as hell dont believe everything that is said

I do believe you are trying to downplay his past by bringing up civil vs criminal issues...why even bring it up? HE RIPPED PEOPLE OFF! And there are others here besides Travis who sit by silently even when questioned directly about Nash's past who just ignore the questions.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I do believe you are trying to downplay his past by bringing up civil vs criminal issues...why even bring it up? HE RIPPED PEOPLE OFF! And there are others here besides Travis who sit by silently even when questioned directly about Nash's past who just ignore the questions.

I have never down played his past. There is a HUGE difference between being a felon and someone being sued. If that is what you call defending him then I guess I am. You can not say he commited a crime when he has never been convicted of one. It is only your opinion that it should be a crime.
I will make this clear. I think what he has done in the past is terrible. If that means what he is doing now is wrong I would have to disagree.
Like I said about what he writes I believe half of what I read but it does make you think.

[Exhibitman]

This civil/criminal dichotomy that some posters here are citing as having some exculpatory value is nonsense. Acts that are civil wrongs are also criminal acts and vice versa. Whether or not an act is prosecuted as a crime says nothing about whether the act satisfies the elements of a crime. It has more to do with whether there is a complaint made to the authorities by a victim, to which authority the complaint is made, how easy it is to prove the case, whether the case has sufficient public considerations and interests to justify the expense of prosecution, whether the case is part of a civil action already [I have heard prosecutors say that they do not like to be used as a collections agency by a civil litigant], and a bunch of other considerations I am certainly missing. I will give you two concrete examples:

1. I had a case with a client accused of defrauding a securities investor. I defended the civil case the investor filed against him. The alleged victim/plaintiff then decided to take the matter to the D.A. in Ventura. The D.A. decided to allocate the resources to investigate the case and then decided to prosecute it once the investigation was done. My client pleaded guilty to a lesser offense in return for a light, no-prison sentence, and then lost the civil trial.

2. Another client of mine was swindled out of a lot of money in a stock investment that was sold to him in violation of the state's securities laws. I turned the matter into the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and to the state Attorney General's securities division for investigation but they declined to prosecute. My client eventually received compensation via a civil action.

In each case the act did not change; the difference was how it was perceived and handled by the prosecuting authority.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by shelly

You can not say he commited a crime when he has never been convicted of one. It is only your opinion that it should be a crime.

Interesting...I guess stealing from the Hall of Fame and NYPL are not crimes either because I'm pretty sure that some of the people Peter Nash accuses of those crimes incidents were never convicted.