Collectors (PSA) Acquired SGC

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here in the "enclave," though, nobody seems to care.

The FBI didn't find anything sooooo...

I will stick my head back in the sand. (As soon as I get it away from pwcc's behiind)

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The FBI didn't find anything sooooo...

I will stick my head back in the sand. (As soon as I get it away from pwcc's behiind)

They found plenty. They had all the evidence anyone could ever ask for to determine that cards had indeed been doctored and resold. They simply decided not to charge anyone for it (as I loudly predicted would be the case).

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Snowman

They found plenty. They had all the evidence anyone could ever ask for to determine that cards had indeed been doctored and resold. They simply decided not to charge anyone for it (as I loudly predicted would be the case).

If a crime is committed but not charged, did it really happen?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by raulus

If a crime is committed but not charged, did it really happen?

EXACTLY! Why would they even be looking if everything was on the up and up.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

EXACTLY! Why would they even be looking if everything was on the up and up.

This cuts both ways though. If, as Peter proposes, all this evidence that they were gathering wouldn't be admissible, then why would they even bother to gather it in the first place?

I think what happened is that like many of the lawyers on this board and over at Blowout, there are people at the FBI (likely collectors themselves), who see this activity in the same light as Peter (not to pick on him, but he's been vocal about his views on the matter, so I'm just using him as an example). Clearly, there is no shortage of people who see doctoring cards as fraudulent behavior. I think the lead investigator likely did (and still does) as well. I just think he and many others were blindsided by the fact that the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. I think it got to a place where a judge gave him a serious reality check after he/she began asking questions like, "so these cards, they're not counterfeit?", and "so you're saying that someone bought baseball cards, improved their appearance, then sent them off to a professional grading company to get their opinion on the cards' current conditions, and then resold those cards?"

I think the case was laughed out of court. I think the investigators got a serious reality check. And I also think it may have had something to do with why he seemingly out of the blue took an early retirement. He wasted a LOT of money trying a case that never had a chance to begin with.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

This cuts both ways though. If, as Peter proposes, all this evidence that they were gathering wouldn't be admissible, then why would they even bother to gather it in the first place?

I think what happened is that like many of the lawyers on this board and over at Blowout, there are people at the FBI (likely collectors themselves), who see this activity in the same light as Peter (not to pick on him, but he's been vocal about his views on the matter, so I'm just using him as an example). Clearly, there is no shortage of people who see doctoring cards as fraudulent behavior. I think the lead investigator likely did (and still does) as well. I just think he and many others were blindsided by the fact that the rest of the world doesn't see it that way. I think it got to a place where a judge gave him a serious reality check after he/she began asking questions like, "so these cards, they're not counterfeit?", and "so you're saying that someone bought baseball cards, improved their appearance, then sent them off to a professional grading company to get their opinion on the cards' current conditions, and then resold those cards?"

I think the case was laughed out of court. I think the investigators got a serious reality check. And I also think it may have had something to do with why he seemingly out of the blue took an early retirement. He wasted a LOT of money trying a case that never had a chance to begin with.

Travis you're a bright and insightful guy but stick to what you know. This never got to a judge. Whatever prosecutor was involved would be the one who decided not to bring the case. And Brian never would have been allowed to pursue it if no potential crime was involved.

[ClementeFanOh]

There's an "enclave" meeting of SGC fanatics at the summer solstice. After
we conduct a midnight sacrifice of a PSA "enclave" member to the Elder Gods
of cardboard evaluation, I'll conduct a vote of the coven to see how they will
handle the news of the sale. Please don't tell other members of the "enclave"
I'm revealing this information, their punishment is severe (they crack your
SGC cards out and re-slab them in counterfeit GAI holders!)

Trent King

[Andrew1975]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis you're a bright and insightful guy but stick to what you know. This never got to a judge. Whatever prosecutor was involved would be the one who decided not to bring the case. And Brian never would have been allowed to pursue it if no potential crime was involved.

My guess is that whatever AUSA was working on this case never even asked for an indictment. As Peter said, they just decided not to pursue it further, and a judge had nothing to do with it. When this whole fiasco was the hot topic on Blowout (when the investigation would have been most active), US District Court GJs were almost completely shut down due to COVID, and even much more serious investigations came to a grinding halt because there were no available GJs to hear testimony. If this major (years long) delay had anything to do with the decision to not seek an indictment, or if they just decided that they didn't feel they would win at trial, I guess we will never know...

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis you're a bright and insightful guy but stick to what you know. This never got to a judge. Whatever prosecutor was involved would be the one who decided not to bring the case. And Brian never would have been allowed to pursue it if no potential crime was involved.

Fair criticism. I'm obviously talking out my ass on all things legal matters. What is a fair spread of reasons as to why a prosecutor might choose not to bring a case for this? You've mentioned before that the evidence might just not be admissible, but would assume they'd have known that from the outset, yet they still chose to pursue it, at least initially. Without having a crystal ball, what other reasons could you see for them cutting bait?

Are prosecutors in cases like this concerned about their "win rates" in court? Could that possibly come into play? Could he have perhaps felt that despite having ample evidence of sports card hanky panky having occurred, he was afraid he was likely to still lose the case because a jury just wasn't likely to see it the same way and he didn't want to risk taking a "Loss"?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

They found plenty. They had all the evidence anyone could ever ask for to determine that cards had indeed been doctored and resold. They simply decided not to charge anyone for it (as I loudly predicted would be the case).

There is a huge difference between evidence and admissible evidence. Particularly when the critical cooperating witness apparently decided not to cooperate.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There is a huge difference between evidence and admissible evidence. Particularly when the critical cooperating witness apparently decided not to cooperate.

Oh stop with the facts already! ZZZZZZ Besides they mess up all of Snowman's posts.