Disgraceful lier

[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]

[thetruthisoutthere]

I have a fairly good memory, and if my memory serves me correctly, one of the statements in the auction description read "This ball has 26 authentic player signatures in blue ink...."

[RichardSimon]

The guys selling history consists of $20-$40 fishing gear.
Guess a sale of $80 got him all excited.

[CW]

I don't think you to apologize for anything, Scott. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, as we need to keep junk like this off of eBay.

In my opinion, that ball contained facsimile signatures. I'm not even an expert, but it was very obvious to me.

In my opinion, the seller is an idiot, and his sue-happy nature and inability to be a trustworthy seller are a big part of what is wrong in America today.

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

[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.

[mr2686]

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense. I think Lance is correct in his last statement.

[Wymers Auction]

Originally Posted by mr2686

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense. I think Lance is correct in his last statement.

I think the time and trouble to be right is the problem. I agree Scott has nothing to fear in a short day in court, but I find it hard to believe that Jeff would be so anxious to jump in the fire over misguided principles that will cost him a lot of money. I am not an autograph expert as others on the board, but the neat arrangement of signatures is something I have only seen on facsimile balls. Signatures should overrun each other and go in all sorts of directions. In my opinion.