John Rogers Home and Business Searched by the FBI

[jhs5120]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Robert it sounds like you are in need of some supplementary proceedings if you have not already gone that route.

+1

It seems like the route you are currently taking is not working. You cannot sit around and wait for Nash to provide providence to each and every item he has given you. He's not going to, ever.

It might be time to take further legal action.

[Cardboard Junkie]

I'm not a lawyer, Robert, but it might be wise to consult a lawyer about posting here. Don't want to get hung by your own petard. Dave.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"For 'tis sport to have the engineer/ Hoist with his own petar …"

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

I'm not a lawyer, Robert, but it might be wise to consult a lawyer about posting here. Don't want to get hung by your own petard. Dave.

David since were giving advice. Perhaps you can spend your time trying to get the “Large Ass” Herzog card shipped to you vs. offering up legal advice to Robert. If the guy wants to post this information that’s his business. Just like if you want to read Peter’s website and pat a self-admitted fraudster on the back that is your business. The same goes for Peter it's his business if he wants to continue to attack people in cyberspace to draw attention away from his problems...well I guess that's his business as well.

Also a big tip of the hat to Mr. Steve Ivy CEO of Heritage for the below response to Peter Nash.

“We have an obligation to both the consignor, and any potential buyer, as covered by our consignment agreement, and terms of sale. As outlined in Chris’s email, we also have an obligation to deal with any 3rd party that may have a claim, and we do so when such situations occur. We can’t address what ultimately amounts to conjecture, as you are asking us to do, as that may harm the consignor who has warranted good title. As you are aware, we also warrant good title to any potential buyer, and clearly have the financial wherewithal to back it up. You obviously have no standing in this matter. Your continued attempts to create issues where none exist (at least to our knowledge) to promote your own interests is transparent to all who know you.”

[Cardboard Junkie]

John, your lack of heterosexuality and manliness is astounding. 4Q2.
Dave

[Peter_Spaeth]

That seems like a major non sequitur.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

John, your lack of heterosexuality and manliness is astounding. 4Q2.
Dave

Your homophobia is showing... And, giving Peter Nash "attaboys" and then hanging out here like it didn't happen probably isn't the best strategy.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Dan, I'm not homophobic....I love my house.

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Your homophobia is showing... And, giving Peter Nash "attaboys" and then hanging out here like it didn't happen probably isn't the best strategy.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=141940

David ever scan that Brown Lenox Burch you found in that binder of yours?

I know the reason it was never shown is you have a hard time posting pictures on this site as you said then you sold it before scanning etc. I'm sure it's just me doubting you. I'm sure you have been 100% honest. I guess you and Nash have that in common just two honest guys surrounded by bad folks like myself from the hobby it has to be tough on you guys. My apologies for calling you out.

BTW loved the pictures of the Mazda Miata has to be fun to spin around the island in that.

Cheers,

John

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

John, your lack of heterosexuality and manliness is astounding. 4Q2.
Dave

Seriously!!!! How sadly childish. I guess someone did not get their bran muffin this morning...........

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

+1

It seems like the route you are currently taking is not working. You cannot sit around and wait for Nash to provide providence to each and every item he has given you. He's not going to, ever.

It might be time to take further legal action.

Let me explain the Judge awarded the Fraser’s all rights, title and legal interest to all items of collateral and we have the right to sell them and then apply the money to the Judgment. I have the right to sell this stuff right now and be done with it. It’s in Roxanne and Peter Nash’s interest to help sell the collateral and get top dollar, but Peter Nash has refused to help.

The simple fact is Peter Nash has done this before but in a much bigger way. When a huge amount of Nash’s memorabilia was being held by Robert Edward Auctions for none payment, Peter Nash decided to plead the fifth dozens of times and caused his memorabilia by Court Order to be sold in an “AS IS” auction and John Rogers bought it for $550,000. I was told by somebody that works for Lelands Auctions that Rogers sold 3 items and got all of his money back. I wonder if those 3 items are the items that are now in “The National Pastime Museum” the online museum that opened last year. Those 3 items are the King Kelly bat, Hugh Duffy bat and Ed Delahanty pocket watch. Where did John Rogers get the provenance for those 3 items when Robert Edward Auctions couldn’t? After all Nash pleaded the fifth. Makes no sense to me, although Nash did counter sue me for ruining his business relationship with John Rogers but the Judge threw out Nash’s counter suit. I bid on the “AS IS” sale for $250,000 because I knew that some of the stuff was real such as the Hugh Duffy Trophy from 1898. I was friends with Nash when he bought the Hugh Duffy Trophy from the Dooley family for $25,000 along with 53 other items. But why did Nash plead the fifth? Why didn’t Nash show Rob Lifson the owner of Robert Edward Auctions the sale receipt from Katherine Dooley? Peter Nash even named his dog Dooley, kid you not. So why did Nash plead the fifth knowing that the Hugh Duffy Trophy was real and had a sale receipt proving he purchased it? Is it because Nash had no sales receipt for the Hugh Duffy bat and the King Kelly bat that came from the Dooley family? Below is the link to the Hugh Duffy Trophy that sold in legendary Auctions for $36,000.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=95313

I spoke with Katherine Dooley's attorney Jeff Roberts last year and he told me that Peter Nash was allowed to take items from Katherine Dooley's house and get them appraised. But Peter Nash never gave them anything in writing what was appraised. Did Nash take this stuff to Robert Edward Auctions to get it appraised but instead borrow money against it? I don't know but it doesn't look good when you read this email from Katherine Dooley's attorney, see below.

Subject: RE: Peter Nash - Katherine (Kitty) Dooley

Date: 05/29/13 03:43:50 PM

From: "Jeffrey Roberts"

To: "'lkochfraser@optonline.net'"
Cc: "Matthew Lee"


Dear Robert,

This email serves to confirm our conversation regarding the appraisal of items owned by Katherine Dooley. At some point, although we do not know the exact date, Ms. Dooley gave Peter Nash permission to seek appraisals of some of her baseball memorabilia. Regrettably, we cannot confirm the date these appraisals occurred, the items that were appraised or their appraised value.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Jeff

Jeffrey W. Roberts
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
Seaport West
155 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, MA 02210
Direct line 617.439.2149 Fax 617.310.9149
www.nutter.com

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by Sunny

Let me explain the Judge awarded the Fraser’s all rights, title and legal interest to all items of collateral and we have the right to sell them and then apply the money to the Judgment. I have the right to sell this stuff right now and be done with it. It’s in Roxanne and Peter Nash’s interest to help sell the collateral and get top dollar, but Peter Nash has refused to help.

The simple fact is Peter Nash has done this before but in a much bigger way. When a huge amount of Nash’s memorabilia was being held by Robert Edward Auctions for none payment, Peter Nash decided to plead the fifth dozens of times and caused his memorabilia by Court Order to be sold in an “AS IS” auction and John Rogers bought it for $550,000. I was told by somebody that works for Lelands Auctions that Rogers sold 3 items and got all of his money back. I wonder if those 3 items are the items that are now in “The National Pastime Museum” the online museum that opened last year. Those 3 items are the King Kelly bat, Hugh Duffy bat and Ed Delahanty pocket watch. Where did John Rogers get the provenance for those 3 items when Robert Edward Auctions couldn’t? After all Nash pleaded the fifth. Makes no sense to me, although Nash did counter sue me for ruining his business relationship with John Rogers but the Judge threw out Nash’s counter suit. I bid on the “AS IS” sale for $250,000 because I knew that some of the stuff was real such as the Hugh Duffy Trophy from 1898. I was friends with Nash when he bought the Hugh Duffy Trophy from the Dooley family for $25,000 along with 53 other items. But why did Nash plead the fifth? Why didn’t Nash show Rob Lifson the owner of Robert Edward Auctions the sale receipt from Katherine Dooley? Peter Nash even named his dog Dooley, kid you not. So why did Nash plead the fifth knowing that the Hugh Duffy Trophy was real and had a sale receipt proving he purchased it? Is it because Nash had no sales receipt for the Hugh Duffy bat and the King Kelly bat that came from the Dooley family? Below is the link to the Hugh Duffy Trophy that sold in legendary Auctions for $36,000.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...entoryid=95313

I spoke with Katherine Dooley's attorney Jeff Roberts last year and he told me that Peter Nash was allowed to take items from Katherine Dooley's house and get them appraised. But Peter Nash never gave them anything in writing what was appraised. Did Nash take this stuff to Robert Edward Auctions to get it appraised but instead borrow money against it? I don't know but it doesn't look good when you read this email from Katherine Dooley's attorney, see below.

Subject: RE: Peter Nash - Katherine (Kitty) Dooley

Date: 05/29/13 03:43:50 PM

From: "Jeffrey Roberts"

To: "'lkochfraser@optonline.net'"
Cc: "Matthew Lee"


Dear Robert,

This email serves to confirm our conversation regarding the appraisal of items owned by Katherine Dooley. At some point, although we do not know the exact date, Ms. Dooley gave Peter Nash permission to seek appraisals of some of her baseball memorabilia. Regrettably, we cannot confirm the date these appraisals occurred, the items that were appraised or their appraised value.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Jeff

Jeffrey W. Roberts
Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP
Seaport West
155 Seaport Boulevard, Boston, MA 02210
Direct line 617.439.2149 Fax 617.310.9149
www.nutter.com

Below is the Bill of Sale of the 54 items Peter Nash purchase from Katherine Dooley. Please notice that there is no Mike Kelly bat, Hugh Duffy bat, Cap Anson Bat and the signed Babe Ruth mitt, all items that were owned by Nuf Ced McGreevy and all part of the Dooley collection. How come Peter Nash has never written anything about the authenticators that turned down Babe Ruth signature on this mitt? Rob lifson thought the Babe Ruth signature was good or else he would have never lent money against it. Authenticators do make mistakes but my point is, why hasn’t, Peter Nash written anything about this signed Babe Ruth mitt from when Babe Ruth played for the Red Sox? This mitt was worth a fortune! It is amazing that Peter Nash the Hauls of Shame website owner hasn’t written anything about this signed Ruth mitt he used to own. Nash loves bashing the authenticators but why not on this item which could be one of the most expensive signed items in baseball memorabilia history. Here’s the link to the Cap Anson bat that was part of the Dooley collection that John Rogers sold for $53,775 in Legendary Auctions in 2012.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=128533

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by Sunny

Below is the Bill of Sale of the 54 items Peter Nash purchase from Katherine Dooley. Please notice that there is no Mike Kelly bat, Hugh Duffy bat, Cap Anson Bat and the signed Babe Ruth mitt, all items that were owned by Nuf Ced McGreevy and all part of the Dooley collection. How come Peter Nash has never written anything about the authenticators that turned down Babe Ruth signature on this mitt? Rob lifson thought the Babe Ruth signature was good or else he would have never lent money against it. Authenticators do make mistake but my point is, why hasn’t, Peter Nash written anything about this signed Babe Ruth mitt from when Babe Ruth played for the Red Sox? This mitt was worth a fortune! It is amazing that Peter Nash the Hauls of Shame website owner hasn’t written anything about this signed Ruth mitt he used to own. Nash loves bashing the authenticators but why not on this item which could be one of the most expensive signed items in baseball memorabilia history. Here’s the link to the Cap Anson bat that was part of the Dooley collection that John Rogers sold for $53,775 in Legendary Auctions in 2012.

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...ntoryid=128533

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

Here's the police report when Peter Nash stole the Fred Tenney items and consigned them to Robert Edward Auction in 2007.

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by Sunny

Here's the police report when Peter Nash stole the Fred Tenney items and consigned them to Robert Edward Auction in 2007.

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

If you are reading this you probably have read the police report above when Peter Nash stole the Fred Tenney memorabilia. Below is a certification from Tim Murnane’s grandson in regards to when Peter Nash gave the Fraser’s as collateral a rare baseball book from 1897, which Nash represented that he owned, but in reality Nash stole from the gentleman below. Apparently when you lend something to Peter Nash he think he permanently owns it. Let me explain Peter Nash what you did is fraud and theft! You did this to us while my wife was going through breast cancer! Shame on you!

In the Fraser’s Judgment against the Nash’s the Judge Ordered that the book be sent back to the rightful owner. “Plaintiffs are permitted to return to Raymond Quinn and or his assignees or heirs, Mr. Quinn’s book, titled “Boston Baseball Club 1871-1897”, delivered by the Defendants Peter Nash, Roxanne Nash and Cooperstown Monument Company, Inc., and presently in Plaintiffs’ possession, without credit to any of the foregoing amounts.” The book has been returned to the rightful owner Raymond Quinn.

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

That letter was very polite. Nicer than I would have penned.

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by Sunny

If you are reading this you probably have read the police report above when Peter Nash stole the Fred Tenney memorabilia. Below is a certification from Tim Murnane’s grandson in regards to when Peter Nash gave the Fraser’s as collateral a rare baseball book from 1897, which Nash represented that he owned, but in reality Nash stole from the gentleman below. Apparently when you lend something to Peter Nash he think he permanently owns it. Let me explain Peter Nash what you did is fraud and theft! You did this to us while my wife was going through breast cancer! Shame on you!

In the Fraser’s Judgment against the Nash’s the Judge Ordered that the book be sent back to the rightful owner. “Plaintiffs are permitted to return to Raymond Quinn and or his assignees or heirs, Mr. Quinn’s book, titled “Boston Baseball Club 1871-1897”, delivered by the Defendants Peter Nash, Roxanne Nash and Cooperstown Monument Company, Inc., and presently in Plaintiffs’ possession, without credit to any of the foregoing amounts.” The book has been returned to the rightful owner Raymond Quinn.

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

Hey John Rogers do you really think I believe this affidavit below that you received nothing in return for lending Peter Nash $166,200. Remember any memorabilia or assets of Peter Nash’s that you may have belong to his creditors. Do you have the “Ed Delahanty Funeral Display” which consisted of Ed Delahanty’s glove and Delahanty ephemera? That was part of my collateral from Nash and he never delivered it to me, I have a Court Order that I own it. If you have my Delahanty memorabilia or if the FBI took it please notify my attorney Barry Kozyra in NJ. I notice on your affidavit you said nothing about the money you wired to Nash’s former attorney Wolfgang Hiemerl and then the money was transfer to Peter Nash. Why the secrecy? By the way in your affidavit you said nothing about the years of 2011 and 2012, did you give money to Peter Nash during those years?

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

[Peter_Spaeth]

I wonder if Rogers has written off those loans?

[Exhibitman]

I'm going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with Rogers' affidavit...

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by Sunny

Hey John Rogers do you really think I believe this affidavit below that you received nothing in return for lending Peter Nash $166,200. Remember any memorabilia or assets of Peter Nash’s that you may have belong to his creditors. Do you have the “Ed Delahanty Funeral Display” which consisted of Ed Delahanty’s glove and Delahanty ephemera? That was part of my collateral from Nash and he never delivered it to me, I have a Court Order that I own it. If you have my Delahanty memorabilia or if the FBI took it please notify my attorney Barry Kozyra in NJ. I notice on your affidavit you said nothing about the money you wired to Nash’s former attorney Wolfgang Hiemerl and then the money was transfer to Peter Nash. Why the secrecy? By the way in your affidavit you said nothing about the years of 2011 and 2012, did you give money to Peter Nash during those years?

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif

John Rogers here’s a few pages of Peter Nash’s deposition taken on June 15, 2009 which contradict your affidavit. I bet you wished you would have read Nash’s deposition before you wrote that affidavit. When Nash had this deposition he never expect that Lifson would get a Court Order to force Nash to turn over his bank records. By the way did Nash tell you that his brother in law David Dinallo lost the lawsuit you were trying to help by writing that affidavit? The Dinallo’s agreed to settle and pay Lifson $50,000 right before the trial was about to start. Peter Nash real smart move to cheat Lifson out of his money. You should have used that $166,200 to pay back Lifson, think about Nash, you would have paid Lifson off by now. Your foolishness in stonewalling Lifson and hiding money and memorabilia has cost Lifson huge legal fees which you will have to pay for after Lifson make a motion to the court.

Peter Nash I was told that your brother in law bounced a $5,000 settlement payment, not a smart move on Dinallo’s part especially being a retired attorney he know that bouncing a check is a crime. I read an article that Dinallo file criminal charges on a bar owner that bounced a check on him up state NY, see link below:

http://www.saratogian.com/general-ne...larceny-charge

John Rogers where is the Radbourn silver Providence 1880’s trophy baseball that Nash gave you? What business deal were you trying to work it into? Did you know that Nash has been Court Ordered to turn that silver baseball over to Lifson so it can be sold?

http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif
http://www.net54baseball.com/images/attach/jpg.gif