Bill Mastro's upcoming sentencing

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

We're all famous!

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=39278

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

That overlay does seem to match up perfectly. If it is really the Libraries card I hope they get it back.

This is the part of the law I do not get. Mastro stole insane amounts of money and might get up to 30 months. Then you have a guy that sells a 1/4 ounce of weed to someone and gets more jail time that the guy that done millions of dollars of damage.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

That overlay does seem to match up perfectly. If it is really the Libraries card I hope they get it back.

This is the part of the law I do not get. Mastro stole insane amounts of money and might get up to 30 months. Then you have a guy that sells a 1/4 ounce of weed to someone and gets more jail time that the guy that done millions of dollars of damage.

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear. I have a call into the Library now. I have spoken with Heritage and we will pull the card if need be, no worries. We never wanted to sell a card without a clean bill of health. Unless you are a fraudulent person, as Peter Nash is, you wouldn't want to do that.

And John, you can spin this any way you want to but there is not one iota of anything I did wrong. I said I couldn't talk about some things. Everything I have heard and seen until today said the card was fine. If you don't believe me that is your call.

And not that I need to answer the question about the letter, doesn't change my view one bit.

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Leon

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear. I have a call into the Library now. I have spoken with Heritage and we will pull the card if need be, no worries. We never wanted to sell a card without a clean bill of health. Unless you are a fraudulent person, as Peter Nash is, you wouldn't want to do that.

And John, you can spin this any way you want to but there is not one iota of anything I did wrong. I said I couldn't talk about some things. Everything I have heard and seen until today said the card was fine. If you don't believe me that is your call.

And not that I need to answer the question about the letter, doesn't change my view one bit.

Changing your opinion based on new information is often the right thing to do.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear.

Honestly Leon, of all the things you said, this is the one that really stands out to me as the most concerning, especially the way you phrased it.

"If they ask for it back...". Only if they ask for it to be returned? I find that an odd caveat to make, unless you are aware of the fact that public libraries in the past have not always been on top of recovering their stolen items, even when they've been proven to be stolen. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through.

"If it's proven it's stolen..." What does that mean exactly? What burden of proof are you putting on this? Are you talking about legal proof? If the FBI tells you it's stolen?

As far as I'm concerned we have all the proof we need that the card was stolen, the only thing we don't have is "proof" from a court of law or government agency. If that's what you're talking about, then I think honestly you're just trying to find excuses not to give up the card. For instance, if I witness someone committing a murder, do i need to wait for a jury to decide if he's guilty before I do? Of course not, I can know something to be true even if legally it isn't acknowledged to be so.

In that spirit, let's look at the evidence. Here are the images that people are saying prove that the NY public library stamp was erased:









Ok so from what I can see the card has a bunch of red ink marks on the back. Oddly enough all the ink marks line up PERFECTLY with the NY public library stamp and match the color of the ink used. Oddly enough there are no red marks outside where the stamp would have made them. Also we know the NY public library has a rich history of items exactly like this one being stolen from its coffers.

The combination of these three facts alone makes the odds that these ink marks got there some other way astronomical, like 1 million to 1. And if someone took the time to erase the stamp and hide its true provenance, then the odds are nearly 100 percent that it's stolen.

So I don't get it Leon. Why not just say, "holy crap, you're right, I'm gonna make it right no matter what. Hell, I'll donate it back if that's what it takes!" Why are you putting so many conditions on the return? IF it's proven, IF they ask for it... You don't need to wait for someone to tell you, you and I know more about cards than any FBI agent or judge and we know that card was stolen regardless of whether it's legally acknowledged.

I don’t see how someone who truly was doing more than 99.9 percent of the hobby to combat fraud would be asking us to wait for another opinion or promising to return it on the condition that the library makes a formal request. Someone who was doing more that 99.9 percent of the hobby would donate it back to the library if that’s what it took to get it back in the right hands.

Right now the only thing that’s 99.9 percent is my certainty that the card was stolen.

EDIT: I'd like to apologize in advance if this comes off as too fiery. Want to add that I'm not saying Leon knew anything about the card or wouldn't take action to make sure it was handled the right way. Just pointing out my concerns about the way the issue is being discussed...

[Leon]

Things were deaccessioned for various reasons. Do some research. Just because there is a mark doesn't mean it was stolen. As a matter of fact according to the document on Nash's website there is one 1869 Red Stocking card reported missing. If JC has/had one, and I have one, how do we know it didn't leave the library under normal conditions? Lots of assumptions here...

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

Honestly Leon, of all the things you said, this is the one that really stands out to me as the most concerning, especially the way you phrased it.

"If they ask for it back...". Only if they ask for it to be returned? I find that an odd caveat to make, unless you are aware of the fact that public libraries in the past have not always been on top of recovering their stolen items, even when they've been proven to be stolen. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through.

"If it's proven it's stolen..." What does that mean exactly? What burden of proof are you putting on this? Are you talking about legal proof? If the FBI tells you it's stolen?

As far as I'm concerned we have all the proof we need that the card was stolen, the only thing we don't have is "proof" from a court of law or government agency. If that's what you're talking about, then I think honestly you're just trying to find excuses not to give up the card. For instance, if I witness someone committing a murder, do i need to wait for a jury to decide if he's guilty before I do? Of course not, I can know something to be true even if legally it isn't acknowledged to be so.

In that spirit, let's look at the evidence. Here are the images that people are saying prove that the NY public library stamp was erased:


Ok so from what I can see the card has a bunch of red ink marks on the back. Oddly enough all the ink marks line up PERFECTLY with the NY public library stamp and match the color of the ink used. Oddly enough there are no red marks outside where the stamp would have made them. Also we know the NY public library has a rich history of items exactly like this one being stolen from its coffers.

The combination of these three facts alone makes the odds that these ink marks got there some other way astronomical, like 1 million to 1. And if someone took the time to erase the stamp and hide its true provenance, then the odds are nearly 100 percent that it's stolen.

So I don't get it Leon. Why not just say, "holy crap, you're right, I'm gonna make it right no matter what. Hell, I'll donate it back if that's what it takes!" Why are you putting so many conditions on the return? IF it's proven, IF they ask for it... You don't need to wait for someone to tell you, you and I know more about cards than any FBI agent or judge and we know that card was stolen regardless of whether it's legally acknowledged.

I don’t see how someone who truly was doing more than 99.9 percent of the hobby to combat fraud would be asking us to wait for another opinion or promising to return it on the condition that the library makes a formal request. Someone who was doing more that 99.9 percent of the hobby would donate it back to the library if that’s what it took to get it back in the right hands.

Right now the only thing that’s 99.9 percent is my certainty that the card was stolen.

EDIT: I'd like to apologize in advance if this comes off as too fiery. Want to add that I'm not saying Leon knew anything about the card or wouldn't take action to make sure it was handled the right way. Just pointing out my concerns about the way the issue is being discussed...

[Brian Van Horn]

Just a thought about sentencing:

[glchen]

A lot of people are really beating up on Leon in this thread. I think from his history on the board, and his past actions, he really deserves the benefit of the doubt here. Give him time to sort through this. I know a few years ago, I purchased a raw Butterfinger Babe Ruth ad card from a reputable consignor on ebay. I thought the item was authentic, so I didn't even bother sending it in for authentication for over a year. Finally, I decided to send the card into Beckett, more for protection than to check if it were authentic, and I was very surprised when it came back as counterfeit. The consignor and I agreed to have Leon mediate this, and Leon was very generous with his time in working with the Beckett folks to take another look at the card. The card was still determined to be fake, and Leon agreed with the assessment since he had owned a genuine one of these in the past. Leon had no obligation whatsoever to get involved in this matter, yet he did, and helped me a lot in this matter. (I was also very satisfied with the refund that I received from the consignor after I returned this card also.) The point is that Leon really does a lot for a lot of collectors in the hobby without asking anything to be publicized or anything. I really think he's deserves and has earned the time to let this matter run the course before people pass their judgment here.

[calvindog]

How does a card with an NYPL stamp which means it's clearly owned by the NYPL "leave the library under normal conditions?" What are such "normal conditions"? Like it grew legs and walked out?

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by Leon

Things were deaccessioned for various reasons. Do some research. Just because there is a mark doesn't mean it was stolen. As a matter of fact according to the document on Nash's website there is one 1869 Red Stocking card reported missing. If JC has/had one, and I have one, how do we know it didn't leave the library under normal conditions? Lots of assumptions here...

No you're right, it's absolutely possible. But the fact that the mark was erased and that the card has a 25 year provenance that doesn't mention the NYPL makes it less of an assumption. But obviously I get your point, and you don't want to assume anything when it comes to a card of this magnitude. But unless the NYPL says they released that card, I think it's no longer an assumption at that point.

Pardon my ignorance, I don't know who JC is or what his copy looks like (I'm not too entrenched in hobby circles). Are you saying JC's card could be the missing one? We know yours has the NY stamp, is there evidence of a stamp on the reverse of his? Otherwise it seems like it takes more assumptions to assume his is the stolen card and not yours. Please correct me if I'm not getting your point about how the other card plays into this.

Also my point was more about the conditions you were putting on the card's return (eg "if it's proven", "if they ask for it"). If the NYPL doesn't have records of it ever being returned to the public, I'd like to know that you would return it on the basis that it was the right thing to do and not because you got a formal request.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Leon

Things were deaccessioned for various reasons. Do some research. Just because there is a mark doesn't mean it was stolen. As a matter of fact according to the document on Nash's website there is one 1869 Red Stocking card reported missing. If JC has/had one, and I have one, how do we know it didn't leave the library under normal conditions? Lots of assumptions here...

So I guess, even with this said, and assuming you have the one that was not stolen (yet obviously still belonged to the NYPL), that it was stamped, then altered to try and remove said stamp, and should be in an SGC A holder and not graded a 50, right? I'm just trying to sort out the various rotten smells in Denmark.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Leon

If it is proven it was stolen from the library, and they ask for it back, I will give it back to them free and clear.

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

[autograf]

There you go Joann.......throwing some logic on the fire.......

I'd agree on the thorough vetting of it. On the surface, it sure looks like the NYPL card. What recourse would Leon have with who he bought it from and their consignor? I'd pursue that avenue too.

Hopefully it gets resolved soon.........

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

It's not a question of whether they want it back. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through. Recovering a stolen item back isn't an easy process when you're a government-owned institution, you have a lot of bureaucracy to get through.

Only reason I take issue with it is because in the past libraries have had things stolen from them, and even when it's proven, the libraries haven't had the resources to formally request the return of the item. it's actually really sad.

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by poorlydrawncat

It's not a question of whether they want it back. Libraries have few resources and a lot of red tape to get through. Recovering a stolen item back isn't an easy process when you're a government-owned institution, you have a lot of bureaucracy to get through.

Only reason I take issue with it is because in the past libraries have had things stolen from them, and even when it's proven, the libraries haven't had the resources to formally request the return of the item. it's actually really sad.

True, probably. But IMO that still doesn't mean that Leon is somehow a jerk for wanting to know with some certainty that it's stolen, have a simple request for its return, and gosh maybe some time to think about it before he just tosses a mid-5-digit card in the mail.

Badgering him to commit RIGHT NOW right here in this forum to returning it forthwith, hang the proof of stolen and with no request, is really absurd. No one else would. Lord knows I certainly wouldn't.

[poorlydrawncat]

Originally Posted by jmk59

True, probably. But IMO that still doesn't mean that Leon is somehow a jerk for wanting to know with some certainty that it's stolen, have a simple request for its return, and gosh maybe some time to think about it before he just tosses a mid-5-digit card in the mail.

Badgering him to commit RIGHT NOW right here in this forum to returning it forthwith, hang the proof of stolen and with no request, is really absurd. No one else would. Lord knows I certainly wouldn't.

I wasn't asking him to commit to anything with the knowledge we have currently. I was asking him in the hypothetical situation where the NYPL confirms it's stolen but does not have the resources to formally ask for it back, whether or not he'd return it.

Honestly I think if this were about someone else, Leon would be chiming in right now saying he'd return the card if it was his and everyone else would do the same. But because it's Leon's card I think people are treating it differently, which is a bit unfair. Or maybe not, who knows really.

[japhi]

Originally Posted by jmk59

True, probably. But IMO that still doesn't mean that Leon is somehow a jerk for wanting to know with some certainty that it's stolen, have a simple request for its return, and gosh maybe some time to think about it before he just tosses a mid-5-digit card in the mail.

Badgering him to commit RIGHT NOW right here in this forum to returning it forthwith, hang the proof of stolen and with no request, is really absurd. No one else would. Lord knows I certainly wouldn't.

Amen, If this was my card I would do my due diligence as well. I don't know Leon but will assume 50K is a big number to him.

The grandstanding on this thread is a little over the top - one guy claims he would spend night and day trying to find the history of the card. My guess is that guy would sell the card private and wash his lands, like the large majority of folks on this board would do.

I also can't think of any other forum on the internet where the owner lets the members take runs at him, it's fascinating to watch.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by japhi

The grandstanding on this thread is a little over the top - one guy claims he would spend night and day trying to find the history of the card. My guess is that guy would sell the card private and wash his lands, like the large majority of folks on this board would do.

If you have anymore guesses in the future Matt, will you at least try to make them educated guesses?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

Wow, it seems like years since you have posted. Welcome back. How is your law practice going?

[jmk59]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Wow, it seems like years since you have posted. Welcome back. How is your law practice going?

Thanks Peter. I do crawl out from under my rock every now and then. The practice is going well. I'm enjoying the flexibility but can also see that it would have been better to do this when I was younger! Hope all is well with you.

[JMEnglish27]

Originally Posted by jmk59

I can't believe this statement is getting dissected the way it is. If I had a card worth $50,000 or $60,000 or whatever, you'd better believe that I'd need proof it was stolen before returning it. Probably really strong proof. And if the NYPL isn't even interested enough to ask for it back, is Leon supposed to just FedEx it over anyways?

It's all so easy-breezy when it's someone else's money in play. So yeah. I have to admit that if this were my card and my money, I'd be thinking of a whole lot of angles before deciding what to do. But some proof that my $60K item was, in fact, stolen plus a request for it's return would be the absolute floor - the dead minimum - of what I'd require.

JMO.

This. Leon's a good guy in my book. I dunno how his integrity can be in doubt. FBI looked at it, told him it was fine, now it turns out it might not be, so he's in wait-and-see mode. What's he supposed to do, take a polygraph in the town square?

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

+1 I've said the same thing many times.

[CW]

Originally Posted by bnorth

To bad Peter Nash does not write about all the hardship he has caused this hobby.

This amazes me as well. It's as if Nash thinks by doing all this research and exposing all these other "frauds", it either creates a diversion to the fraud he has committed, OR he thinks it will somehow vindicate him and people will think, "Yeah, that Pete Nash... he's not so bad!"

Yet another bizarre facet to this crazy hobby we all love.