Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Your thoughts on a defense attorney defending a client they know are guilty? Good thing or bad thing?

1. I have no idea how that is relevant here.
2. Our society made a judgment centuries ago that all criminal defendants no matter how evil have the right to the effective assistance of counsel before they can be convicted. So I would say that ensuring that a defendant is afforded his or her constitutional rights is a good thing.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have no idea how that is relevant here.

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

Perhaps Brent will redefine the constitution.

[CuriousGeorge]

Assuming all of this about Brent is true, isn’t he knowingly conspiring with the card doctors/submitters of altered cards whereas a criminal defense attorney is in no way involved with the crime? Isn’t there a clear distinction here?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)?

Which leads me back to my original question. Why is it ok for a defense attorney to represent someone they know is guilty because that's "their job," but it's not ok for Brent to do his job? And don't give me an answer from some legal point of view. What is morally right, Peter? Isn't the truth that in either case, it's really just about the money?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)?

Actually yeah, criminal cases assigned by judges to defense counsel can't be turned down or else you could lose your license. You may want to brush up on the Sixth Amendment. And I'm not sure there is a defense attorney in the history of this country who ignores their oath and only represents people he or she believes is innocent. Perhaps on Mars it's different, David?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Actually yeah, criminal cases assigned by judges to defense counsel can't be turned down or else you could lose your license. You may want to brush up on the Sixth Amendment. And I'm not sure there is a defense attorney in the history of this country who ignores their oath and only represents people he or she believes is innocent. Perhaps on Mars it's different, David?

Let's clarify. Your statement is only true to cases where the judge has assigned legal counsel to the defendant. I'm talking about a case where the defendant attempts to hire a private attorney. In that case, the attorney can turn down the case for any reason at all. I didn't read the 6th Amendment, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

So if a client came to you to represent them and wanted to pay your fees out of their own pocket and you knew they were guilty, would you take the case?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Let's clarify. Your statement is only true to cases where the judge has assigned legal counsel to the defendant. I'm talking about a case where the defendant attempts to hire a private attorney. In that case, the attorney can turn down the case for any reason at all. I didn't read the 6th Amendment, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

So if a client came to you to represent them and wanted to pay your fees out of their own pocket and you knew they were guilty, would you take the case?

David, this thread is about PWCC and their definitions of conservation and alteration. Call me in the office if you'd like to have this very quick discussion.

[CuriousGeorge]

Unless he was physically there how could he 100% know? Because the media or prosecutor says the client is guilty? On the other hand a mere look at the cards in question show something nefarious going on and what is Brent doing to stop it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)?

Which leads me back to my original question. Why is it ok for a defense attorney to represent someone they know is guilty because that's "their job," but it's not ok for Brent to do his job? And don't give me an answer from some legal point of view. What is morally right, Peter? Isn't the truth that in either case, it's really just about the money?

I see nothing morally wrong with representing a guilty person who is entitled under our system of government to representation. If lawyers shunned guilty or notorious clients, that system would fall apart.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I see nothing morally wrong with representing a guilty person who is entitled under our system of government to representation.

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

brent certainly appears to be doing a lot more than that!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

Your analogy is utterly tortured. Imagine if seller X (let's make it hypothetical) is accused of conspiring with card doctor Y to commit fraud. Suppose, for the sake of the hypothetical, there was strong evidence X knew Y had altered the consigned cards. Again, hypothetical. Can you imagine X defending on the ground that he was only doing his job? LOL. Now walk back off that limb.

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

seriously?

Are you really trying to equate Brent/ PWCC selling a known doctored card to unknowing collectors to an attorney representing someone he thinks is guilty of a crime. I'm pretty sure in this example, PWCC could be prosecuted for Fraud.

The difference here is one is criminal behavior and the other is to protect citizens from a tyrant. I can't believe i'm even responding to this post, but it was to off the wall not to. You sound like PWCC's publicist.

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty...and it is embedded into our constitution.

A Guide to the Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment, or Amendment VI of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that guarantees a citizen a speedy trial, a fair jury, an attorney if the accused person wants one, and the chance to confront the witnesses who is accusing the defendant of a crime, meaning he or she can see who is making accusations. The Sixth Amendment was introduced as a part of the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution on September 5, 1789 and was voted for by 9 out of 12 states on December 15, 1791.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

Holy crap. I don't normally go in for name calling, but I will call this POST idiotic. You see no difference between your constitutional rights and shady business practices? I haven't continued reading as this stopped me in my tracks, so I imagine a bunch of other people have called you out on this, but HOLY CRAP.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David have you read the various threads on Blowout?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David have you read the various threads on Blowout?

Peter, I am extremely proud to say that I have never visited that site.

But answer my question please. What are you accusing him of?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's a very contentious site David, you might fit in well.

But for context as to why these issues are coming into focus now, you should read it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, I am extremely proud to say that I have never visited that site.

But answer my question please. What are you accusing him of?

That's not really anything to be proud of...take 30 minutes and read the threads that jeff linked...then come back here.

[conor912]

At the end of the day, we all have different moral compasses....some are just more wonky than others. Glad to know that some people think that just because something is my "job" means I can justify it, no matter how unethical it is. Jeez.

Here's a card for those tired of looking at words.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

David, Let's put it this way.

I am an auctioneer.

I will never accept a consignment from any source that has a reputation for altering cards. I will never sell an altered card without noting the alteration (sometimes a card still has value even in it's altered state) I have even noted soaking, which many people have no issue with. I will never do anything to artificially inflate the value of any of my own cards that I may happen to be auctioning (ask my Parsippany auction-goers how many bargains they got out of my personal inventory while I tried to get that sale off the ground) I will never alter a card myself or have someone alter a card on my behalf.

The constitution does not guarantee the card doctor a right to sell his cards.

I am not violating anyone's rights by having these tenets.

I am also not accusing anyone else of violating them, but if I have suspicions it would certainly give me pause before transacting business with that party. If it doesn't give you pause that's fine, but to equate your RIGHT to an attorney with a card doctor somehow having a RIGHT to sell his wares is misguided at best.