Disgraceful lier

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Getting into this a little late, I actually have to laugh out loud regarding how weak this potential lawsuit is.

First off, when I read this thread at lunch time, the eBay link was gone, so I didn't even know who the accusations were referring to. Then checking later I noticed the seller comes on this forum threatening a lawsuit. So now by his own voluntary actions, we now know who it is. If he had done nothing, very few people would have known who this person was.

Also, if the seller had a chance of winning a defamation lawsuit, he greatly diminished any chance of winning it by coming on and defending himself. The legal doctrine for this is a "limited-purpose public figure". The significance of this is that the seller voluntarily choose to thrust himself into a public controversy and now he has to prove the publisher acted with malice (deliberately making a false statement with the intent to inflict unjust harm). The burden of proof is now set to a very high level of difficulty for the potential plaintiff.


In addition, hypothetically, if the seller who came on this public forum and essentially accused the publisher of committing several torts, (or being a "tortfeasor"), the seller may be subject to a defamation suit himself if the publisher's accusations are true.

Over the years, I've observed a number of people who filed defamation/libel lawsuits and all have walked away spending a ton of money with no judgment in their favor. First off, their personal life and financial records get scrutinized down to the last detail. This becomes very embarrassing for people who committed some kind of illegal act, have issues of moral turpitude or haven't paid their income taxes, etc. Second, proving damages for libel is an arduous task since it typically requires a significant number of witnesses to testify that they were influenced by the allegedly damaging publication.

Finally, I also know for a fact that Ebay will not turn over any evidence, even when subpoenaed, regarding evidence for pulling a questionable auction or for suspending a member. Ebay can do this legally due to their privacy policy and anyone who is an Ebay member agrees to this when they sign up, so they are contractually bound by that. So if the seller is hoping for a business interference claim because of the pulled Ebay auction, he's out of luck. I also noticed someone threw out $30K as the cost of defamation lawsuit. It's been my observation that any case that goes to trial will cost at least $100K and more than likely $120K or even much higher if one parties tries to take on an "attrition warfare" strategy and drag out the litigation for years until one party is broke. Again, defamation suits are the hardest suits to prove and require a lot of litigation.

Finally, as has been stated repeatedly, truth is an absolute defense, and it's also been my observation that courts have a very low tolerance for frivolous lawsuits.

If they were taking odds in Vegas on this one, I'd load up heavy on Scott. But that's just my opinion along with everything else stated on this posting and as a disclaimer one should consult an attorney for any essential and personal legal advice.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Getting into this a little late, I actually have to laugh out loud regarding how weak this potential lawsuit is.

First off, when I read this thread at lunch time, the eBay link was gone, so I didn't even know who the accusations were referring to. Then checking later I noticed the seller comes on this forum threatening a lawsuit. So now by his own voluntary actions, we now know who it is. If he had done nothing, very few people would have known who this person was.

Also, if the seller had a chance of winning a defamation lawsuit, he greatly diminished any chance of winning it by coming on and defending himself. The legal doctrine for this is a "limited-purpose public figure". The significance of this is that the seller voluntarily choose to thrust himself into a public controversy and now he has to prove the publisher acted with malice (deliberately making a false statement with the intent to inflict unjust harm). The burden of proof is now set to a very high level of difficulty for the potential plaintiff.


In addition, hypothetically, if the seller who came on this public forum and essentially accused the publisher of committing several torts, (or being a "tortfeasor"), the seller may be subject to a defamation suit himself if the publisher's accusations are true.

Over the years, I've observed a number of people who filed defamation/libel lawsuits and all have walked away spending a ton of money with no judgment in their favor. First off, their personal life and financial records get scrutinized down to the last detail. This becomes very embarrassing for people who committed some kind of illegal act, have issues of moral turpitude or haven't paid their income taxes, etc. Second, proving damages for libel is an arduous task since it typically requires a significant number of witnesses to testify that they were influenced by the allegedly damaging publication.

Finally, I also know for a fact that Ebay will not turn over any evidence, even when subpoenaed, regarding evidence for pulling a questionable auction or for suspending a member. Ebay can do this legally due to their privacy policy and anyone who is an Ebay member agrees to this when they sign up, so they are contractually bound by that. So if the seller is hoping for a business interference claim because of the pulled Ebay auction, he's out of luck. I also noticed someone threw out $30K as the cost of defamation lawsuit. It's been my observation that any case that goes to trial will cost at least $100K and more than likely $120K or even much higher if one parties tries to take on an "attrition warfare" strategy and drag out the litigation for years until one party is broke. Again, defamation suits are the hardest suits to prove and require a lot of litigation.

Finally, as has been stated repeatedly, truth is an absolute defense, and it's also been my observation that courts have a very low tolerance for frivolous lawsuits.

If they were taking odds in Vegas on this one, I'd load up heavy on Scott. But that's just my opinion along with everything else stated on this posting and as a disclaimer one should consult an attorney for any essential and personal legal advice.

Dan, well written!!!!

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Dan, well written!!!!

Thank you Christopher!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Thank you Christopher!

Dan- (in my best redneck voice) "for not being a lawyer you sure talk some fancy lawyer talk." Nicely written.

[RichardSimon]

I was using the $30K figure based on personal experiences, though both times I was sued for libel the lawsuits were dismissed, well before a trial.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Thanks for the clarification Dan, as I am a potential law student, that's something I look forward to learning about further.

[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.

[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

[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

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Yes, ebay can pull the listing even after the item has ended. If they do so, they will send an e-mail to the buyer advising them not to complete the transaction. If they have already sent their money, eBay won't automatically refund it, but if they paid with Paypal it should be relatively easy for the buyer to get their money back.

I've had this happen to me before, not for authenticity concerns, but because the buyer's (or seller's, if I was the one buying) Paypal account was compromised, so they just cancelled out all of their transactions. In one case, I had already received the item I paid for (so several days later) and was satisfied, so I just e-mailed the seller, found out what had happened, and let it slide.

ive had this happen a few times as well.

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Thanks Scott. Today it would be very difficult. Didn't know the players were that accommodating back then.

I know with NHL teams, its not even that hard nowadays. I know several people who go to the airport or the team hotel here in Calgary and get numerous items like jerseys, 16x20's etc. signed by the entire team. When i was younger, in the 90's, i would go to the hotels and get autos as well. A couple hours before the game the players leave the hotel on a team bus and they usually always leave the hotel with one or two other teammates over 20-30 minutes, so it is quiet easy to get everyone on a team. I also have a friend on another site that lives in Miami and he gets entire NFL teams (or very close to the entire team) signed on full sized helmets almost everytime he goes to get autograph at the team Hotels.

Nowadays (and even back then) there are 'autograph hounds' they call them that will spend 14 hours a day getting autographs at Hotels, practices, airports, outside the stadium etc. I don't think its outside the realm of impossibility to have a team signed item from any league from a team in the last 40+ years or so.

[Bilko G]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Are you serious? I apologize. I don't want issues with court. I overreacted based on what you had sent me privately and such. You were VERY negative towards me on your reply. PLEASE I don't want any court issues, but the ball was an obvious stamp, and I got a bit uptight bout that.

I wouldn't have appoligized, you did nothing wrong, don't let people walk all over you with this "im taking you to court crap".

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by Bilko G

I wouldn't have appoligized, you did nothing wrong, don't let people walk all over you with this "im taking you to court crap".

+1

[BigJJ]

Originally Posted by CW

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, as we need to keep junk like this off of eBay.

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

Another odd looking piece on the bay, I contacted the seller regarding to no avail - no seams on the back - and unlike his other listings, he only provides a small snapshot of this piece, anyone else want to write this guy, looks like someone already made an offer on it:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-Ty-Cobb...item48457c845b

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

Another odd looking piece on the bay, I contacted the seller regarding to no avail - no seams on the back - and unlike his other listings, he only provides a small snapshot of this piece, anyone else want to write this guy, looks like someone already made an offer on it:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-Ty-Cobb...item48457c845b

No question- a bogus Fan for a Fan. The fakes all make the same mistake with regard to the way the stick is attached. Plus the back side is lacking the proper graphics. Hope someone didn't get burned too badly on this... it's a really obvious fake.

[buymycards]

I have to agree. All of his other listings have large scans with the zoom option, but not this one.