Alteration vs. Conservation Defined

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?

Are they in TPG holders? But besides that I don't associate with people who I think are doing bad things in the hobby. So, I guess that answer would be no. But even with a No answer, how hard is it for scammer to give the graded cards to another person to consign for them?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Maybe because I spoke with him about it? Not really rocket science. How many times have you spoken with him?

The same number of times I’ve spoken to Bill Mastro.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Are they in TPG holders? But besides that I don't associate with people who I think are doing bad things in the hobby.

So if he does associate with them, is that a bad thing?

And please don't play the hiding behind the TPG card, given your knowledge of how many altered cards are in TPG holders.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

The same number of times I’ve spoken to Bill Mastro.

I agree that you are ignorant.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?

What would banning a card doctor from consigning solve? They would just consign under a different name or have a friend or relative send the cards in.

As for this alteration vs conservation discussion I don't think the distinction is necessary from a seller or auction house. I'd be more interested to hear what PSA or SGC think.

[DJR]

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree that you are ignorant.

How old are you? T

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your thoughts on accepting consignments from card doctors? Good thing or bad thing?

Your thoughts on a defense attorney defending a client they know are guilty? Good thing or bad thing?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by DJR

How old are you? T

F you.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree that you are ignorant.

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1290614

https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1292005

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by calvindog

How do you know what Brent is thinking? Or what he is doing knowingly? From what he tells you?

Just his opinion, and he has his full name in the post!


When new $ enters a hobby, and they get fleeced, usually they never come back.
Kind of silly when a simple search, on Pwccs on site, shows multiples of the same card relisted doctored or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Your thoughts on a defense attorney defending a client they know are guilty? Good thing or bad thing?

1. I have no idea how that is relevant here.
2. Our society made a judgment centuries ago that all criminal defendants no matter how evil have the right to the effective assistance of counsel before they can be convicted. So I would say that ensuring that a defendant is afforded his or her constitutional rights is a good thing.

[DJR]

Originally Posted by Leon

F you.

Infraction

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

What would banning a card doctor from consigning solve? They would just consign under a different name or have a friend or relative send the cards in.

As for this alteration vs conservation discussion I don't think the distinction is necessary from a seller or auction house. I'd be more interested to hear what PSA or SGC think.

So if someone offers me money to do something unlawful or unethical should I take it on the theory that refusing won't do any good because they'll eventually find someone else who will? I really don't follow the argument.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by DJR

Infraction

Duly noted.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MetsBaseball1973

What is your policy on knowingly and publicly advertising record breaking sales where the transaction did not complete?

Michael -- can you elaborate on whether you think this has happened as clearly no response is going to be forthcoming?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have no idea how that is relevant here.

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

Perhaps Brent will redefine the constitution.

[CuriousGeorge]

Assuming all of this about Brent is true, isn’t he knowingly conspiring with the card doctors/submitters of altered cards whereas a criminal defense attorney is in no way involved with the crime? Isn’t there a clear distinction here?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David if you go any further out on that limb either it's going to break or you're going to fall. That is a tortured analogy. A criminal defense lawyer has a vital constitutional role. Brent does not.

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)?

Which leads me back to my original question. Why is it ok for a defense attorney to represent someone they know is guilty because that's "their job," but it's not ok for Brent to do his job? And don't give me an answer from some legal point of view. What is morally right, Peter? Isn't the truth that in either case, it's really just about the money?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)?

Actually yeah, criminal cases assigned by judges to defense counsel can't be turned down or else you could lose your license. You may want to brush up on the Sixth Amendment. And I'm not sure there is a defense attorney in the history of this country who ignores their oath and only represents people he or she believes is innocent. Perhaps on Mars it's different, David?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So a defense attorney doesn't have a right to refuse a case (if they know their client is guilty)?

Which leads me back to my original question. Why is it ok for a defense attorney to represent someone they know is guilty because that's "their job," but it's not ok for Brent to do his job? And don't give me an answer from some legal point of view. What is morally right, Peter? Isn't the truth that in either case, it's really just about the money?

I see nothing morally wrong with representing a guilty person who is entitled under our system of government to representation. If lawyers shunned guilty or notorious clients, that system would fall apart.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Actually yeah, criminal cases assigned by judges to defense counsel can't be turned down or else you could lose your license. You may want to brush up on the Sixth Amendment. And I'm not sure there is a defense attorney in the history of this country who ignores their oath and only represents people he or she believes is innocent. Perhaps on Mars it's different, David?

Let's clarify. Your statement is only true to cases where the judge has assigned legal counsel to the defendant. I'm talking about a case where the defendant attempts to hire a private attorney. In that case, the attorney can turn down the case for any reason at all. I didn't read the 6th Amendment, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

So if a client came to you to represent them and wanted to pay your fees out of their own pocket and you knew they were guilty, would you take the case?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Let's clarify. Your statement is only true to cases where the judge has assigned legal counsel to the defendant. I'm talking about a case where the defendant attempts to hire a private attorney. In that case, the attorney can turn down the case for any reason at all. I didn't read the 6th Amendment, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

So if a client came to you to represent them and wanted to pay your fees out of their own pocket and you knew they were guilty, would you take the case?

David, this thread is about PWCC and their definitions of conservation and alteration. Call me in the office if you'd like to have this very quick discussion.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I see nothing morally wrong with representing a guilty person who is entitled under our system of government to representation.

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

[CuriousGeorge]

Unless he was physically there how could he 100% know? Because the media or prosecutor says the client is guilty? On the other hand a mere look at the cards in question show something nefarious going on and what is Brent doing to stop it?

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

brent certainly appears to be doing a lot more than that!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

Unless he was physically there how could he 100% know? Because the media or prosecutor says the client is guilty? On the other hand a mere look at the cards in question show something nefarious going on and what is Brent doing to stop it?

Maybe I should have clarified. My example assumed an admission of guilt by the defendant to the attorney - attorney/client confidentiality.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

Your analogy is utterly tortured. Imagine if seller X (let's make it hypothetical) is accused of conspiring with card doctor Y to commit fraud. Suppose, for the sake of the hypothetical, there was strong evidence X knew Y had altered the consigned cards. Again, hypothetical. Can you imagine X defending on the ground that he was only doing his job? LOL. Now walk back off that limb.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

brent certainly appears to be doing a lot more than that!

All of my comments are based on the assumption that Brent is in no way involved in any doctoring. If he is, then shame on him and my opinion quickly changes.

I still have yet to see anybody address PSA's involvement in the card doctoring.

[dariushou]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks, Peter. That's all I wanted to hear. In that event, you're just doing what you were paid to do. I don't have a problem with that. But I do find it a little hypocritical when Brent is doing what people have paid him to do, yet people are criticizing it.

In either case (lawyer or Brent), that's their job. They're getting paid to perform a service that they have offered.

I don't like getting a speeding ticket, but that's the cops job.
I don't like getting my car towed when it's illegally parked, but that's the tow truck driver's job.
I could go on, but people either get it or they don't.

seriously?

Are you really trying to equate Brent/ PWCC selling a known doctored card to unknowing collectors to an attorney representing someone he thinks is guilty of a crime. I'm pretty sure in this example, PWCC could be prosecuted for Fraud.

The difference here is one is criminal behavior and the other is to protect citizens from a tyrant. I can't believe i'm even responding to this post, but it was to off the wall not to. You sound like PWCC's publicist.

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty...and it is embedded into our constitution.

A Guide to the Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment, or Amendment VI of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that guarantees a citizen a speedy trial, a fair jury, an attorney if the accused person wants one, and the chance to confront the witnesses who is accusing the defendant of a crime, meaning he or she can see who is making accusations. The Sixth Amendment was introduced as a part of the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution on September 5, 1789 and was voted for by 9 out of 12 states on December 15, 1791.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by dariushou

seriously?

Are you really trying to equate Brent/ PWCC selling a known doctored card to unknowing collectors to an attorney representing someone he thinks is guilty of a crime. I'm pretty sure in this example, PWCC could be prosecuted for Fraud.

The difference here is one is criminal behavior and the other is to protect citizens from a tyrant. I can't believe i'm even responding to this post, but it was to off the wall not to. You sound like PWCC's publicist.

In America, you are innocent until proven guilty...and it is embedded into our constitution.

A Guide to the Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment, or Amendment VI of the United States Constitution is the section of the Bill of Rights that guarantees a citizen a speedy trial, a fair jury, an attorney if the accused person wants one, and the chance to confront the witnesses who is accusing the defendant of a crime, meaning he or she can see who is making accusations. The Sixth Amendment was introduced as a part of the Bill of Rights into the United States Constitution on September 5, 1789 and was voted for by 9 out of 12 states on December 15, 1791.

You really need to re-read what you wrote, especially the part I bolded.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You really need to re-read what you wrote, especially the part I bolded.

The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government in a criminal proceeding, even if the source of that rule is not constitutional. I think Darius' overall point stands.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is on the government in a criminal proceeding, even if the source of that rule is not constitutional. I think Darius' overall point stands.

So what is it exactly that you're claiming Brent is guilty of? I don't see it unless I really overlooked it. Help me see it through your lenses.

[Peter_Spaeth]

For purposes of this thread, hubris in attempting to change well-accepted hobby definitions of altered cards.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For purposes of this thread, hubris in attempting to change well-accepted hobby definitions of altered cards.

I didn't find that in the United States Code, Peter.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I didn't find that in the United States Code, Peter.

The Book of Proverbs. Pride goeth before a fall.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The Book of Proverbs. Pride goeth before a fall.

Yes but if Samson cut his hair only halfway would he still have had the strength to kill 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass?

Edited to add the emoji

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Yes but if Samson cut his hair only halfway would he still have had the strength to kill 1000 Philistines with the jawbone of an ass?

Edited to add the emoji

Depends on the jawbone.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Depends on the jawbone.

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

For purposes of this thread, hubris in attempting to change well-accepted hobby definitions of altered cards.

No, Peter. I'm asking what are you accusing him of? Are you accusing him of any illegal activity? For that matter, if anybody else is too, then let's quit dancing around and post the accusations.

As far as your response, so what? If he's selling the cards and you know his definitions/standards what's the problem? If he wants to say, "this is a Near Mint card with rounded corners and heavy creases that appears to be trimmed," what does it matter as long as you know what you're buying?

And this really isn't about well-accepted hobby definitions. That's total crap and you know it! Just look at the very first reply in this thread. It had nothing to do with well-accepted hobby definitions, but instead asked about "advertising record breaking sales." It's a witch hunt period!

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Then allow me to explain. A defense attorney's job is to represent their client no matter if they know their client is guilty or not. That's their job! Brent's job is to act as a broker to sell cards on consignment on behalf of others. So why do people rake Brent over the coals for doing his job?

You might argue that Brent should disclose any known work done on a card (and I would certainly agree). But if a defense attorney knows his client is guilty, does he disclose that in court?

I think it was a very relevant question.

Or should we all do as I say, not do as I do?

Holy crap. I don't normally go in for name calling, but I will call this POST idiotic. You see no difference between your constitutional rights and shady business practices? I haven't continued reading as this stopped me in my tracks, so I imagine a bunch of other people have called you out on this, but HOLY CRAP.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David have you read the various threads on Blowout?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David have you read the various threads on Blowout?

Peter, I am extremely proud to say that I have never visited that site.

But answer my question please. What are you accusing him of?

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's a very contentious site David, you might fit in well.

But for context as to why these issues are coming into focus now, you should read it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, I am extremely proud to say that I have never visited that site.

But answer my question please. What are you accusing him of?

That's not really anything to be proud of...take 30 minutes and read the threads that jeff linked...then come back here.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

David, Let's put it this way.

I am an auctioneer.

I will never accept a consignment from any source that has a reputation for altering cards. I will never sell an altered card without noting the alteration (sometimes a card still has value even in it's altered state) I have even noted soaking, which many people have no issue with. I will never do anything to artificially inflate the value of any of my own cards that I may happen to be auctioning (ask my Parsippany auction-goers how many bargains they got out of my personal inventory while I tried to get that sale off the ground) I will never alter a card myself or have someone alter a card on my behalf.

The constitution does not guarantee the card doctor a right to sell his cards.

I am not violating anyone's rights by having these tenets.

I am also not accusing anyone else of violating them, but if I have suspicions it would certainly give me pause before transacting business with that party. If it doesn't give you pause that's fine, but to equate your RIGHT to an attorney with a card doctor somehow having a RIGHT to sell his wares is misguided at best.

[conor912]

At the end of the day, we all have different moral compasses....some are just more wonky than others. Glad to know that some people think that just because something is my "job" means I can justify it, no matter how unethical it is. Jeez.

Here's a card for those tired of looking at words.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What if it's the jawbone's job to smite the Philistines? Does that make Brent guilty?

I'll wait.

Well, Brent presumably has a jawbone, so there you go.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, Brent presumably has a jawbone, so there you go.

Yes but I am proudly bolding this part of my response. Therefore the jawbone has a job it must do.