As another practicing forum lawyer, I tend to agree with FrattLaw. The First Amendment protects against infringement of speech by GOVERNMENT, not eBay. In fact, "free speech," as it relates to government interference with business/commercial speech, is rather limited.
But, more to the point- there is NOTHING illegal about selling AT coins. Bad for the hobby- YES. Illegal- NO. Was there fraud? Maybe, but the fraud is perpetrated on the BUYER, not a third party, well-meaning interloper. Maybe, this AT'er won't sue you but I agree that he could. The best claim is tortious interference with business or prospective relations. All the seller has to show is that he woulda, coulda sold something and you screwed it up. Whether the coin is bad is irrelevant. Frattlaw is right here. It's no defense to say "well the coin is bad." Well, it's obviously AT. The seller isn't hiding what he's selling. There's a picture of it. But, all of that is not even relevant. He had a deal made or maybe made and you squelched it. Sorry, but Frattlaw's legal summary is true.
<< <i>As another practicing forum lawyer, I tend to agree with FrattLaw. The First Amendment protects against infringement of speech by GOVERNMENT, not eBay. In fact, "free speech," as it relates to government interference with business/commercial speech, is rather limited.
But, more to the point- there is NOTHING illegal about selling AT coins. Bad for the hobby- YES. Illegal- NO. Was there fraud? Maybe, but the fraud is perpetrated on the BUYER, not a third party, well-meaning interloper. Maybe, this AT'er won't sue you but I agree that he could. The best claim is tortious interference with business or prospective relations. All the seller has to show is that he woulda, coulda sold something and you screwed it up. Whether the coin is bad is irrelevant. Frattlaw is right here. It's no defense to say "well the coin is bad." Well, it's obviously AT. The seller isn't hiding what he's selling. There's a picture of it. But, all of that is not even relevant. He had a deal made or maybe made and you squelched it. Sorry, but Frattlaw's legal summary is true. >>
Jamesfsm- Given all of what you said is true, and that is in complete agreement with what I have been told, then what kind of liability does howardw007@aol.com, Dragon, have for contacting (by his own admission) all of ASwimmer's bidders and telling them to retract their bids?
With this topic (AT and Swimmer's involvement in it) being subject of close to half a dozen different threads now it is understandably difficult to keep up with the most recent postings. And while I'm sure Frattlaw can well speak for himself, it should be noted that his comments on this particular thread were in the first instance made before the apparently illegal conduct of Mr. Swimmer was exposed for what it was. More recently Frattlaw posted on page 3 of the "Yet another AT Doctor, this one more blatant thread" the statement, "Now of course we all know about the "grandfather" story and the other coins he bought, the chemicals, the alteration of pics etc. which tends to make Swimmer appear very fraudulent. Those practices in light of his 'full disclosure' statement on his ad does push the envelope of acceptable business practices under the Business and Professional Code here in California, he may also have problems with statutes dealing with false advertising and misrepresenation."
It would appear that contacting someone's bidders on an ebay auction may well rise to a civil tort in some jurisdictions IF in fact it is proven that the intent was to interfere with someone's business relations (as opposed to the intent having been to protect an innocent bidder from fraud and deceit), but that is far and apart from the crimes that may have been committed by aswimmer or others as set forth in the criminal statutes. In addition there are issues of mail fraud that arise from use of the U.S. mails that are under federal jurisdiction and subject of investigation by the U.S. Attorneys Office and the postal authorities.
In even another thread Frattlaw has even discussed looking into a class action suit directed at putting out of business the perpetrators who are intentionally using artificial toning without full disclosure to make unfair financial gain at the expense of their victims. His firm is well respected in the legal community for having the capability to follow through on complicated class action suits so it appears we have yet to hear "the rest of the story."
Comments
But, more to the point- there is NOTHING illegal about selling AT coins. Bad for the hobby- YES. Illegal- NO. Was there fraud? Maybe, but the fraud is perpetrated on the BUYER, not a third party, well-meaning interloper. Maybe, this AT'er won't sue you but I agree that he could. The best claim is tortious interference with business or prospective relations. All the seller has to show is that he woulda, coulda sold something and you screwed it up. Whether the coin is bad is irrelevant. Frattlaw is right here. It's no defense to say "well the coin is bad." Well, it's obviously AT. The seller isn't hiding what he's selling. There's a picture of it. But, all of that is not even relevant. He had a deal made or maybe made and you squelched it. Sorry, but Frattlaw's legal summary is true.
<< <i>As another practicing forum lawyer, I tend to agree with FrattLaw. The First Amendment protects against infringement of speech by GOVERNMENT, not eBay. In fact, "free speech," as it relates to government interference with business/commercial speech, is rather limited.
But, more to the point- there is NOTHING illegal about selling AT coins. Bad for the hobby- YES. Illegal- NO. Was there fraud? Maybe, but the fraud is perpetrated on the BUYER, not a third party, well-meaning interloper. Maybe, this AT'er won't sue you but I agree that he could. The best claim is tortious interference with business or prospective relations. All the seller has to show is that he woulda, coulda sold something and you screwed it up. Whether the coin is bad is irrelevant. Frattlaw is right here. It's no defense to say "well the coin is bad." Well, it's obviously AT. The seller isn't hiding what he's selling. There's a picture of it. But, all of that is not even relevant. He had a deal made or maybe made and you squelched it. Sorry, but Frattlaw's legal summary is true. >>
Jamesfsm- Given all of what you said is true, and that is in complete agreement with what I have been told, then what kind of liability does howardw007@aol.com, Dragon, have for contacting (by his own admission) all of ASwimmer's bidders and telling them to retract their bids?
It would appear that contacting someone's bidders on an ebay auction may well rise to a civil tort in some jurisdictions IF in fact it is proven that the intent was to interfere with someone's business relations (as opposed to the intent having been to protect an innocent bidder from fraud and deceit), but that is far and apart from the crimes that may have been committed by aswimmer or others as set forth in the criminal statutes. In addition there are issues of mail fraud that arise from use of the U.S. mails that are under federal jurisdiction and subject of investigation by the U.S. Attorneys Office and the postal authorities.
In even another thread Frattlaw has even discussed looking into a class action suit directed at putting out of business the perpetrators who are intentionally using artificial toning without full disclosure to make unfair financial gain at the expense of their victims. His firm is well respected in the legal community for having the capability to follow through on complicated class action suits so it appears we have yet to hear "the rest of the story."