Even the so called good guys...ugly hobby?

wonkaticket · #1 05-16-2009, 03:27 AM

Todd that's a fair and good response.

I had thought of that but Kevin had been so dishonest within the rest of the email which for the record I didn't post on here because it did not have any direct bearing on the disturbing comments he had made in Sept of 2008.

In the end I really doubted getting a straight answer from Kevin which as of this evening Kevin has reinforced that thought in my mind.

Once agian his story has been tweaked. On the other board it wasn't just a comment made in the heat of anger at all of us. It was a premeditated lie in order to make Scott Elkins feel better that someone was getting revenge on the net 54 crew for comments directed at Scott and Kevin during the underprint thread. So he admitted to fraud being an innocent man to make another person feel better about some chicken jokes?

You know something else Todd I was so disgusted by the comments and the rest of the email I really didn't want to even be associated with him in any way verbally or via email.

After weeks of eating and breathing scammers and pouring over emails from guys like Chan I saw a clear reason to post this IMO.

But to be safe I ran this by many folks and all but one was supportive.

Todd I hope you understand where I'm coming from?

Cheers,

John

Exhibitman · #2 05-16-2009, 07:40 AM

Since no one is denying the genuineness of the email itself, the question isn't whether Kevin wrote it, it is whether or not Kevin was lying when he wrote it. IMO, doesn't really matter because either way his credibility is shot: was he lying then or is he lying now?

As far as the propriety of discussing it here, I am all for the "outing." Flatly stating that you have cheated N54 members is far worse than the whispered allegations of impropriety in bidding at Mastro or even the generalized admission of "preparing" cards that Doug Allen made; it is specific evidence of a fraudulent act, not just a generalized suspicion.

As for what happened, we will likely never know. My experience in 19 years worth of suing and defending fraud cases is that direct communications from the alleged scammer before he knows he has been caught are the strongest and most damaging evidence of fraud, other than the once in a blue moon actual admission in cross-examination. There is simply no reason to lie when there is no inkling of being caught. If I was pursuing a lawsuit on behalf of a customer of Kevin's, this email would be Exhibit #1.

Abravefan11 · #3 05-16-2009, 08:00 AM

Wonka I think you did the right thing.

Even given your credibility from recent work on the Chan situation, you outing Kevin without the email to back you up wouldn't have had the same impact and more than likely would have been reduced to a he said/he said situation.

And since the email (whether a lie or not) claimed to defraud Net54 members, it had to be brought to the boards attention.

Leon · #4 05-16-2009, 08:11 AM

Your last post is exactly what I thought when telling John I thought it was ok to post the email string. Had this just been between, and involving, 2 board members then most likely I would have asked for it not to be posted.

Imagine if it wasn't a lie and board members DID get scammed? Then it would have been partially my fault for not allowing the information out. The scales weren't full tilt to one side but the pendulum swung to the side of outing, for me. The rules are staying the same though. Private emails ordinarily shouldn't be posted on the board. This was extraordinary. I do check with others on these things to get opinions and the opinions I got swayed to letting the email be posted. Some will disagree with my decision and that is ok. I can live with it. Heck, around 10% of the board thinks the old board was better? That's ok too....though I wish those 10% liked it more.

calvindog · #5 05-16-2009, 08:47 AM

Who said it wasn't a lie? Oh, right: Kevin.

A recorded declaration against penal interest made in an unguarded, private moment is a pretty tough piece of evidence to deal with in a criminal case as juries almost universally find it believable. A self-interested denial after being confronted with the admission? Rarely believed.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 05-16-2009, 09:11 AM

Has anyone here bought a card from Kevin? Traded with him? Sent him cards to review? On its face, his statement seems to me utterly implausible, and therefore in all likelihood a lie, nothwithstanding the general validity of what Jeff says.

calvindog · #7 05-16-2009, 09:15 AM

The part of his admission which was arguably implausible was his claim of targeting collectors with his altered cards (though with me, a properly advertised interesting Hal Chase card wouldn't require much pushing); his excited interest in defrauding Net 54 members? Utterly believable and not implausible.

Exhibitman · #8 05-16-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

A recorded declaration against penal interest made in an unguarded, private moment is a pretty tough piece of evidence to deal with in a criminal case as juries almost universally find it believable. A self-interested denial after being confronted with the admission? Rarely believed.

Ditto in the civil context. It has a certain sound to it for a plaintiff's attorney...Cha-Ching! [sound of a cash register, for those who don't know].

nolemmings · #9 05-16-2009, 02:12 PM

Adam, you have to know that such admission, standing alone, is worthless. I mean how obvious is it that a Plaintiff would have to show that in fact his card was altered and that it is linked to Kevin in some fashion. Otherwise, the statement can be used to impeach credibility but so what--where is the cause of action if in fact no card was ever altered and then sold?

cfc1909 · #10 05-16-2009, 09:21 AM

I just met John at the last Philly show.
I had a lot of info on the T206 Museum and Chan, and was talking to Mckee about it. Dan hooked me up with John and he helped me prove my information was right.
I had this email we are talking about and was not sure to let it be posted. I was thinking we should let Leon & Jeff know. Later it was sent to John and posted. If years later something bad with altered cards and Kevin comes out-I would not be good. Also the people sending Kevin cards now should know & other 54 members targeted. This email was received less than 24 hours before it got posted.

note to self- listen to John and be glad he isn't a Chan-we all would be in serious trouble or at least our collections would be

Jim VB · #11 05-16-2009, 10:33 AM

This whole thing seems like an ill conceived part of Kevin's business plan. If your stated goal is start a company doing authenticating work, you might not want to begin by writing about having duped prominent collectors.

wonkaticket · #12 05-16-2009, 12:14 PM

I have put some thought into how Kevin could get things by folks etc.

Kevin has reviewed cards for folks several people have claimed all was good with him etc.

But what if he had other plans for these cards he examined?

I'm also with Jeff really easy to put something out there Chan did it with the OP cards. It's easy to see what everyone's collecting interests are we make it public every day on here. An oddball Chase listed on eBay, a weird Type Card for Leon, a funky boxing item for Adam and so on.

Also there shouldn’t be a single collector after reading Kevin’s comments that shouldn’t be a little suspicious at the very least when reading Kevin's articles on his website especially the ones below...

http://www.alteredcards.com/flip.htm

http://www.alteredcards.com/flip2.htm

Why would anyone need to know how to forge a slip and or crack a slab without leaving signs of the slab being opened?

How is that good information to put out into the hobby?