PWCC Altered Cards Callout Thread - 1952 Topps Mantle etc

[rats60]

Beckett doesn't know how to tell if a card is trimmed. I had a card I pulled from a pack that came back minsize from PSA. I explained to Beckett the history of the card and they told me that they would grade it. Then they stole my grading fee and claimed the card was trimmed. I wouldn't ever trust Beckett to grade any card, they are clueless.

[HarryLime]

I think Lichtman realized that, in a legal courtroom, the burden of proof wasn't going to be achieved with scans pulled down from a message board. Scans can be altered or made to look any way someone wants them to (oh, the irony, I know). Scans or digital images were never going to take these guys down. The burden of proof would only be achieved by having "expert" testimony and having the card in-hand.

So what do you do?

You buy back all the evidence. And that's what they've been doing for almost a year. Then you make the "experts" realize that they're in this as much as your client is and none of them are going to testify against themselves or each other. That eliminates all "expert testimony."

Game. Set. Match. (in the legal courtroom)

Obviously, in the court of public opinion, it's all still going to be out there. We'll still be able to post and talk about trimmed cards because they're probably only going to get lucky enough to find one boob who would actually follow through on legal action. This guy, in an attempt to unsully his pretty card's name, is now making his card and his card alone infamous.

Everyone is going to know his LeBron. Congrats, you shut down a thread that already went viral. Instead of letting it die quietly in the night you yanked it out and threw it in the forefront of the entire hobby to see. Everybody is going to hear about this one LeBron Exquisite and how it "definitely isn't trimmed."

Brilliant move. You certainly helped PWCC, Beckett, and PSA though. I'm sure Beckett will toss you some free sub vouchers or something.

Arthur

[WhiteSoxJosh]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

I think Lichtman realized that, in a legal courtroom, the burden of proof wasn't going to be achieved with scans pulled down from a message board. Scans can be altered or made to look any way someone wants them to (oh, the irony, I know). Scans or digital images were never going to take these guys down. The burden of proof would only be achieved by having "expert" testimony and having the card in-hand.

So what do you do?

You buy back all the evidence. And that's what they've been doing for almost a year. Then you make the "experts" realize that they're in this as much as your client is and none of them are going to testify against themselves or each other. That eliminates all "expert testimony."

Game. Set. Match. (in the legal courtroom)

Obviously, in the court of public opinion, it's all still going to be out there. We'll still be able to post and talk about trimmed cards because they're probably only going to get lucky enough to find one boob who would actually follow through on legal action. This guy, in an attempt to unsully his pretty card's name, is now making his card and his card alone infamous.

Everyone is going to know his LeBron. Congrats, you shut down a thread that already went viral. Instead of letting it die quietly in the night you yanked it out and threw it in the forefront of the entire hobby to see. Everybody is going to hear about this one LeBron Exquisite and how it "definitely isn't trimmed."

Brilliant move. You certainly helped PWCC, Beckett, and PSA though. I'm sure Beckett will toss you some free sub vouchers or something.

Arthur

With respect to experts in court, that is governed by the federal rules of evidence, specifically Rule 702. Also, if the methods used by the expert are not widely accepted, the court can hold something called a Daubert hearing. In the notes to the rules, the criteria is set out like this:

"The rule is broadly phrased. The fields of knowledge which may be drawn upon are not limited merely to the “scientific” and “technical” but extend to all “specialized” knowledge. Similarly, the expert is viewed, not in a narrow sense, but as a person qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” Thus within the scope of the rule are not only experts in the strictest sense of the word, e.g., physicians, physicists, and architects, but also the large group sometimes called “skilled” witnesses, such as bankers or landowners testifying to land values."


I would be interested if there is a criminal trial, and the government tries to bring in a card "expert." There would most definitely be a hearing regarding that expert's qualifications, and if the methods used are widely accepted. Eventually, I think it would come down to competing opinions as the defense would surely proffer an expert as well.
I think an expert alone would not carry the day. Coupled with Brent's texts, message board posts, and probably cooperating testimony, you could infer circumstantially that Brent knew or should have known the card was trimmed, and he knowingly sold the card and made a false statement to induce people to buy the card.

He's just a scum bag.

[HarryLime]

Originally Posted by WhiteSoxJosh

With respect to experts in court, that is governed by the federal rules of evidence, specifically Rule 702. Also, if the methods used by the expert are not widely accepted, the court can hold something called a Daubert hearing. In the notes to the rules, the criteria is set out like this:

"The rule is broadly phrased. The fields of knowledge which may be drawn upon are not limited merely to the “scientific” and “technical” but extend to all “specialized” knowledge. Similarly, the expert is viewed, not in a narrow sense, but as a person qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.” Thus within the scope of the rule are not only experts in the strictest sense of the word, e.g., physicians, physicists, and architects, but also the large group sometimes called “skilled” witnesses, such as bankers or landowners testifying to land values."


I would be interested if there is a criminal trial, and the government tries to bring in a card "expert." There would most definitely be a hearing regarding that expert's qualifications, and if the methods used are widely accepted. Eventually, I think it would come down to competing opinions as the defense would surely proffer an expert as well.
I think an expert alone would not carry the day. Coupled with Brent's texts, message board posts, and probably cooperating testimony, you could infer circumstantially that Brent knew or should have known the card was trimmed, and he knowingly sold the card and made a false statement to induce people to buy the card.

He's just a scum bag.

I'm just trying to connect the dots. I keep hearing about how he isn't concerned and how nothing is going to come from the investigation. I imagine he wouldn't feel this way unless his counsel allowed him to feel this way, which means they're pretty darn confident the other side doesn't have it.

Arthur

[auburn35]

It's a really interesting move to associate a potential loss of value to public opinions shared in message board posts, of which several were publicly available (posts from 2006), prior to any recent transactions.

You would think the focus would be on the grading company that has apparently offered two drastically different "professional opinions" on a specific card, not the public opinion, with no conflicted interests in the matter.

[This is]

Do libel and slander laws apply to baseball cards??

[qdoggmets]

Originally Posted by Beantownhero

Interesting, and he now represents them.

He proved himself a scumbag long ago. He somehow represented 2 high level crime figures, had an affair with one of their wives and is still alive. Imagine that?

I will add to that. He didn't get Gotti off. Gotti got Gotti off. Lichtman was just the guy that took the credit.

[rcmb3220]

Originally Posted by This is

Do libel and slander laws apply to baseball cards??

In this case, I’ve been told the card is the aggrieved party and has standing in court.

[pip]

Originally Posted by qdoggmets

He proved himself a scumbag long ago. He somehow represented 2 high level crime figures, had an affair with one of their wives and is still alive. Imagine that?

I will add to that. He didn't get Gotti off. Gotti got Gotti off. Lichtman was just the guy that took the credit.

Really ignorant post. Everything you've written in this post is incorrect.

[dustin42]

Originally Posted by pip

Really ignorant post. Everything you've written in this post is incorrect.

He is alive...

[MoreToppsPlease]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

I think Lichtman realized that, in a legal courtroom, the burden of proof wasn't going to be achieved with scans pulled down from a message board. Scans can be altered or made to look any way someone wants them to (oh, the irony, I know). Scans or digital images were never going to take these guys down. The burden of proof would only be achieved by having "expert" testimony and having the card in-hand.

So what do you do?

You buy back all the evidence. And that's what they've been doing for almost a year. Then you make the "experts" realize that they're in this as much as your client is and none of them are going to testify against themselves or each other. That eliminates all "expert testimony."

Game. Set. Match. (in the legal courtroom)

Obviously, in the court of public opinion, it's all still going to be out there. We'll still be able to post and talk about trimmed cards because they're probably only going to get lucky enough to find one boob who would actually follow through on legal action. This guy, in an attempt to unsully his pretty card's name, is now making his card and his card alone infamous.

Everyone is going to know his LeBron. Congrats, you shut down a thread that already went viral. Instead of letting it die quietly in the night you yanked it out and threw it in the forefront of the entire hobby to see. Everybody is going to hear about this one LeBron Exquisite and how it "definitely isn't trimmed."

Brilliant move. You certainly helped PWCC, Beckett, and PSA though. I'm sure Beckett will toss you some free sub vouchers or something.

Arthur

No, the more "famous" examples of altered cards out there, the worse - or actually more silly - grading appears.

Remember these "experts" are only rendering their opinions. But in many, many of the fraudulent examples uncovered by BODA, the proof is beyond circumstantial when compared to legitimate examples (count the number of dots, etc).

[HarryLime]

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

No, the more "famous" examples of altered cards out there, the worse - or actually more silly - grading appears.

Remember these "experts" are only rendering their opinions. But in many, many of the fraudulent examples uncovered by BODA, the proof is beyond circumstantial when compared to legitimate examples (count the number of dots, etc).

My point is, we're looking at a digital image of the "count the number of dots." I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying it could be a route they're taking?

In a courtroom wouldn't they be able to present grotesquely altered images of cards in order to say "See? I can show you pictures that look like anything. All we have is the actual physical card and the expert's opinion."

Arthur

[qdoggmets]

Originally Posted by pip

Really ignorant post. Everything you've written in this post is incorrect.

[salthill]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

The statements from BGS, PWCC, and BO all look to be legally crafted. PWCC lays the groundwork that there was an interested buyer at $600-$700k prior to the posting. That interested buyer is now only willing to offer $350k on the card solely because of the post. Hence, $250-$350k in damages. I would wager that the past offer is well documented. So unless someone steps up and offers more for the card, the damages are what they are.

Good luck getting that to hold up. That potential buyer has an inherent conflict of interest when speaking about the potential current value of the card

[pip]

Originally Posted by qdoggmets

Instead of posting a stupid emoti, why don't you do 10 to 15 minutes of research and correct your erroneous statements? I'm not a fan of Lichtman but by defaming him like that you accomplish nothing.

[KB81]

This is all very interesting - wow.

Times are a changing indeed.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by salthill

Good luck getting that to hold up. That potential buyer has an inherent conflict of interest when speaking about the potential current value of the card

Which is why I said what I said three sentences later. Maybe there’s a $500k offer out there. If there is, the damages = original offer - new offer. Maybe there’s someone willing to pay $1M. Then there are no damages anymore, and we can all move on.

[This is]

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Which is why I said what I said three sentences later. Maybe there’s a $500k offer out there. If there is, the damages = original offer - new offer. Maybe there’s someone willing to pay $1M. Then there are no damages anymore, and we can all move on.

Do you think there are damages? This is not a personal criticism of you but you were one of the few who claimed the card was not trimmed after seeing the evidence. Do you still feel that way?

[Onepocketj]

Originally Posted by This is

Do you think there are damages? This is not a personal criticism of you but you were one of the few who claimed the card was not trimmed after seeing the evidence. Do you still feel that way?

We should probably stop talking about that card so this thread doesn't get locked too. They said don't talk about that card, still ok to talk about scumbags like Brent.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by This is

Do you think there are damages? This is not a personal criticism of you but you were one of the few who claimed the card was not trimmed after seeing the evidence. Do you still feel that way?

I don’t know how a court of law would view this case if it went that far. Could there be damages? Absolutely.

Personally, I think the circumstantial evidence of the decade old posts referring to what could be this card is stronger than the visual evidence using an old blurred jpeg. And I feel like that circumstantial evidence would hold weight in court.

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

We should probably stop talking about that card so this thread doesn't get locked too. They said don't talk about that card, still ok to talk about scumbags like Brent.

Shouldn’t have bumped the thread.

[signed79]

Originally Posted by HarryLime

I think Lichtman realized that, in a legal courtroom, the burden of proof wasn't going to be achieved with scans pulled down from a message board. Scans can be altered or made to look any way someone wants them to (oh, the irony, I know). Scans or digital images were never going to take these guys down. The burden of proof would only be achieved by having "expert" testimony and having the card in-hand.

So what do you do?

You buy back all the evidence. And that's what they've been doing for almost a year. Then you make the "experts" realize that they're in this as much as your client is and none of them are going to testify against themselves or each other. That eliminates all "expert testimony."

Game. Set. Match. (in the legal courtroom)

Obviously, in the court of public opinion, it's all still going to be out there. We'll still be able to post and talk about trimmed cards because they're probably only going to get lucky enough to find one boob who would actually follow through on legal action. This guy, in an attempt to unsully his pretty card's name, is now making his card and his card alone infamous.

Everyone is going to know his LeBron. Congrats, you shut down a thread that already went viral. Instead of letting it die quietly in the night you yanked it out and threw it in the forefront of the entire hobby to see. Everybody is going to hear about this one LeBron Exquisite and how it "definitely isn't trimmed."

Brilliant move. You certainly helped PWCC, Beckett, and PSA though. I'm sure Beckett will toss you some free sub vouchers or something.

Arthur

Spot on.

[signed79]

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

We should probably stop talking about that card so this thread doesn't get locked too. They said don't talk about that card, still ok to talk about scumbags like Brent.

The scumbags with alts will talk about it so they can get it all locked up.

[ThoseBackPages]

Originally Posted by signed79

The scumbags with alts will talk about it so they can get it all locked up.

how rich

[KhalDrogo]

Originally Posted by signed79

The scumbags with alts will talk about it so they can get it all locked up.