Disgraceful lier

[vegasangler]

This is my final post regarding this matter.

Scott - You are free to share your opinion regarding the balls authenticity to anyone you choose, but there is a fine line between an opinion and an assault on someone’s character (as well as interfering in a business transaction) and you have crossed the line. Just because you didn’t like the tone of my response gave you no right to interfere in a private transaction that you are not a party to. You not only defamed me personally, but you have contacted eBay and the winning bidder and it’s costing me money to have my attorney set the record straight. You need to be accountable for your actions or it becomes precedence for others to engage in such malicious and illicit behavior.

Barry Sloate: Unfortunately, I no longer can defend the authenticity of the ball in a court of public opinion since this has become a legal matter. I will say that although I appreciate your opinion, it’s just an opinion. It’s incredibly bold of you or anyone else to take such a staunch position in absence of establishing your credentials, examination of the ball, review of the facts, or interviews with any of the witnesses. Perhaps I could have done a better job of explaining that more clearly in the listing, but it doesn’t warrant Scott’s actions.

James Wymer: The fact that Scott interfered in a private business transaction that he wasn’t a party to is grounds for legal action regardless of the truth. Defamation and/or slander is a separate allegation.

I mean no disrespect to anyone’s opinion or expertise on this site. Blogs like this serve a useful purpose when participants perform in a responsible manner.

[RichardSimon]

Jeff,
An $80 sale of a ball that everyone here believes to be a facsimile and you are bringing in your attorney????
I am speechless.
Six people on Net54 have expressed an opinion on this ball. All believe it to be a facsimile ball and to establish my credentials as you seem to need,, I have been an autograph dealer for 20+ years.


ps. considering the selling price of the ball, what do you think the ebay buyers believe?

[barrysloate]

Jeff- when it comes to autographs I have virtually no credentials, nor did I offer any kind of bold opinion. I only asked a question, and that was how you had access to the entire team.

But I too I am shocked that this has become a legal matter since your attorney's fees will far surpass the value of the ball. But it's a free country....

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Jeff,
An $80 sale of a ball that everyone here believes to be a facsimile and you are bringing in your attorney????
I am speechless.
Six people on Net54 have expressed an opinion on this ball. All believe it to be a facsimile ball.


ps. considering the selling price of the ball, what do you think the ebay buyers believe?

I, too, looked at that ball and in my opinion, is a facsimile.

Maybe Vegasangler can post a photograph of that baseball here. I remember that ball quite clearly and thinking immediately "that's an obvious facsimile."

If Vegasangler is 100% certain that his Pirates team-signed baseball is originally signed by the members of the Pirates, then he shouldn't have any problem posting a photograph of it here.

What I find very interesting is that Vegasangler got his legal team right on the case this (May 29, 2012) morning.

And if Vegasangler is serious about this issue, I want to remind Scott, that he can probably have Ebay retrieve the original listing.

[sports-rings]

James Wymer: The fact that Scott interfered in a private business transaction that he wasn’t a party to is grounds for legal action regardless of the truth. Defamation and/or slander is a separate allegation.

I am not sure about that statement. If the ball is a facsimile than it has been misrepresented. If Scott did not break any laws in acquiring the party's contact information I would imagine he is allowed to contact them and express his opinion. Then the buyer can determine, if he should go through with the transaction or cancel the sale based upon the item being misrepresented.

[RichardSimon]

The ball sold for $80, ebay buyers knew it was a facsimile.
Seven people on Net54, most of them experienced autograph people, expressed the opinion that it is a facsimile baseball.
Case closed.
Verdict for the defendant.
Full attorney fees awarded to the defendant.
Jeff that means you are out about $30K. all for an $80 ebay sale.

[buymycards]

Hi guys, Did you ever notice that when someone makes an honest mistake and they are made aware of it, they come on the board and admit it, but when they get caught with their fingers in the till they deny, threaten, and try to intimidate?

Rick

[chaddurbin]

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I am not sure about that statement. If the ball is a facsimile than it has been misrepresented. If Scott did not break any laws in acquiring the party's contact information I would imagine he is allowed to contact them and express his opinion. Then the buyer can determine, if he should go through with the transaction or cancel the sale based upon the item being misrepresented.

The discussion and the threat involved slander. Slander is never about a truthful statement.

[mr2686]

Isn't slander verbal? I think libel is what we would be talking about here.

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Isn't slander verbal? I think libel is what we would be talking about here.

Either way it still involves untruths and not truthful statements.

[thecatspajamas]

Either way, I really don't think Scott has anything to worry about.

[perezfan]

It's liar, with an "a" (not an "e"). Just correcting some spelling

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by perezfan

It's liar, with an "a" (not an "e"). Just correcting some spelling

I'm glad somebody other than me pointed it out....

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

I'm glad somebody other than me pointed it out....

It just eats away at you after reading it over and over...

[barrysloate]

It's like somebody scratching a piece of chalk across a blackboard....

[perezfan]

Especially when it resides in the title, and is meant to convey a powerful statement!

It's so jarring, that I have to give it shocked, angry, sad, and embarrassed faces. Impossible to pick just one...

[docpatlv]

Originally Posted by perezfan

It's liar, with an "a" (not an "e"). Just correcting some spelling

I think this is the technicality that's going to get Scott off the hook. He wasn't calling Jeff a disgraceful "liar", he was calling him a disgraceful "lier". Perhaps Scott heard a rumor that Jeff has a physical disability that does not allow him to lie down properly in the horizontal position. Or maybe when Jeff sleeps at night he takes up more than half the bed. Maybe these sleeping qualities are disgraceful to Scott. Either way I think it's a little bit overboard to threaten to sue someone for calling you out on your sleeping habits.

But that's just my humble opinion, what the hell do I know.

Mike

[GrayGhost]

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by docpatlv

I think this is the technicality that's going to get Scott off the hook. He wasn't calling Jeff a disgraceful "liar", he was calling him a disgraceful "lier". Perhaps Scott heard a rumor that Jeff has a physical disability that does not allow him to lie down properly in the horizontal position. Or maybe when Jeff sleeps at night he takes up more than half the bed. Maybe these sleeping qualities are disgraceful to Scott. Either way I think it's a little bit overboard to threaten to sue someone for calling you out on your sleeping habits.

But that's just my humble opinion, what the hell do I know.

Mike

Better be careful he will turn this into a class action suit. I am sorry I could not help myself.

[drc]

I agree. I interpreted it to mean someone liked to take naps on the couch.

[Splinte1941]

As a resident asshole on this board, I'd like to weigh in on this issue from the potential legal angle that was addressed earlier.

If the glove doesnt fit, you must acquit.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by docpatlv

I think this is the technicality that's going to get Scott off the hook. He wasn't calling Jeff a disgraceful "liar", he was calling him a disgraceful "lier". Perhaps Scott heard a rumor that Jeff has a physical disability that does not allow him to lie down properly in the horizontal position. Or maybe when Jeff sleeps at night he takes up more than half the bed. Maybe these sleeping qualities are disgraceful to Scott. Either way I think it's a little bit overboard to threaten to sue someone for calling you out on your sleeping habits.

But that's just my humble opinion, what the hell do I know.

Mike

+1! Bravo Bravo!!

[perezfan]

Agree - Brilliant post!

[RichardSimon]

Scott - never sweat the small sh--. And this threat is really small sh--.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Scott, I will defend you if you get sued...I am not an attorney but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


Jeff

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Agree - Brilliant post!

+1.

The obvious fact is that when a "lier" says he's going to sue, he's really going to do nothing other than to provide us with entertainment.

[BigJJ]

Scott, this guy wrote you act with "malicious" and "illicit" "behavior". You had NO self interest in your doing what you did, it was selfless. Nothing is remotely "malicious" or "illicit"!!?? I am an attorney. Truth is a defense to slander. You have a defense. And authenticators on this board could sum up that ball for you in a succinct letter with clear picture references - that any person not in the business would understand in a second. Even better, can find you another such ball! Not difficult.
What is his defense for his statements?
"illicit" - if he actually brought a suit, and you were found to not have committed something "illicit", and he has written "illicit", he is not in good territory.
Surprised since he contacted his attorney so quick, wink wink, that his attorney would have let him make such posts damaging to his 'case'.

[BrandonG]

Wow! I go on vacation for 3 days and look what I missed! lol

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by vegasangler

This is my final post regarding this matter.

Scott - You are free to share your opinion regarding the balls authenticity to anyone you choose, but there is a fine line between an opinion and an assault on someone’s character (as well as interfering in a business transaction) and you have crossed the line. Just because you didn’t like the tone of my response gave you no right to interfere in a private transaction that you are not a party to. You not only defamed me personally, but you have contacted eBay and the winning bidder and it’s costing me money to have my attorney set the record straight. You need to be accountable for your actions or it becomes precedence for others to engage in such malicious and illicit behavior.

Barry Sloate: Unfortunately, I no longer can defend the authenticity of the ball in a court of public opinion since this has become a legal matter. I will say that although I appreciate your opinion, it’s just an opinion. It’s incredibly bold of you or anyone else to take such a staunch position in absence of establishing your credentials, examination of the ball, review of the facts, or interviews with any of the witnesses. Perhaps I could have done a better job of explaining that more clearly in the listing, but it doesn’t warrant Scott’s actions.

James Wymer: The fact that Scott interfered in a private business transaction that he wasn’t a party to is grounds for legal action regardless of the truth. Defamation and/or slander is a separate allegation.

I mean no disrespect to anyone’s opinion or expertise on this site. Blogs like this serve a useful purpose when participants perform in a responsible manner.

NOTE WHAT I HIGHLIGHTED in BOLD . I TRIED To contact ebay, but couldn't find the proper category to actually send a complaint in its entirety. That too is my right. But, ONE THOUSAND PCT I NEVER EVER contacted the winning bidder. THAT IS A TOTAL LIE .

Your slander issues have just gone the other way, as you are telling lies about what I did .

[Rob D.]

Long live the autograph threads.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Vegasangler, there is no way Scott could have contacted the winning bidder because bidder IDs are not revealed. The only two people who know won the auction are the seller and the buyer (and Ebay, of course).

Vegasangler, I would love to know how your attorney is setting the record straight? Are you telling us, Vegasangler, that you spent about $250.00 for an attorney for a $80.00 item?

Vegasangler, how do you know it was Scott who contacted Ebay about that item? It's very possible that dozens of people contacted Ebay about your baseball. Everyone here that commented on that baseball opined that it is a facsimile, including myself. Why don't you post a photo of that baseball here on Net54, Vegasangler. I'm betting you won't.