PWCC Huigens Now Has a Criminal Defense Attorney

[benjulmag]

Probably the last place I would go to have something re-examined is the place that is accused of getting it wrong the first time and which stands to take a big financial hit if it can be shown they erred. This comment is not intended to single out Beckett, but is simply to make the point that in order for a re-examination to have significant meaning, it needs to be conducted by a company that has no economic stake in the outcome.

[irv]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Probably the last place I would go to have something re-examined is the place that is accused of getting it wrong the first time and which stands to take a big financial hit if it can be shown they erred. This comment is not intended to single out Beckett, but is simply to make the point that in order for a re-examination to have significant meaning, it needs to be conducted by a company that has no economic stake in the outcome.

It's really amazing they think we are as stupid as they think we are.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Probably the last place I would go to have something re-examined is the place that is accused of getting it wrong the first time and which stands to take a big financial hit if it can be shown they erred. This comment is not intended to single out Beckett, but is simply to make the point that in order for a re-examination to have significant meaning, it needs to be conducted by a company that has no economic stake in the outcome.

Saw this comment posted in another tread, and thought is was appropriate to add it to Corey's thoughts...

Having Beckett re-review the card is like consulting the doctor who committed malpractice for a second opinion. Common sense alone dictates that you take the card to someone else.

Talk about a conflict of interest. This is criminal.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Saw this comment posted in another tread, and thought is was appropriate to add it to Corey's thoughts...

Having Beckett re-review the card is like consulting the doctor who committed malpractice for a second opinion. Common sense alone dictates that you take the card to someone else.

Talk about a conflict of interest. This is criminal.

its just a battle of the experts. I think if they said 'yeah 40 of the cards we missed by mistake but we are right about this 1 card' that would be a tough road. Who knows what the argument will ultimately be. I wonder if Beckett confirmed any past trimming or are they just used for their positive opinions.

But yeah i assume some 'trims' may not be easy to prove were trimmed.

[mq711]

I think what will loose it for the compliment is the same excuse the TPGs always use: it’s just an”opinion,” everyone can have one.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

The truth can't be libelous...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

The truth can't be libelous...

I don't think so. If I am not mistaking the truth is the best defense.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't think so. If I am not mistaking the truth is the best defense.

Exactly. Of course being right and being willing to deal with it in court and all the associated expenses is another story. That's precisely why lawyers send scare letters. Apparently in this case, as in many, it worked.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't think so. If I am not mistaking the truth is the best defense.

The entire thing is totally absurd Truth is stranger than fiction.

https://youtu.be/sxAk3B_zS5k?t=84