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

[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.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

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.

Excellent point. If all we are interested in reading/talking about is criminal activity as defined by conviction in a court of law, then everything on Nash's blog is moot.

Are we talking about cleaning up a hobby that we love? If so, any and all wrongdoing is game for discussion.

I for one don't pay money to TPAs, and I won't pay money if Nash starts selling a book. From what I've seen, neither is good for the hobby.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

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.

Lifson was caught red handed so what are you talking about?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Lifson was caught red handed so what are you talking about?

Do you read posts, Travis? Did Lifson do anything listed in the post you quoted?

And why do you give a crap about Lifson, anyway? He isn't a TPA (who, unlike Lifson and Nash, are not currently the target of serious criminal or civil litigation).

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Do you read posts, Travis? Did Lifson do anything listed in the post you quoted?

And why do you give a crap about Lifson, anyway? He isn't a TPA (who, unlike Lifson and Nash, are not currently the target of serious criminal or civil litigation).

someone said people werent convicted and i corrected him and pointed out lifson was caught red handed stealing baseball material out of the library.

quit changing the subject.

i am with shelly, if someone's got something on someone, let's hear it. the so-called saber rattling is getting old.

HOS posts evidence, eyewitness accounts, what's the holdup?

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by travrosty

someone said people werent convicted and i corrected him and pointed out lifson was caught red handed stealing baseball material out of the library.

quit changing the subject.

i am with shelly, if someone's got something on someone, let's hear it. the so-called saber rattling is getting old.

HOS posts evidence, eyewitness accounts, what's the holdup?

Travis, post #216 has some questions for you about the subject at hand. You are online right now, as I type this. Any chance you can respond??

Ken

PS: Also, I'm sure you are old enough to know the difference between "caught red handed" and "convicted," right?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by travrosty

someone said people werent convicted and i corrected him and pointed out lifson was caught red handed stealing baseball material out of the library.

quit changing the subject.

i am with shelly, if someone's got something on someone, let's hear it. the so-called saber rattling is getting old.

HOS posts evidence, eyewitness accounts, what's the holdup?

Wait, has Lifson been convicted of stealing from a library? I haven't read about that, but I may have missed it in the nastiness that can be this hobby.

Good question: What IS the holdup, Travis? Could it be that these "eyewitness accounts" won't hold up in a court of law? Could it be that these libraries don't care about what has been stolen? Could it be that you are buying into Nash's agenda more than most people?

Seems to me to be a mix of the three. OR MAYBE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE BACKING THE TPAS BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY INVESTED IN THE STATUS QUO!!!

I dunno, that's my attempt to peek into your mindset.

If Nash's accusations are legit, I hope they are investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Same with Nash's fraud, that seems to have been proven in civil court.

edited to add: finally on page four. Scrolling was getting rough on this bad boy.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by travrosty

someone said people werent convicted and i corrected him and pointed out lifson was caught red handed stealing baseball material out of the library.

quit changing the subject.

i am with shelly, if someone's got something on someone, let's hear it. the so-called saber rattling is getting old.

HOS posts evidence, eyewitness accounts, what's the holdup?

This is freaking hilarious....you totally ignored the legal papers posted by Leon in the first post of this thread. LOL!