Collectors (PSA) Acquired SGC

[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...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Andrew1975

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...

I would also guess that without cooperating witnesses, the AUSA may have felt that given a reasonable doubt standard, and strict evidentiary requirements, it may have been too difficult a case to feel pretty certain about which is what a prosecutor wants. People seem to be under the misconception a prosecutor could have just introduced the BODA threads. Doesn't work that way. It's also possible that a judgment was made that in the scheme of things it wasn't a priority.

[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

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"?

A few points.

Yes, generally, prosecutors want to bring cases they think have a very strong chance of winning or forcing a guilty plea. It's certainly possible that here, the judgment in the end was that the case might not play well to a jury, although just speculating I think it's more likely that evidentiary issues were more of a factor particularly after the star witness went south. But of course I don't know.

As to whether this could have been all foretold in advance, not necessarily. Brian would have known all along he couldn't make a case from BODA threads under the rules of evidence, but especially after Brent initially cooperated, he may have thought he could build a case based principally on testimony, especially if other witnesses chose to cooperate rather than face the prospect of Brent testifying against them. Or it could have been worth going forward just to get the then-expected guilty plea from Brent. And it's possible other things did not go as expected that would not have been known from the outset.

Or it's possible that due to the pandemic, etc. the case just moved down and out in terms of importance and resource allocation.

But I highly doubt any prosecutor made a judgment that doctoring cards and selling them without disclosure by the mails or wires could not be a crime in the first place.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A few points.

Yes, generally, prosecutors want to bring cases they think have a very strong chance of winning or forcing a guilty plea. It's certainly possible that here, the judgment in the end was that the case might not play well to a jury, although just speculating I think it's more likely that evidentiary issues were more of a factor particularly after the star witness went south. But of course I don't know.

As to whether this could have been all foretold in advance, not necessarily. Brian would have known all along he couldn't make a case from BODA threads under the rules of evidence, but especially after Brent initially cooperated, he may have thought he could build a case based principally on testimony, especially if other witnesses chose to cooperate rather than face the prospect of Brent testifying against them. Or it could have been worth going forward just to get the then-expected guilty plea from Brent. And it's possible other things did not go as expected that would not have been known from the outset.

Or it's possible that due to the pandemic, etc. the case just moved down and out in terms of importance and resource allocation.

But I highly doubt any prosecutor made a judgment that doctoring cards and selling them without disclosure by the mails or wires could not be a crime in the first place.

Speaking of Brent, where is he these days? With another company? I haven't heard his name in a hot minute.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Speaking of Brent, where is he these days? With another company? I haven't heard his name in a hot minute.

Nor have I. But I suspect, like the Terminator, he'll be back.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Speaking of Brent, where is he these days? With another company? I haven't heard his name in a hot minute.

Brent was spotted nude sunbathing on a beach in Tahiti. Lying next to him in a similar state, was a gorgeous local maiden.
Betsy has not been seen.

[calvindog]

Big mail day!

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

particularly after the star witness went south.

Who are you referring to when you say the "star witness went south"? And by "went south" do you mean they just told the FBI to pound sand and refused to cooperate, or did a key witness die from covid or something, greatly complicating the case?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Who are you referring to when you say the "star witness went south"? And by "went south" do you mean they just told the FBI to pound sand and refused to cooperate, or did a key witness die from covid or something, greatly complicating the case?

Travis, as I understand it, Brent through his former counsel originally was cooperating with the feds (something clearly guilty parties frequently do in the hope of getting a lighter sentence at the end of the day, meaning they will furnish evidence and eventually testify against other defendants should a trial ensue); but subsequently switched counsel and apparently decided no longer to cooperate. This was all discussed on Blowout and to an extent here as well if I recall.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis, as I understand it, Brent through his former counsel originally was cooperating with the feds (something clearly guilty parties frequently do in the hope of getting a lighter sentence at the end of the day, meaning they will furnish evidence and eventually testify against other defendants should a trial ensue); but subsequently switched counsel and apparently decided no longer to cooperate. This was all discussed on Blowout and to an extent here as well if I recall.

And it was shortly after Brent stopped cooperating that eBay removed PWCC for shill bidding. That was interesting timing.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis, as I understand it, Brent through his former counsel originally was cooperating with the feds (something clearly guilty parties frequently do in the hope of getting a lighter sentence at the end of the day, meaning they will furnish evidence and eventually testify against other defendants should a trial ensue); but subsequently switched counsel and apparently decided no longer to cooperate. This was all discussed on Blowout and to an extent here as well if I recall.

Ah, OK. That was my guess, but wasn't sure. Lichtman spoke a little bit about his time defending Brent/PWCC on the Hobby News Daily podcast yesterday. The full interview was pretty good/interesting, so it's worth a listen if you're into that sort of thing. Here's a link to it. The PWCC conversation starts at 11:44 into it.

https://youtu.be/RqE-UT8ShH0?si=sV-kEZQ1363drv9c&t=704

Here's a transcript of what he says during this segment:

Originally Posted by Jeffery Lichtman

"I was a harsh critic of Brent & PWCC when I believed they were committing fraud. Then they became targeted by the FBI, and at that point, I felt that in order for them to get a more favorable disposition of their situation, I felt that they should take in all the cards that were altered in some way or another and give refunds, which they did. And I think that went a long way toward helping their situation. They accepted responsibility, they made people whole (not everybody, that's for sure), I suppose - and not everybody wanted to be made whole because a lot of people had trimmed cards in PSA holders, in high grades, and they figured why should I get back the price that I paid for this thing when it's gone up in value since then? This is the hobby. Everybody's against fraud except when it can make you money. This is an interesting mess of people in the hobby. You know, bless their hearts because I suppose I'm one of them."