some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[Kenny Cole]

At the amount involved, it would probably be a small claims case. Neither side would even need to hire an attorney, although either could and might want to. They would go pitch it to the judge (you generally don't get a jury unless you specifically ask for one which, at least here, generally irritates the assigned judge greatly) and the judge decides. Assuming no attorney involvement, you are out whatever the court costs are, which you recoup if you win. That is the current solution to smaller cases dollar-wise which would otherwise not be financially feasible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

At the amount involved, it would probably be a small claims case. Neither side would even need to hire an attorney, although either could and might want to. They would go pitch it to the judge (you generally don't get a jury unless you specifically ask for one which, at least here, generally irritates the assigned judge greatly) and the judge decides. Assuming no attorney involvement, you are out whatever the court costs are, which you recoup if you win. That is the current solution to smaller cases dollar-wise which would otherwise not be financially feasible.

I haven't brushed up on personal jurisdiction recently, but is Chris subject to the jurisdiction of a PA small claims court just by virtue of shipping cards through a common carrier to Mike in PA? There certainly was a time when that would not be enough. If not, Mike has to go to KY.

[Kenny Cole]

I didn't say where Peter. I just said it was probably a small claims matter. That is true wherever it is filed.

But, since you ask, if Mike Peich was called in Pennsylvania for the purpose of arranging the sale of the cards he ultimately purchased, which appears to have been the case at least once if not more if I read his post correctly, I suspect that could be found sufficient minimum contacts, in the form of specific jurisdiction, to allow an action in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure that true but I think it would likely be the case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I didn't say where Peter. I just said it was probably a small claims matter. That is true wherever it is filed.

But, since you ask, if Mike Peich was called in Pennsylvania for the purpose of arranging the sale of the cards he ultimately purchased, which appears to have been the case at least once if not more if I read his post correctly, I suspect that could be found sufficient minimum contacts, in the form of specific jurisdiction, to allow an action in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure that true but I think it would likely be the case.

Could be Kenny, minimum contacts ain't what they used to be.

[chris]

I will try to keep this as short as possible. Most everyone seems to be on the same page; I agree, this is a mess and unfair to leave Mike holding the bag. I am willing to make Mike an offer I feel is fair. (I am sure some of the readers here will feel otherwise.)

I do not wish to argue every point Mike made in his post but I will a few:

9. "Zach indicated that he was going to file a stolen property report with the local authorities in the Ohio county where his grandparents lived. He notified me on September 19, 2016 that he had filed the report and attached a copy of it in his email."
Zach filed an incident report. He did not press charges or file a criminal theft charge against his brother.

10. "I had several conversations at the National with Mr. Buckler about the cards. In every one of them I said that I was going to do the correct thing and return Zach’s cards to him. I also told him that I felt he should return the $3700 I had paid him for the cards. He demurred and said that his legal counsel had suggested that he was not responsible and could do nothing until Zach filed a formal theft report. When I pointed out that he could ask Mr. Siska to return his money, Mr. Buckler felt that might cause a rupture in his business relationship with Mr. Siska."
I simply stated the two dealers that handled the cards before me, would not entertain a refund down the chain unless criminal charges were filed and Mike kept possession of the cards until a legal assessment of the transaction of events could be legally documented.

"I want to respond to a few of Mr. Buckler’s FACTS.
3. I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.
A few times at the National, but not afterward."
We discussed Zach filling criminal charges against his brother on the the phone multiple times. In addition, I worked with Zach at the National and afterwards in an attempt to locate other missing cards in KY and OH areas.

6. M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.
"Mr. Buckler never made the suggestion that we talk “with the proper authorities” before moving forward. I told him repeatedly what I was going to do with the stolen property, and I asked that he do the same and refund my purchase price."
Absolutely not true. I told him what the others dealers involved had discussed and Mike completely ignored all requests to speak with legal counsel.

Mike, you did have every opportunity over the past 450+ days to pick up the phone and call or email me back.

Here is my offer. I refund you 50% of your purchase price, $1850. As far as the remaining money, I feel Zach needs to press criminal charges against his brother. If that takes place, hopefully, WE can work together to seek restitution against Zach’s brother. Or Zach can pay you the portion to make you whole. I had absolutely NO idea the cards were stolen and I have no control over Zach’s decision to criminally charge his brother. I’m sure many of you will disagree with me, hate me, never do business with me, etc.. you are entitled to do as you choose. Mike, if this is agreeable please confirm your address and I will put a check in the mail Monday morning.

Mike, I am very sorry to hear of your son in laws health. I wish you and your family nothing but the best.

Finally, I really HATE to read some very disparaging posts calling me a scumbag. I have been very active in this hobby for almost 15 years as a collector and dealer. I have NEVER took advantage of anyone. I realize there are people on this board who are fortunate enough to say $3,700 or $15,000 is a small sum of money. Unfortunately for me and many others $3,700 is a lot of money and I am not lucky enough to live such a privileged life as you. Congratulations for being such an outstanding citizen and an overall winner at life. You are free to form your own opinion but I am no scumbag.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by chris

I realize there are people on this board who are fortunate enough to say $3,700 or $15,000 is a small sum of money. Unfortunately for me and many others $3,700 is a lot of money and I am not lucky enough to live such a privileged life as you. Congratulations for being such an outstanding citizen and an overall winner at life. You are free to form your own opinion but I am no scumbag.

I work nearly 7 days a week, every week, and have pressures from my career you can't even begin to comprehend. So any "luck" you perceive that I have is due to hard work and sacrifice. And if JC thinks you're a scumbag that's good enough for me.

[autograf]

I know Chris and I know Mike and I think both are great people. I hope this somehow works out because I hate to see Mike's issue and hate to to see Chris' issue. I don't know Zach nor his brother. I understand why Chris requested the police action and I understand why Zach ultimately reneged. My close coworkers daughter sold off grandmas silver and her boyfriend cut out his catalytic converter for $100 worth of platinum in it. People do crazy stuff. Anyway, hope this is a step in the right direction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am sure some won't agree but I think it's reasonable and commend Chris for coming forward, as I expected he would, based on his reputation. I also think (as I believe Tim originally mentioned) it might be nice of Zach at least to convey a few cards back to Mike as a gesture of his appreciation for Mike's integrity and going above and beyond to recover the cards he already had sold.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am sure some won't agree but I think it's reasonable and commend Chris for coming forward, as I expected he would not knowing him personally except for a couple of purchases but based on his solid reputation. I also think (as I believe Tim originally mentioned) it might be nice of Zach at least to convey a few cards back to Mike as a gesture of his appreciation for Mike's integrity and going above and beyond to recover the cards he already had sold.

+1

While I didn't agree with how Chris handled this originally I respect him for coming on here and taking the heat while trying to make things better.

Chris Bland

[Piratedogcardshows]

I think it would be appropriate for Zach to comment on the thread instead of just reading it for the past two days

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

Then why do many professions and professional organizations have codes of ethics? Check the definitions I feel ethics and morality, while related, are not synonymous.

[BeanTown]

Chris, Not sure who called you a scumbag, but it wasn't me as Jeff eluded too. I just heard the "sleezy" conversation with you discussing this with another guy. I also thanked you for coming on and posting.

Did, the two other people in the pipeline get named who had some or all of the stolen collection, before Chris got involved? Where is Zach's Brother at now, as this happened a couple years ago. Maybe he is on the road to recovery.

[timn1]

For making a fair offer to share the burden with Mike, which is what I have been hoping for .

I want to make it clear to you and to everyone that I never sought to portray you as dishonest or a scumbag, etc. There is too much of that kind of junk talk around already. I just didn’t want to see mike get stuck with the whole burden.

Now, where is Zach in all this?

Originally Posted by the-illini

+1

While I didn't agree with how Chris handled this originally I respect him for coming on here and taking the heat while trying to make things better.

Chris Bland

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

Chris, Not sure who called you a scumbag, but it wasn't me as Jeff eluded too. I just heard the "sleezy" conversation with you discussing this with another guy.

Correct, my apologies. "Sleezy" (sic) but no scumbag. And I didn't say he was a scumbag, just that for $3700 of money made off stolen goods, this would cause people to think that. Based on the number of posters who claimed they wouldn't do business with Chris again and Tim's question if we even wanted someone like this in our hobby, my admonition seems accurate.

[Michael Peich]

I agree with Chris Bland and others that Chris Buckler has willingly come to the forum to present his sense of the matter, and he is to be commended for that. I wrote him this morning and accepted his offer of $1850.

Regards,
Mike

[Peter_Spaeth]

Call the next case.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Then why do many professions and professional organizations have codes of ethics? Check the definitions I feel ethics and morality, while related, are not synonymous.

They don't, at least not in the sense you are loosely using the terms. A voluntary organization can ask its members to adhere to certain standards but there is no requirement that a person join the organization or adhere to the standards it sets. If a professional organization has an enforceable set of rules required to maintain a license, it is because the state has delegated lawmaking in the form of regulatory capacity to that organization. They can label it a code of ethics (they don't use "morals") but it is really a regulation with the compulsory power of the state behind it. For example, the California State Bar. It has a set of rules of professional conduct and if you breach them you can be investigated, prosecuted in the State Bar Court, and possibly lose your license. That isn't ethics, it is regulation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't know, Adam. Example. As we know, under the statute of frauds, I can't enforce a contract for the sale of goods over $500 (never mind the exceptions, irrelevant to the point) without a writing signed by the other party. So under the law, the other party can breach with impunity if he knows there is no such writing. But wouldn't you say it's still unethical to breach the contract, or at least that there's a substantial consensus that would say it is? Perhaps you would not.

[glynparson]

My brother many years ago went through a period of heavy drug abuse and did something similar. I did not go after anyone but him, I never had to get the police involved my dad and grandfather forced him to make it good. I made him pay me back replacement value,which he did after a period of time. He had an inheritance coming so it made things a little easier.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

They don't, at least not in the sense you are loosely using the terms. A voluntary organization can ask its members to adhere to certain standards but there is no requirement that a person join the organization or adhere to the standards it sets. If a professional organization has an enforceable set of rules required to maintain a license, it is because the state has delegated lawmaking in the form of regulatory capacity to that organization. They can label it a code of ethics (they don't use "morals") but it is really a regulation with the compulsory power of the state behind it. For example, the California State Bar. It has a set of rules of professional conduct and if you breach them you can be investigated, prosecuted in the State Bar Court, and possibly lose your license. That isn't ethics, it is regulation.

I am not loosely using any term, I am using the term the professions and organizations themselves use. A quick google search turns up dozens of examples. If you want to argue that if you have a Code of Ethics you are essentially turning them into regulations it might be debatable, but it's hardly like I'm making up the term.

[bigfish]

Glad to see Mike get some of his money back.

[Michael Peich]

In my last post on this matter I mentioned that I accepted Chris Buckler’s offer to refund me $1850, half of my loss for the stolen Zach Rice cards I purchased from Chris.

True to his word Chris mailed me a check for $1850 and it has cleared my bank.

With this payment my dispute with Chris over reimbursement for the stolen Zach Rice T209s and T210s is settled.

My hope is that Zach will recover other cards that his brother stole and sold from his collection.

Thank you for the kind words of support many of you offered.

Regards,
Mike

[Piratedogcardshows]

im glad you were able to come to a resolution on this matter Mike. I hope Zach gets all of his cards back as well and that we hear from him one day about the final outcome.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by glynparson

My brother many years ago went through a period of heavy drug abuse and did something similar. I did not go after anyone but him, I never had to get the police involved my dad and grandfather forced him to make it good. I made him pay me back replacement value,which he did after a period of time. He had an inheritance coming so it made things a little easier.

Good for you, Glyn. You and your family did the RIGHT thing.

jeff

[Kevin Savage]

After reading most of this thread- I am glad Mike and Chris were able to work something out. I consider both friends- and know neither want to handle stolen property or profit from it.

In my opinion they both are trying to do the right thing- and that is admirable.

I am always doing my best to make sure when we buy cards and buy collections- that we are buying from the rightful owner. This is a great reminder of the mess that can take place if we make the wrong purchase- no matter how removed you are from the theft and that first sale.

In the end the collectors' brother is the thief here- and in my opinion- that is where 100% of the blame should rest. He knew the cards were not his. Mike and Chris bought them in good faith. From what I know of the case- they both have gone above and beyond the moral duty in this one.