Shanus-REA suit

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I think what you have here is a lot of people who are friends with both Rob and Corey. Also the story is still a bit fuzzy as to what exactly happened. Not a peep out of Peter Nash who loves to take a swipe at Rob with every breath he takes.

What is fuzzy about it? It's right there in the amended complaint and verdict sheet, a federal jury found that Rob. L and REA committed fraud by misrepresenting that two specific items had sold at auction, with the intent of inducing Corey S. to rely on those "realized" prices in making other bids. And awarded x in actual damages and y in punitive damages. I think your first explanation is far more likely than the second. Or, the fact that Rob. L is out of the hobby.

[calvindog]

A civil verdict is significantly different than a criminal investigation followed by indictment and admission via guilty plea. Many of Corey's allegations were dismissed, none were investigated criminally and the one that did result in a verdict was achieved by a significantly lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. And it will be appealed and, unlike a guilty plea, might be reversed. It's not a surprise to me that the reaction is not as cut and dry as you'd think it should be. Hell, after all, some on Net 54 were still supporting Mastro even at sentencing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

A civil verdict is significantly different than a criminal investigation followed by indictment and admission via guilty plea. Many of Corey's allegations were dismissed, none were investigated criminally and the one that did result in a verdict was achieved by a significantly lesser standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. And it will be appealed and, unlike a guilty plea, might be reversed. It's not a surprise to me that the reaction is not as cut and dry as you'd think it should be. Hell, after all, some on Net 54 were still supporting Mastro even at sentencing.

Clear and convincing evidence is a tough standard in and of itself. Way north of preponderance. But my point was simply I thought it would generate more discussion, not that the reaction would be cut and dried. You reacted, a few others did, but comparatively few I thought.

[hcv123]

Ironically one of the most powerful statements I have ever read:

In the face of facts contrary to ones beliefs many people ignore or throw out the facts in order to hold onto their beliefs.

Soooo, let's say RL and REA did exactly what they were found guilty of (albeit in civil court), how does that affect everyone today? What are the options I as a collector have to react to it?

I suspect there is a lot more problems from "funny business" to fraud happening all the time than is made public or found out.

For many years I didn't bid with an auction house that a good friend told me were regular shillers. I missed out on a lot of great stuff and bid with other more reputable houses (later found to be shilling - Mastro as one shining example).

Today I try to give myself the best opportunity to bid without being shilled - as often as possible, I snipe and I never bid more than I am comfortable paying.

I am heartened to see people choosing to do the wrong thing held to various degrees of accountability and support their being "outed" in our community.

It's a sad reality that has been stated before, when there is money to be made, there will be people trying to take the "easy road".

[Peter_Spaeth]

As Paul Simon put it so well, A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Clear and convincing evidence is a tough standard in and of itself. Way north of preponderance. But my point was simply I thought it would generate more discussion, not that the reaction would be cut and dried. You reacted, a few others did, but comparatively few I thought.

My practice is limited to fraud and insurance bad faith cases. I have tried two cases where the jury poured us out on the bad faith claim (preponderance of the evidence standard) and found for us on fraud (clear and convincing evidence standard). As a result, I'm not sure that most juries understand, or even care, about what the various evidentiary standards mean. What they care about, IMO, is the opinions they form early, sometimes even before the evidence begins.

If the jury think someone got screwed, they find in their favor. If they think someone acted bad, they generally find against them. Even in non-equity based cases, it is generally all about equity. That's why, at least here, plaintiffs prefer state court (where you get to voir dire the jury, tell your story, invoke the equity, and hopefully win the case right there) and defendants FAR prefer federal court, were the judge asks about six questions that provide no information about either the case or the prospective jurors, qualifies the jury panel, and tells you to make your strikes.

I have always read, and believed, that you win or lose most cases by the time opening statements are done. In a civil case, that occurs right after voir dire. I have only tried one criminal case in my life -- a murder case -- when I was a young lawyer as second chair -- so I have no idea if that belief holds true there. I didn't watch the Shanus-REA trial so I am really hesitant to make any assumptions about who was right, whether the evidence supported the verdict, whether the judge screwed something up, etc. That's why I have not commented about the result or what it might mean, although I obviously have my own opinions. But I will say that I very much believe that juries generally get it right. Not always, but mostly. My .02, which is exactly what its worth.