Ashamed - Topps T206 Buy Back Fraud

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by KendallCat

if I was a collector or dealer and read your rhetoric I would not have any dealings with you now or in the future.

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.

Originally Posted by KendallCat

Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period.

Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

[Marchillo]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

I disagree with your opinion on this matter, although I get where you are coming from with it. But I agree I don't know why people would be upset with you. All your previous posts on the matter are clear as day. You present a logical argument but still find what the OP did as offensive as how other respondents feel.

[KendallCat]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

David - you might want to switch to decaf and drop the internet tough guy schtick, or maybe don't be so sensitive - your call. Just letting you know puffing your chest out is not impressing anyone but have at it.

Your integrity was not called into question(maybe your common sense on this matter trying to decipher law vs ethics), and everyone can read what I posted - "I would not chose to deal with or have dealings with someone whose Pov was one that still doubles down on trying to explore the nuances of what is fraud, what is illegal, what is unethical... pretty sure in this case it is clear cut that what he did was fraud and was carried out over among time and with 80+ people.

If someone makes fake Jordan rookies and sells them as legit 86 Fleer cards and makes money off of them is that fraud and illegal or just unethical so let them have at it. Need to clean the language up around here, or at least make it interesting for everyone to read

KC

[frankbmd]

It's pretty clear that this activity began sometime after 2002 and before 2009.

Is there a more specific date when this all began?

Someone has to know.

[RedsFan1941]

Is there a way to tell a legit Topps t206 from the ones this guy created?

[egbeachley]

Do collectors of the Topps Buyback realize that they aren't numbered and the frames aren't tamper-proof? Hence there should not be a premium for T206 cards in the Topps Buyback frames. Anyone can make them and I doubt Larry is the only one to have done this.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by KendallCat

If someone makes fake Jordan rookies and sells them as legit 86 Fleer cards and makes money off of them is that fraud and illegal or just unethical so let them have at it. Need to clean the language up around here, or at least make it interesting for everyone to read

KC

In your example, the one making the fake Jordans is representing them as real Fleer Jordans - a real Fleer product - a counterfeit. My point was that these were never a Topps product to begin with. Thats the major difference. Even BVG doesn't acknowledge them as a Topps product. Look at the picture below. Where does it mention that it's a Topps product on the flip? Ask yourself why not? Even Topps don't acknowledge them as a Topps product. Its a novelty item that Topps fabricated and put their name on.



Now, maybe Topps might have something to say about Larry using the Topps name, I don't know. But as far as the actual fabrication of the cards, it's not illegal no matter how much you want to believe it is.

If I want to put raw T206s in plastic screw downs and write "Donruss" on the holder and sell them like that it's not illegal. Again, maybe Donruss might have something to say about using their name and it's surely misleading and unethical, but not illegal. People are letting their emotions and hobby passion get in the way of reasoning.

All that said, what he did was wrong and Leon did the right thing by bringing it to the boards attention and banning him. By the way, I thought I read that someone made Topps aware of the situation. I'm just curious as to their response.

[T206Collector]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Even Topps don't acknowledge them as a Topps product. Its a novelty item that Topps fabricated and put their name on. . . . Now, maybe Topps might have something to say about Larry using the Topps name, I don't know. But as far as the actual fabrication of the cards, it's not illegal no matter how much you want to believe it is.

I couldn't disagree with you more on the law or your facts. On the facts, to say Topps doesn't acknowledge these as their product ignores the word "Topps" on the top of the cardboard frame and that these were sold as promotional inserts to drive customers to their product. You make counterfeit inserts, you don't think Topps' business is hurt by that? People would buy fewer Topps packs than they would because of the counterfeiting. Pointing out that grading companies may not authenticate or grade the holder is besides the point. People collect these for what Topps says they are. This is an indisputable fact.

The law is clear as day, and has been cited by many folks on here accurately and correctly. He may not get sued in civil court by Topps or his unwitting customers, and the FBI and local police may not charge him in criminal court. But, the lack of formal process here doesn't make the conduct legal.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Look here, prick, if you want to have a discussion, we can do so. But if you want to call my integrity into question, that takes it to another level.



Actually, I can give you many examples where representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is not fraud or illegal. Unethical - yes. Illegal - no. Do you want to listen or do you just want to be a prick?

Edited to add: I don't know why I keep having to reiterate this, but I'll do it once again. What Larry did was totally wrong, unethical, unscrupulous, deceitful, dishonest (fill in the adjective here). My original response was in question to whether or not he would be charged or prosecuted and I simply questioned the legality of it. I don't know why I have to keep clarifying my comments.

One example would suffice, because in my decades of practicing law, knowingly misrepresenting an item for sale with intent to deceive is as pure an example of FRAUD as there is. Now of course there are exceptions and defenses: if I know you're lying, I can't rely on your misrepresentation, for example. But Larry misrepresented his franken-cards as originating from Topps, knowing he was lying, and intending to deceive people into paying more than if he had said for sale is a franken-card I put together myself. It's an open and shut case as far as I can see.

And to respond to your red herring, it probably wasn't illegal to assemble the cards. But so what. Selling them in interstate commerce via a misrepresentation was illegal.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One example would suffice, because in my decades of practicing law, knowingly misrepresenting an item for sale with intent to deceive is as pure an example of FRAUD as there is.

Ok, here you go. Keith told me I should switch to decaf. I tried that years ago, but I just didn't like it. Anyway his suggestion reminded me of what I'm about to tell you.
There is a convenience store by my house called Timewise (it's a chain store in South Texas). They serve a brand of coffee called Roasted Bean Coffee Company. I really like this particular coffee. A few weeks ago, I stopped in one morning as I do every weekday morning, and got a cup of coffee. While I was waiting in line I took a sip and something was different. When I got up to the register I asked the cashier about it. She said that they ran out of the Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee and were using another brand (Folgers, I think) until they got theirs back in stock. But wait. All the signage said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. Even the coffed cup itself said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. They didn't indicate that the product was not what it was advertised to be, I had to ask.

So, in response to Keith's statement "Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period." I have to ask, since Timewise represented Folgers coffee as Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee for financial gain, is it fraud and illegal as he clearly states? Please tell me where I can report such illegal activity.

I realize we're talking coffee vs baseball cards, but the action and intent were the same - to replace a product with something else in attempt to mislead the buyer.

And as truly petty as that may sound (and no, it really didn't bother me), what's the real difference in that and what Larry did, other than the fact that Larry did it over and over? Both were misrepresented products for financial gain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, arguably the difference in your example is that the misrepresented fact was not material to the buyer. But if it was material -- for example let's say they advertised some super premium expensive brand of coffee but instead without telling you substituted some cheap generic junk and you paid the premium prce -- then yeah that would be fraud too. Here, Larry represented his cards were something they were not, and for whatever reason, that made people willing to pay more for them than had he told the truth. Knowing misrepresentation of a material fact. Fraud.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Peter, I'm going to concede the argument because really I don't care. I think it was dishonest and unethical and I hope the buyers involved all receive restitution. At least the matter was brought to everyone's attention and people know about it. But really, to me, it's not worth discussing anymore. I have much better things to do on a Friday evening. Have a great night

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, I'm going to concede the argument because really I don't care. I think it was dishonest and unethical and I hope the buyers involved all receive restitution. At least the matter was brought to everyone's attention and people know about it. But really, to me, it's not worth discussing anymore. I have much better things to do on a Friday evening. Have a great night

You too, David.

[esd10]

This is just pure and simple fraud and this scum should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This type of act is what undermines people confidence in the hobby and i dont care if he apologized with simple fact he ripped people off.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by esd10

This is just pure and simple fraud and this scum should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This type of act is what undermines people confidence in the hobby and i dont care if he apologized with simple fact he ripped people off.

The law is more concerned with ISIS using EBay to send money than some random guy scamming people out of a few dollars on t206s.

[JEFFV96MASTERS]

I rarely post but this discussions worthy of weighing in.

Can people modify items produced by companies with little fear of criminal or civil action brought against them ? Of course. Its done all the time.

Can you take a product that has copyrights ( which EVERY Topps produced item does- check the USPTO website) and modify it ??? YES you may. Its done all the time .

Can you take the product you modify and then go online and either misrepresent that product as being "original", or try and sell it without disclosure of said modifications ?

Um- no.

Depending on the level of deceit we may be talking a tort ( a "civil" action) where values are relatively low and usually get assigned to small claims, or in the case of folks like John Rogers/Doug Allen/Bill Mastro actions worthy of criminal prosecution.

Depending on the length, level, and severity of this persons actions he's looking at either time in small claims should he not make restitution and people care to come after him-- or if he's been stupid enough to take it up a few levels and bring the average transaction above 2500 - he's going to see someone take him to criminal court.

As far as this guys being ashamed- dude shut up. Your a serial liar, a serial fraudster, and need to stop with the excuse offerings. Your not convincing anyone of your innocence. Once or twice- OK. Multiple times over extended years ? Sorry - that's a pattern of behavior that's not likely just happening in baseball cards.

Its doubtful anyone will forgive and very doubtful they'll forget anytime soon.

Best thing Leon can do is make sure your info is properly disseminated to afflicted parties.

My opinion--

Jeff

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by JEFFV96MASTERS

Can you take a product that has copyrights ( which EVERY Topps produced item does...

From my interpretation from the copyright.gov website, these cards are not copyrighted. They lack the qualifications for a copyright. To substantiate this, there are no copyright notices ( © ) on the cards while other Topps products do contain the copyright notice.

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Feel free to ask me any questions, but I doubt I'll have satisfactory or concrete answers.

Do you know if Topps has a copyright on these? Why no copyright notice?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

From my interpretation from the copyright.gov website, these cards are not copyrighted. They lack the qualifications for a copyright. To substantiate this, there are no copyright notices ( © ) on the cards while other Topps products do contain the copyright notice.



Do you know if Topps has a copyright on these? Why no copyright notice?

No Topps did not copyright the holder, at least to my knowledge, only the cards it printed to go inside. You will see the copyright on the autograph and relic minis, but the frame wasn't deemed worth bothering over, it seems (though it does have the Topps206 name on it...), and clearly the t206s themselves aren't Topps' intellectual property.

I think you've hit the key to the legality of this.

[Tennis13]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David, arguably the difference in your example is that the misrepresented fact was not material to the buyer. But if it was material -- for example let's say they advertised some super premium expensive brand of coffee but instead without telling you substituted some cheap generic junk and you paid the premium prce -- then yeah that would be fraud too. Here, Larry represented his cards were something they were not, and for whatever reason, that made people willing to pay more for them than had he told the truth. Knowing misrepresentation of a material fact. Fraud.

Doesnt this happen a lot of time in the fish industry? From fishermen to middle men to restaurants, often time you are not eating the premium fish you ordered, and if the chain of custody can be traced, people pay big fines, but it's almost impossible in that industry to go step by step.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Ok, here you go. Keith told me I should switch to decaf. I tried that years ago, but I just didn't like it. Anyway his suggestion reminded me of what I'm about to tell you.
There is a convenience store by my house called Timewise (it's a chain store in South Texas). They serve a brand of coffee called Roasted Bean Coffee Company. I really like this particular coffee. A few weeks ago, I stopped in one morning as I do every weekday morning, and got a cup of coffee. While I was waiting in line I took a sip and something was different. When I got up to the register I asked the cashier about it. She said that they ran out of the Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee and were using another brand (Folgers, I think) until they got theirs back in stock. But wait. All the signage said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. Even the coffed cup itself said Roasted Bean Coffee Company. They didn't indicate that the product was not what it was advertised to be, I had to ask.

So, in response to Keith's statement "Representing something as an item that is one thing with the intention to deceive for financial gain is fraud and illegal - period." I have to ask, since Timewise represented Folgers coffee as Roasted Bean Coffee Company coffee for financial gain, is it fraud and illegal as he clearly states? Please tell me where I can report such illegal activity.

I definitely understand the argument being made, and have no legal background, but I do see a major difference in your analogy. You asked prior to consummating the transaction and could have changed your mind. This opportunity to rescind was not present in the frankencard deal.

Mark