After reading over the complaint, is sounds like MichaelDixon knows what he is talking about.
Some of Alan's list of complaints sound like he might have a legitimate complaint and some of these people could be in big trouble.
Now several of his lists of compaints are laughable. For example, the complaint "ACG does in fact overgrade coins and certify counterfeit coins". Don't we have evidence that these are in fact true statements? (Alan has admited that he grades on a different standard that most of use, and the first half of the statement obviously ment "overgrades coins relative to how the rest of us grade coins", and the ANA hearing regarding the counterfeit dime seems to support the second half.
Other complaints, I don't understand what type of legal leg Alan has to stand on, such as the part about "ACG is accucrap". For one, what does that mean (it's not really a word) and second, again this is a way of saying that ACG grades are "crap" because (as Alan admits) he grades on a different curve than the rest of us.
But then there's the part about "blatant crook". We might all believe this to be fact, but such an explicit and direct statement could be very hard to back-up. The same could be said for "knowingly grades counterfeit coins and fakes". Again, we might all believe this to be fact, but I would think is would be very difficult to show proof that "Alan knowingly grades fakes" (sure, we know he grades fakes, but how can you prove that he knowingly grades fakes).
lava, Take off your blinders and read my post with an open mind. I helped prosecute a very large Ponzi scheme, You, being a trained professional, no doubt have the intellectual ability to read some of the posts that have been made and know a lawsuit was just a matter of time. My posts aren't meant to be inflammatory to anybody, just a little common sense advice: "Think before you make slanderous statements." You and I both know many of the posts made were not made in a way to educate the coin buying public, rather just rude, crude, slanderous remarks. . The damage claims are based on the comments that ACG knowlingly helped deceive the coin-buying public. Did you want to take issue with that Mr. Dixon? I have no desire to, nor will I, debate you or anybody else, as my comments aren't based on anything but how people need to watch what they say and do. The bottom line is: "You are responsible for your actions." . If you look at some of the posts I made several years ago when members were bashing grading services, I suggested they go out to a coin club or coin show and educate the coin buying public. The reason being they were "preaching to the choir" by hammering away on the boards, as the majority of people on the boards know which grading services are market acceptable and which are not. Unfortunately, I deleted e-mails I received calling me a Nazi, how I kissed so and so's @$$, etc for not jumping on the bandwagon. Lava, Guess what? My name isn't on the lawsuit! I feel sorry for the people who actually were trying to educate the public, but those who blatantly make those rude, crude, slanderous remarks DO NOT have my sympathy.
Thanksgiving National Battlefield Coin Show is November 29-30, 2024 at the Eisenhower Allstar Sportsplex, Gettysburg, PA. Tables are available. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
<< <i>Again, we might all believe this to be fact, but I would think is would be very difficult to show proof that "Alan knowingly grades fakes" (sure, we know he grades fakes, but how can you prove that he knowingly grades fakes). >>
If he claims to be an expert grader, he should know
My name isn't on the lawsuit! I feel sorry for the people who actually were trying to educate the public, but those who blatantly make those rude, crude, slanderous remarks DO NOT have my sympathy.
But "rude" and "crude" do not equate to legally actionable. For example, using the word "dishonest" may not convey a person's heartfelt opinion that a particular business is "crooked" or run by "crooks" or "thieves." While the language may be base, it still is, or should be, protected expression.
ACG is not the final arbiter of what is acceptable speech. If ACG doesn't like it, it simply is too bad -- that's the give-and-take of living in a free country.
Finally, our courts do not exist to protect so-called businesses like ACG from the rough-and-tumble of public discourse. Courts of law are not meant to hide illegal activity, but to unearth and punish it. In this litigation I hope ACG's business practices are exposed to the powerful antisceptic of sunlight, and this blight is wiped from our hobby once and for all.
Obviously, I can not discuss the case. However, I have a problem with your use of this term:
<< <i>My posts aren't meant to be inflammatory to anybody, just a little common sense advice: "Think before you make slanderous statements." You and I both know many of the posts made were not made in a way to educate the coin buying public, rather just rude, crude, slanderous remarks. >>
Michael, I would strongly suggest you find a legal dictionary and look up the term slanderous. First, the written word is not slander, it would be libel. Second, a libelous or slanderous statement is one that is not true, and uttered with that knowledge.
Thank God not everyone is like you. Then none of the very shady things that go on in numismatics would ever see the light of day for fear of being sued.
First, let me say how sorry I am that you've been included in this lawsuit. I've got a lot of respect for you and all that you've done to shine the light of truth on ACG.
Of course that is the exactly why you've been included. Your actions (posts, web site, etc) have hurt ACG and Alan and Diane, and put you in their cross hairs.
However, I believe that persons, such as your self, have nothing to fear (at least in the way of ever losing a judgement against ACG) because from what I've seen, you've limited your self to facts.
But I also believe that Michael is right and perhaps some of the people on the list of defendants deserve to be there and perhaps deserve to have a judgement rendered againts them.
Now I have no direct evidence that any particular person deserves to be on that list, but based on the list of alligations, my instincts tell me someone does...
For example, Alan has made the claim that someone has called him a "blatant crook". I assume that he has direct evidence (such as a copy of an internet post) if he is making such a blatant claim. I am interpreting what Michael is saying to mean that someone made the foolish mistake of making a post saying "Alan is a blatant crook" rather than making a post saying "from all the stuff I've read about Alan, he seems to be nothing but a blatant crook". Given that Alan is still in business, I doubt anyone has any direct evidenct to support the first statement. However, there is plenty of information on the net to support the summary opinoin of the second statement. I think Michael is just trying to point out that people shouldn't be making statements like the first (without direct evidence to back it up) and should only make statements like the second. Of course all this assumes that the 1st statement is libel and the 2nd is a statement of opinion. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear more from a lawyer helping to explain the difference.
As you know, I can't discuss the particulars of the suit.
I will only point out one thing to you, that you are taking those comments to have been in fact made. I could file a lawsuit against you tomorrow and charge in the complaint that you called me a child molester. Does this mean that anyone who sees this hypothetical suit should automatically assume that you did in fact make that statement?
"Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude, and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment. In Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 64 (1964), we held that even when a speaker or writer is motivated by hatred or ill-will his expression was protected by the First Amendment:
'Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth." Id. at 73.'
"Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.
* * *
"'Outrageousness' in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An 'outrageousness' standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 910 (1982) ("Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action"). And, as we stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978):
'[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas." Id., at 745-746.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell (Respondent [sued for libel and distress] arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse.)
In fact, pending the outcome of this "trial", I might write a "based on a true story" screenplay myself. I'm calling Quintin tomorrow!! I wonder if Steve Martin would be willing to play centsles' part? Perhaps Bill Clinton could portray Alan Hager, and Monica in a cameo appearance!! Oh, I see Oscar in my future. Craig
...... and staring Ernest Borgnine as Diane Hagar
My opinion of this whole law suit thing is that ACG is bluffing. They do not have the financial wherewithal to pursue such a monumental legal action. For example, what is going to happen when EACH and EVERY defendant countersues ACG? The legal costs for ACG would be in the six figures, easily. I think that they are hoping for the defendants will want to settle. I assume that the venue will be Florida, so many defendants would rather pay a couple thousand dollars than waste a week in Lake Mary for depositions. If this ever did see a court room, the defense attorneys would thrash ACG on the stand. Remember the law suits that ACG has lost? What about the plethora of expert witnesses on the defense side? Who will ACG call as their expert witness? NumisTrust?
<< <i>They do not have the financial wherewithal to pursue such a monumental legal action. >>
I was wondering about that myself. It also occurs to me that by naming that many defendants as a group - many of whom are certainly not without substantial resources - they have created a very formidable opponent. I believe that if the group remains cohesive, the odds of ACG winning are not very good.
I keep my negative comments to myself. A simple opinion is fine, but even my Diane Hager jokes in referance to looking like Eunice Shriver are a little overboard
The logical thing that ACG (i.e. the Hagars) should have done is to file a libel suit against ONE of the main defendants......not all of them. If they could win one suit, then they would perhaps have a precedence for other law suits against indivuals who made similar libelous remarks on the forum. If they lost, then they would only be out the legal expenses of one case. It's simply a matter of testing the water. Now they have opened the door for numerous legal maneuvers by the defense attorneys. Remember this: each defendant will likely have his/her own attorney. Can you image how many hours the ACG attorney will spend simply communicating with so many different attorneys? Again, this smells like an amateurish bluff by ACG.
The fact that they so foolishly filed suit against so many defendants tells me that either 1) their attorney is located above an adult book store in some seedy strip mall, 2) they are as bad at business as they are at grading, or 3) all of the above.
I will only point out one thing to you, that you are taking those comments to have been in fact made. I could file a lawsuit against you tomorrow and charge in the complaint that you called me a child molester. Does this mean that anyone who sees this hypothetical suit should automatically assume that you did in fact make that statement?
I'm assuming that this is in response to my previous post.
If so, just wanting to point out that I tried to say that I assume that Alan has some evidence that he has been called a "blatant crook" (as well as the rest of his accusations). If not, it would seem that it would be too easy for the case to be thrown out and Alan be counter-sued for making baseless accusations of libel.
After all, it was Judge Whapnor (sp? the original judge in "People's Court") who said words on the show to the effect of "you can sue anyone for anything, its a different matter at to weither there is any legal bases for you winning". For example, I could file a lawsuit against you for being so ugly. I just don't have any chance of winning.
(DISCLAIMER: I have never seen the person that posts to the PCGS message boards under the handle K6AZ in person nor any image nor likeness of said person. Any resemblance of the previous statements matching the facts are purely coincidental.)
<< <i>Who will ACG call as their expert witness? NumisTrust? >>
That could be interesting since the owner of NumisTrust is one of the dealers named in the complaint as someone who stopped doing business with ACG because of the negative comments. Hmmm, did he stop because of negative comments, or could it be he stopped because he started his own grading service? At least one, possibly two of the other dealers named as having stopped dealing with ACG are still submitting, but they are no longer submitting for ACG grading, they are now using ACG's private label service. So ACG is still getting business from them, just through a service that ACG started which provides less income.
As I read the suit, I thought that ACG's accusations sounded in some ways like anti-trust claims: "Defendants entered into an implicit agreement to and each made false and disparaging statements...committed defamation per se and tortious interference with advantageous business relationships..." (p. 5-6). PCGS-connected dealers conspiring to squeeze another grading service out of the market by targeting ACG's "advantageous business relationships"? Sounds like a naked restraint of competition to me.
But that kind of claim would put ACG in a position of going after PCGS, and good luck with that. By targeting individuals for some of the more outrageous accusations, it seems that ACG is trying to put a chill on negative commentary and doesn't realistically expect to win a substantial monetary reward.
Can the lawyers here provide some more legal analysis?
<<"After all, it was Judge Whapnor (sp? the original judge in "People's Court") who said words on the show to the effect of "you can sue anyone for anything, its a different matter at to weither there is any legal bases for you winning". For example, I could file a lawsuit against you for being so ugly. I just don't have any chance of winning. ">>
A fish wife is an old term for a rather coarse, generally older woman who shouts in a horrible voice and hawks her wares on the street in as crude a setting as imaginable.
I do not know the people involved in ACG, have only just read the complaint, and, therefore, it is not my itent by this post to state any opinion of the lawsuit other than to say that, in my opinion as a civil litigator in So. Cal. for the last 30 years, it is what we call "ambitious." I would be pleased and honored to consult with any defendant named (initially for free, as my numismatic pro bono contribution for the year) and to help them get pointed to good counsel in that part of Florida, if they need such help. If any such litigation should surface out West here in the City of Lost Angels where I practice, I would be pleased and honored to be consulted as well or to discuss terms under which I would accept representation; alas, I am not a member of the Florida bar and only of the California bar.
Comments
Some of Alan's list of complaints sound like he might have a legitimate complaint and some of these people could be in big trouble.
Now several of his lists of compaints are laughable. For example, the complaint "ACG does in fact overgrade coins and certify counterfeit coins". Don't we have evidence that these are in fact true statements? (Alan has admited that he grades on a different standard that most of use, and the first half of the statement obviously ment "overgrades coins relative to how the rest of us grade coins", and the ANA hearing regarding the counterfeit dime seems to support the second half.
Other complaints, I don't understand what type of legal leg Alan has to stand on, such as the part about "ACG is accucrap". For one, what does that mean (it's not really a word) and second, again this is a way of saying that ACG grades are "crap" because (as Alan admits) he grades on a different curve than the rest of us.
But then there's the part about "blatant crook". We might all believe this to be fact, but such an explicit and direct statement could be very hard to back-up. The same could be said for "knowingly grades counterfeit coins and fakes". Again, we might all believe this to be fact, but I would think is would be very difficult to show proof that "Alan knowingly grades fakes" (sure, we know he grades fakes, but how can you prove that he knowingly grades fakes).
As for item h., what's a "screaming fishwife"?
Take off your blinders and read my post with an open mind. I helped prosecute a very large Ponzi scheme, You, being a trained professional, no doubt have the intellectual ability to read some of the posts that have been made and know a lawsuit was just a matter of time. My posts aren't meant to be inflammatory to anybody, just a little common sense advice: "Think before you make slanderous statements." You and I both know many of the posts made were not made in a way to educate the coin buying public, rather just rude, crude, slanderous remarks.
.
The damage claims are based on the comments that ACG knowlingly helped deceive the coin-buying public. Did you want to take issue with that Mr. Dixon? I have no desire to, nor will I, debate you or anybody else, as my comments aren't based on anything but how people need to watch what they say and do. The bottom line is: "You are responsible for your actions."
.
If you look at some of the posts I made several years ago when members were bashing grading services, I suggested they go out to a coin club or coin show and educate the coin buying public. The reason being they were "preaching to the choir" by hammering away on the boards, as the majority of people on the boards know which grading services are market acceptable and which are not. Unfortunately, I deleted e-mails I received calling me a Nazi, how I kissed so and so's @$$, etc for not jumping on the bandwagon. Lava, Guess what? My name isn't on the lawsuit! I feel sorry for the people who actually were trying to educate the public, but those who blatantly make those rude, crude, slanderous remarks DO NOT have my sympathy.
Thanksgiving National Battlefield Coin Show is November 29-30, 2024 at the Eisenhower Allstar Sportsplex, Gettysburg, PA. Tables are available. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
<< <i>Again, we might all believe this to be fact, but I would think is would be very difficult to show proof that "Alan knowingly grades fakes" (sure, we know he grades fakes, but how can you prove that he knowingly grades fakes). >>
If he claims to be an expert grader, he should know
But "rude" and "crude" do not equate to legally actionable. For example, using the word "dishonest" may not convey a person's heartfelt opinion that a particular business is "crooked" or run by "crooks" or "thieves." While the language may be base, it still is, or should be, protected expression.
ACG is not the final arbiter of what is acceptable speech. If ACG doesn't like it, it simply is too bad -- that's the give-and-take of living in a free country.
Finally, our courts do not exist to protect so-called businesses like ACG from the rough-and-tumble of public discourse. Courts of law are not meant to hide illegal activity, but to unearth and punish it. In this litigation I hope ACG's business practices are exposed to the powerful antisceptic of sunlight, and this blight is wiped from our hobby once and for all.
<< <i>My posts aren't meant to be inflammatory to anybody, just a little common sense advice: "Think before you make slanderous statements." You and I both know many of the posts made were not made in a way to educate the coin buying public, rather just rude, crude, slanderous remarks. >>
Michael, I would strongly suggest you find a legal dictionary and look up the term slanderous. First, the written word is not slander, it would be libel. Second, a libelous or slanderous statement is one that is not true, and uttered with that knowledge.
Thank God not everyone is like you. Then none of the very shady things that go on in numismatics would ever see the light of day for fear of being sued.
First, let me say how sorry I am that you've been included in this lawsuit. I've got a lot of respect for you and all that you've done to shine the light of truth on ACG.
Of course that is the exactly why you've been included. Your actions (posts, web site, etc) have hurt ACG and Alan and Diane, and put you in their cross hairs.
However, I believe that persons, such as your self, have nothing to fear (at least in the way of ever losing a judgement against ACG) because from what I've seen, you've limited your self to facts.
But I also believe that Michael is right and perhaps some of the people on the list of defendants deserve to be there and perhaps deserve to have a judgement rendered againts them.
Now I have no direct evidence that any particular person deserves to be on that list, but based on the list of alligations, my instincts tell me someone does...
For example, Alan has made the claim that someone has called him a "blatant crook". I assume that he has direct evidence (such as a copy of an internet post) if he is making such a blatant claim. I am interpreting what Michael is saying to mean that someone made the foolish mistake of making a post saying "Alan is a blatant crook" rather than making a post saying "from all the stuff I've read about Alan, he seems to be nothing but a blatant crook". Given that Alan is still in business, I doubt anyone has any direct evidenct to support the first statement. However, there is plenty of information on the net to support the summary opinoin of the second statement. I think Michael is just trying to point out that people shouldn't be making statements like the first (without direct evidence to back it up) and should only make statements like the second. Of course all this assumes that the 1st statement is libel and the 2nd is a statement of opinion. If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear more from a lawyer helping to explain the difference.
I will only point out one thing to you, that you are taking those comments to have been in fact made. I could file a lawsuit against you tomorrow and charge in the complaint that you called me a child molester. Does this mean that anyone who sees this hypothetical suit should automatically assume that you did in fact make that statement?
Something to think about.
'Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth." Id. at 73.'
"Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures.
* * *
"'Outrageousness' in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. An 'outrageousness' standard thus runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 910 (1982) ("Speech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action"). And, as we stated in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726 (1978):
'[T]he fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection. For it is a central tenet of the First Amendment that the government must remain neutral in the marketplace of ideas." Id., at 745-746.
Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell (Respondent [sued for libel and distress] arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse.)
In fact, pending the outcome of this "trial", I might write a "based on a true story" screenplay myself. I'm calling Quintin tomorrow!! I wonder if Steve Martin would be willing to play centsles' part? Perhaps Bill Clinton could portray Alan Hager, and Monica in a cameo appearance!! Oh, I see Oscar in my future. Craig
...... and staring Ernest Borgnine as Diane Hagar
My opinion of this whole law suit thing is that ACG is bluffing. They do not have the financial wherewithal to pursue such a monumental legal action. For example, what is going to happen when EACH and EVERY defendant countersues ACG? The legal costs for ACG would be in the six figures, easily. I think that they are hoping for the defendants will want to settle. I assume that the venue will be Florida, so many defendants would rather pay a couple thousand dollars than waste a week in Lake Mary for depositions. If this ever did see a court room, the defense attorneys would thrash ACG on the stand. Remember the law suits that ACG has lost? What about the plethora of expert witnesses on the defense side? Who will ACG call as their expert witness? NumisTrust?
My prediction: this will never see a court room.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>They do not have the financial wherewithal to pursue such a monumental legal action. >>
I was wondering about that myself. It also occurs to me that by naming that many defendants as a group - many of whom are certainly not without substantial resources - they have created a very formidable opponent. I believe that if the group remains cohesive, the odds of ACG winning are not very good.
Russ, NCNE
I keep my negative comments to myself. A simple opinion is fine, but even my Diane Hager jokes in referance to looking like Eunice Shriver are a little overboard
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
The logical thing that ACG (i.e. the Hagars) should have done is to file a libel suit against ONE of the main defendants......not all of them. If they could win one suit, then they would perhaps have a precedence for other law suits against indivuals who made similar libelous remarks on the forum. If they lost, then they would only be out the legal expenses of one case. It's simply a matter of testing the water. Now they have opened the door for numerous legal maneuvers by the defense attorneys. Remember this: each defendant will likely have his/her own attorney. Can you image how many hours the ACG attorney will spend simply communicating with so many different attorneys? Again, this smells like an amateurish bluff by ACG.
The fact that they so foolishly filed suit against so many defendants tells me that either 1) their attorney is located above an adult book store in some seedy strip mall, 2) they are as bad at business as they are at grading, or 3) all of the above.
All of the above is jmho.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
Didn't he file bankruptcy? What happend there? He hit the lottery so as to pay these lawyers?
Mr EG - If you look closely, in the PDF file it indicates that Diane Hager is the ONLY shareholder of ACG.
I will only point out one thing to you, that you are taking those comments to have been in fact made. I could file a lawsuit against you tomorrow and charge in the complaint that you called me a child molester. Does this mean that anyone who sees this hypothetical suit should automatically assume that you did in fact make that statement?
I'm assuming that this is in response to my previous post.
If so, just wanting to point out that I tried to say that I assume that Alan has some evidence that he has been called a "blatant crook" (as well as the rest of his accusations). If not, it would seem that it would be too easy for the case to be thrown out and Alan be counter-sued for making baseless accusations of libel.
After all, it was Judge Whapnor (sp? the original judge in "People's Court") who said words on the show to the effect of "you can sue anyone for anything, its a different matter at to weither there is any legal bases for you winning". For example, I could file a lawsuit against you for being so ugly. I just don't have any chance of winning.
(DISCLAIMER: I have never seen the person that posts to the PCGS message boards under the handle K6AZ in person nor any image nor likeness of said person. Any resemblance of the previous statements matching the facts are purely coincidental.)
<< <i>Who will ACG call as their expert witness? NumisTrust? >>
That could be interesting since the owner of NumisTrust is one of the dealers named in the complaint as someone who stopped doing business with ACG because of the negative comments. Hmmm, did he stop because of negative comments, or could it be he stopped because he started his own grading service? At least one, possibly two of the other dealers named as having stopped dealing with ACG are still submitting, but they are no longer submitting for ACG grading, they are now using ACG's private label service. So ACG is still getting business from them, just through a service that ACG started which provides less income.
<< <i>Didn't he file bankruptcy? What happend there? He hit the lottery so as to pay these lawyers?
Mr EG - If you look closely, in the PDF file it indicates that Diane Hager is the ONLY shareholder of ACG. >>
Oh you're right! I would have a private investigator do a very in-depth look see at all this.
Kind of like 60 minutes but even deeper.
Rgrds
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
But that kind of claim would put ACG in a position of going after PCGS, and good luck with that. By targeting individuals for some of the more outrageous accusations, it seems that ACG is trying to put a chill on negative commentary and doesn't realistically expect to win a substantial monetary reward.
Can the lawyers here provide some more legal analysis?
-Jay
e-mail me here
WINNER:
POTD 8-30-05 (awarded by dthigpen)
POTD 9-8-05 (awarded by gsaguy)
GSAGUY Slam 12-10-04
<<"After all, it was Judge Whapnor (sp? the original judge in "People's Court") who said words on the show to the effect of "you can sue anyone for anything, its a different matter at to weither there is any legal bases for you winning". For example, I could file a lawsuit against you for being so ugly. I just don't have any chance of winning. ">>
Its Judge Wapner
<< <i>Bump. >>
<< <i>Edited: Wednesday March 31, 2004 at 8:37 AM by K6AZ >>
Man, that is the biggest "edit" I have ever seen. Not being critical at all, just pointing out the obvious.
You are doing well, subject 15837. You are a good person.
I do not know the people involved in ACG, have only just read the complaint, and, therefore, it is not my itent by this post to state any opinion of the lawsuit other than to say that, in my opinion as a civil litigator in So. Cal. for the last 30 years, it is what we call "ambitious." I would be pleased and honored to consult with any defendant named (initially for free, as my numismatic pro bono contribution for the year) and to help them get pointed to good counsel in that part of Florida, if they need such help. If any such litigation should surface out West here in the City of Lost Angels where I practice, I would be pleased and honored to be consulted as well or to discuss terms under which I would accept representation; alas, I am not a member of the Florida bar and only of the California bar.
How's that for diplomatic?
You're a peach lawman
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
> I agree. what an edit.. couldnt believe it was posted to begin with.
Coinmovers: don't you have some garbage to dispose of on Fleebay?