New lawsuit accuses PWCC of massive shill bidding

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

SMH. I may change my signature line to fascist son of a bitch, it has a nice ring to it. I may drop the hyphens though. You are, as you were in the other thread, completely mischaracterizing and taking on a straw man. I absolutely believe in the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. Again, there is a difference between legal innocence and moral innocence.

Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Isn't there also a difference between being innocent and being found not guilty in a trial?

That's my point. You may not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even though you actually committed the crime. The system is imperfect. And of course occasionally people who did not commit the crime are found guilty.

[jingram058]

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

[jayshum]

Not a lawyer, but from Wikipedia, it appears that double jeopardy is in the Constitution and only applies to criminal trial:

In the United States, the protection in common law against double jeopardy is maintained through the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides:

... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

[Section103]

There are few things in life I can count on, but a legal discussion on Net54 ~always~ has that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

9:22 is too early to start drinking bourbon and Im mad as hell about it.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Section103

There are few things in life I can count on, but a legal discussion on Net54 ~always~ has that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

9:22 is too early to start drinking bourbon and Im mad as hell about it.

How about 9:23?

[raulus]

Maybe to tie some of these disparate discussions together a little bit, it seems like there have long been allegations against PWCC for various bad acts. Everything from consorting with/facilitating card doctors to shill bidding. While there were some prior investigations that appear to have fizzled out, to my knowledge, nothing has been proven in court, although some among us seem pretty convinced of PWCC's guilt on some of these counts, with a few of us being full-throated defenders of PWCC. Not sure I fully follow the reasons for this strong defense from Snowman and BobbyVCP, except that they seem to be more focused on extolling the virtues of the legitimate aspects of PWCC's business.

Certainly I have nothing personally to go on in terms of PWCC's guilt, although the chorus of allegations and a lot of the details provided in other threads is definitely troubling, to the point where it's not hard to imagine that at least some of the allegations could be true. But to BalticFox's point, PWCC has the right to presumed innocence, and at the moment the claims in this suit don't have much support introduced into the record, although that could change as the process unfolds.

Just like Peter, I am eager to see what evidence is presented in connection with the case. With any luck, it will help to shed a little more light on what was happening at PWCC. Hopefully any sources and testimony provided will be high quality, rather than mere conjecture or innuendo. And hopefully we're not just left to keep guessing if it gets settled before any additional evidence can be introduced.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Section103

There are few things in life I can count on, but a legal discussion on Net54 ~always~ has that "je ne sais quoi" quality.

9:22 is too early to start drinking bourbon and Im mad as hell about it.

It's always noon somewhere

[raulus]

Bloody double post.

[raulus]

Circling back to something in this complaint that I'm still not sure that I follow. In terms of the damages side, the notion that the entire market was inflated based on an army of shills has always been an argument that I've struggled to really get behind. I understand the concept behind the market being inflated. I just don't understand why there would be damages.

It's not like someone forced you to buy these cards, or that you were somehow under any obligation to buy them at the offered price. You chose to buy them, and you chose to buy them at a specific price. Whether that price was X or 2X or 10X is kinda your decision to make. Each of us makes a bucketload of decisions at every auction or show to decide when we're ready to tap out, and let something go to someone who's willing to bid more irresponsibly than we are.

Setting aside the shilling aspect, which I agree is wrong for any auctions or items that were indeed shilled, the fact that someone chose to keep bidding until they won, and their level of bidding was based on what they thought the item was worth, which may also in part have been based on what others were paying, the whole thing just seems very contrived to me to suggest that you were harmed by your own decision to keep bidding.

Maybe just to emphasize again, I completely get the idea that shilling destroys the integrity of the auction process, and should never be allowed. But that's a different issue than your experience suffering damages, unless an auction item that you bought was specifically shilled, and therefore the price for that specific item was artificially inflated.

Setting aside the specific shilling issue, either you choose to buy the stuff at the going rate, or you sit it out until you're ready to buy, or you wait patiently (perhaps indefinitely) until the prices come to you. Complaining that you got ripped off seems really bizarre after you made your own independent decision to buy.

And if I'm being honest, it seems a little bit self-indulgent to suggest that you have a right to buy cardboard at a price that you like better than the actual price that you paid.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

There is no double jeopardy posed by having to face both a criminal and civil trial-- never has been. One can deprive of you of your liberty and the other of your property. As the former is far more serious, it requires the higher burden of proof-- beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that the jury is not instructed on "innocence", but is instead asked to find a defendant either guilty or not guilty. That is not just a question of semantics, and the difference is intentional.

You also can be tried for the same crime in multiple jurisdictions--technically not the same statute being violated but the same underlying actions comprising a violation of law in two different sovereigns, e.g., both state and federal law. I would defer to the criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors on the board to expound on this if anyone is interested.

It hasn't happened a lot, but now and then in my practice I have a civil case where the defendant was also charged with a crime arising out of the same event. Picture a drunk driving case causing injury, for example. If the defendant is convicted, the plaintiff in the civil case is pretty much home free, since there was a finding that defendant did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If he is found not guilty, the civil client/victim can still proceed because he only needs to show the defendant more likely than not was acting in a culpable manner. Plaintiff still needs to prove his case, but he is not precluded by some argument of double jeopardy because that defense would be inapplicable.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

There is no double jeopardy posed by having to face both a criminal and civil trial-- never has been. One can deprive of you of your liberty and the other of your property. As the former is far more serious, it requires the higher burden of proof-- beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that the jury is not instructed on "innocence", but is instead asked to find a defendant either guilty or not guilty. That is not just a question of semantics, and the difference is intentional.

You also can be tried for the same crime in multiple jurisdictions--technically not the same statute being violated but the same underlying actions comprising a violation of law in two different sovereigns, e.g., both state and federal law. I would defer to the criminal defense lawyers and prosecutors on the board to expound on this if anyone is interested.

It hasn't happened a lot, but now and then in my practice I have a civil case where the defendant was also charged with a crime arising out of the same event. Picture a drunk driving case causing injury, for example. If the defendant is convicted, the plaintiff in the civil case is pretty much home free, since there was a finding that defendant did it beyond a reasonable doubt. If he is found not guilty, the civil client/victim can still proceed because he only needs to show the defendant more likely than not was acting in a culpable manner. Plaintiff still needs to prove his case, but he is not precluded by some argument of double jeopardy because that defense would be inapplicable.

Thank you, sir. I see the difference with your explanation.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

It hasn't happened a lot, but now and then in my practice I have a civil case where the defendant was also charged with a crime arising out of the same event.....If he is found not guilty, the civil client/victim can still proceed because he only needs to show the defendant more likely than not was acting in a culpable manner. Plaintiff still needs to prove his case, but he is not precluded by some argument of double jeopardy because that defense would be inapplicable.

The OJ case is a famous example.

[Balticfox]

That word would be "infamous".

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

That word would be "infamous".

Congrats!

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

That word would be "infamous".

In-famous means you're more than famous.

Ned Nederlander

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[steve B]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Without any theatrics or drama, may I ask a simple question? I know some of you are lawyers. Whatever happened to double jeopardy? If you are found guilty or not guilty, should that not be the end of it? When did it become acceptable to have a criminal AND a civil trial? Has that always been the case? First time I saw this was with OJ.

Lets say I'm in the crosswalk and you run me over.
And you get caught.

Criminally you could be found guilty or not guilty of a few things. None of that compensates me for my injuries.

So I have to sue to get my bills and loss of work covered. (Or more likely here in MA, my insurance makes a deal with your insurance company. )

Or the reverse.
I do something illegal causing you a loss. So you sue me. In the process of that it turns out the illegal thing gets found out. Now I can be arrested for that.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

That's my point. You may not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt even though you actually committed the crime. The system is imperfect. And of course occasionally people who did not commit the crime are found guilty.

Or of course, not even getting to trial.
There's a Texas judge who posts a lot of his hearings, many on probable cause.
On some, it's pretty obvious the person did what the charge says.
But, the facts are weak/
Like one woman was charged with DUI and probably a couple other things.
Car hits another car on the high way, leaves.
Witness gives plate number to police who go to the house.
Woman who is the registered owner answers the door obviously drunk.

Witness only had the plate number. Cops only had the registration and that dhe was drunk at home. So no evidence of being the driver, or of being drunk while driving because she could have gotten home sober and hit the bottle straight away.

Dismissed......

Yeah, she did it. But it's not proveable.