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

[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.

[calvindog]

Agreed. Fraud is rampant in this hobby and will be very tough to stop.

[Potomac Yank]

Gentlemen, I agree with what you're saying about fraud ... BUT!
If we continue the 1990 ostrich approach.
If we just get our satisfaction, and STOP after the outing.
If we let the slimeballs know that any number can play.
If we let them feel that we wont fight back.
They're going to continue, and grow in numbers.

Gentlemen, I admire, and respect the knowledge that you received at your Law schools.
Part of my knowledge was attained on the streets of Spanish Harlem.
One thing I learned, if you don't stand up, even if you stand alone ... you wont get any respect.

I'll be damned, if I'm going to allow a slimeball mess with my addiction.

[Exhibitman]

Potomac, I hardly consider the situation to be one of not fighting back. By outing the situation, John has placed everyone on notice of it. Until someone comes forward with a specific item that they suspect has been tampered by Kevin, it is all for discussion. If that person surfaces and decides to act on it, we have a whole different ballgame. As far as respect goes, it is irrelevant; validation by others is something craved only by people with insufficient self-esteem. Which is probably why you never hear highly educated, highly successful people whine about being disrespected yet you hear losers in prison who justify hacking someone to death by claiming they had been "dissed."

Todd, as far as whether Kevin's admission stands for anything, I may not have been clear but I did not want to be pedantic either. I assumed that it was understood that the context was one of a civil case being brought and going to trial. My point was that if I was representing someone in a case against a card seller who had stated that he doctored cards and foisted them on the public, the admission would be a very strong one, the sort of evidence that leads a jury to accept the opinion of the expert I retained to prove that the card in question had been doctored.

As far as fraud goes, yes, we have some in cards. As we do in most any other field where money matters. When we see it, we should try to correct it. Our best tool for that here is outing the scammer and letting everyone in on the dirty little secret.

[Potomac Yank]

Adam, I hear what you say, there is much validity in what you say ... But!
I think you've been away from NYC too long.
When I say respect, I'm not talking about respect towards one individual.
I'm talking about a potential scumbags mind set.
Right now, the potential slimeballs of the world know this.
They know that going after a score in cardboard land, is not that much of a gamble.
From past experience they know that if they give the money back, God will forgive them.

The respect of which I speak of is ... conveying to the lice that the people in cardboard land are NOT a forgiving lot, and that we will get their little asses.
Simply stated ... Tip Toeing Through the Tulips, never gets the job done.

If we succeed in getting through to a few scumbags ... It's a start.
When will we Start?

Stay well.

[nolemmings]

but, if not pedantic, then your comments were rather unncessary, were they not? I submit there is no legal scholarship needed to conclude that a civil or criminal case is stronger with a "confession" than without it. That's what we're talking about here, either a confession or nearly so.

You and Jeff wrap this situation up in legal terms and scenarios where a jury would be damning and the particular evidence of such strength that the case would be a lock. My point is there is no legal case and won't be when all you have is a so-called admission. IF the remaining 90% of your case were established--you know, tedious things like an actual victim, a specific card, and a connection with Kevin, then I agree the statement could be the final nail in the proverbial coffin. I think the non-legal term for that scenario is Duh. Without those other elements proved in the least, though, I think it's unfortunate to couch your comments in terms of how this would play out in court.

[Peter_Spaeth]

They may not have the coffin but at least they have the nail.

[Potomac Yank]

Adam, I hear what you say, there is much validity in what you say ... But!
I think you've been away from NYC too long.
When I say respect, I'm not talking about respect towards one individual.
I'm talking about a potential scumbags mind set.
Right now, the potential slimeballs of the world know this.
They know that going after a score in cardboard land, is not that much of a gamble.
From past experience they know that if they give the money back, God will forgive them.

The respect of which I speak of is ... conveying to the lice that the people in cardboard land are NOT a forgiving lot, and that we will get their little asses.
Simply stated ... Tip Toeing Through the Tulips, never gets the job done.

If we succeed in getting through to a few scumbags ... It's a start.
When will we Start?

Stay well.

[daviddbreadman]

Peter I am surprised at you. Why are you wasting your time on this?

Surely as an attorney you know that all the persuading in the world won't change anyone's opinion. Its just going to harden the respective positions. Same for you Calvindog. Neither side here is going to admit the other is correct and has the better argument. This is a total waste of time and I'm not going to read it anymore. In fact, I'm tired of this board.

There is alot of valuable knowledge here to be had but its a shame there are so many egos here. I've never seen anything like it. (This statement is not directed at anyone in particular but if you feel guilty, you probably are)

[Peter_Spaeth]

The adversarial process is the best route to the truth I know.

[calvindog]

...and lawyers spend their days (and nights) persuading people. That's most of what we do. I mean, other than buying vintage baseball cards.

[Abravefan11]

Originally Posted by daviddbreadman

There is alot of valuable knowledge here to be had but its a shame there are so many egos here.

David-

While I agree with this statement one thing I have found to be true.

You can not get a room full of the most knowledgeable people on a particular subject and not have a room full of egos. It just doesn't happen.

[calvindog]

Todd, I disagree. I'm not wrapping this up in any kind of trial-ready scenario; my point about discussing admissions against penal interest are simply to note that normally such statements like Kevin's might not be admissible in a court because of the lack of reliability, i.e. hearsay. But because they are admissions against penal interest they have significant reliability because who would ever admit to the commission of a fraud in a private conversation? Traditionally, people do not lie when they admit to fraud. They lie to exculpate themselves from allegations of fraud.

And lastly, I'm curious about something. Have you ever discussed in a private email conversation the subject of altering cards and defrauding Net 54 members? And if not, do you know of anyone (besides Kevin and Elkins) who ever has? Anyone?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Jim Crandell - PSA Hall of Fame Collector with over 25,000 graded cards, most in PSA 8 or better.

"In my opinion, Kevin is one of the top three card experts in the world. I will not buy a high-valued card without him personally inspecting it and rendering an opinion. If he has the slightest doubt it has been altered, I will not buy it!"

[calvindog]

Ok, Peter, that does it for me. Case closed.

Oh wait -- I thought Jim never sent Kevin any of his cards?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Jim Crandell - PSA Hall of Fame Collector with over 25,000 graded cards, most in PSA 8 or better.

"In my opinion, Kevin is one of the top three card experts in the world . . . "

Just curious -- who are the other two? Any guesses?