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

[Exhibitman]

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]

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I shot JFK. Gonna convict me now? No, because my admission is meaningless. Same with Kevin's so-called admission.

[calvindog]

Man, one red herring after another.

First, Peter, surely you know your example holds no water. Claiming that you shot JFK out of the blue -- as you just stated -- is meaningless. Compare that to the circumstances which existed wherein Kevin made his statements: he was in the midst of a private email correspondence with Elkins which he assumed would never be disclosed. He's well-known as someone with great skill in altering cards. He expressed his disgust with Net 54 members. He doesn't just make a statement out of the blue about targeting Net 54 members -- he claimed he did it and it cost him some money. Clearly some additional information was disclosed about how and why he was making such a statement about past fraud. He then expresses disappointment that he was not able to defraud me. Elkins does not challenge Kevin's claim; apparently he believed it as well. Do all of these factors lend a little more credence to the possibility that Kevin either engaged in fraud or wishes to engage in fraud than if he had just blurted out a single declaration against penal interest with nothing more? Of course.

As for Todd's position, it would certainly make sense if we were in a court of law and the quantum of proof necessary to convict was a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. But we're not in a court of law and Kevin has not been indicted. Wonka did not come on here and claim that he had irrefutable proof that Kevin defrauded Net 54 members ("I have no proof Kevin did this"); he simply laid out Kevin's own words which were made when he thought no one was watching, and argued that this was information that the collecting public had a right to know as it would appear that either Kevin admitted he committed fraud and/or that he wished to target Net 54 members with his fraud.

As for the declarations against penal interest made by Kevin, the point of noting this is simply to demonstrate that in context,when someone makes such an admission it can be used quite powerfully to prove that they, in fact, did do such a thing. As I noted above, a recorded declaration against penal interest made in a private moment carries a lot more weight than a claim of "I didn't do it!" when the declarant knows everyone is watching.

Finally, the secondary issue here is whether or not Kevin actually committed fraud (most of us would agree that it would be very tough, but not impossible, for him to accomplish this the way he laid out in his email to Elkins (as I noted above such a fraud is "probably not a major worry")); the bigger issue is whether Kevin is capable of or desires to commit fraud against Net 54 members. That's where his private statements to Elkins cause such consternation. And if that is the ultimate question -- not whether he did commit fraud but whether he wishes to and is capable of committing fraud --well, suddenly the case against him looks pretty bad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jeff you are like dog with bone. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. And your last paragraph suggests all you are charging Kevin with is thought crime -- big deal. EDIT TO ADD BOB DYLAN LYRIC "If my thought dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine."

[calvindog]

Peter, you're hanging on by your fingernails now. I'm not charging Kevin with any crime. Thought crime? Hardly. Big deal? Maybe to you it's not. But it might be to anyone who thought to send Kevin a card or trusted him to be one of the good guys in the hobby.

[Potomac Yank]

I feel a lot of LUVVV in this thread.

Imagine if all that LUV energy was directed towards the ones that were caught, and proven guilty!

Outing a culprit should not be the crowning moment of the fight, but a step towards getting rid of the slimeballs.

Only when we decide to band together, will this Hobby/Investor community will go to another level. ... JMHO

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jeff be careful of declaring premature victories, after you declared a consensus on your private email position a number of people came on and said they agreed with me.

I find it interesting that you are quick to acknolwedge Kevin was lying in what he said he had DONE, but you nonetheless assume the statement accurately reflects his intent and state of mind in terms of a wish to defraud. Maybe the whole thing was just BS. Maybe he didn't mean ANY of it.

[nolemmings]

Jeff, I was speaking to Adam about a civil case, where the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't care what the burden of proof would be--there is no case.

I want to defraud you. I wish I could defraud you. I know how to defraud you. I intend to defraud you. I take no action on any of these states of mind. Have you any case? No. Zippo, nada, zilch.

You claim the ultimate question is whether he wishes to and is capable of committing fraud. I disagree. First of all, he is clearly skilled enough and thus capable of committing the act of passing an altered card, and has been widely known to be so skilled long before this pasted email thread was made public, such that it adds nothing on that issue.

As for his motives and wishes, I too think we're looking at the thought police here. Be forewarned when dealing with Kevin--I get it. Will I ever deal with him again? I will make my own assessment of the card and the circumstances, and likely will deal with him. Will I look at him differently in light of his pasted email thread and its rather mean-spirited remarks? Yes. Will I treat him as a pariah, unworthy of any further contact? Nope.

[Peter_Spaeth]

A commendable sentiment, but it ain't going to happen. We are all, myself included, too addicted. Stick it in a slab, with the right information on the flip, and unless it looks completely butchered we are going to buy it no matter where it came from or how little we know about the provenance. Will we catch people around the fringes like Chan? Sure. Will the mainstream card doctors pumping out a steady supply and feeding the auction houses be stopped? I seriously doubt it.