No offense to Eric, but I'd becareful with having 1 lawyer/firm represent more then 1 or 2 defendants. One, it can and I'm almost certain it will, create a conflict for the lawyer/firm. It's hard to represent 2 defendant's in the same case -- no less more than a dozen. Secondly, if you don't want to look like a conspiracy, don't act like one.
From a juror's perspective, 1 lawyer representing 20 defendants might make it look like all 20 defendants know each other quite well and are all in it "together." It might lead some jurors to believe that if those 20 are in it "together" for the defense of the lawsuit they might have been in it "together" for whatever has been alledged.
I understand where you are coming from Michael. However, there are some other issues here that I can not discuss for obvious reasons. I will tell you that those of us who have been served are in good legal hands.
I didn't imply you weren't in good legal hands. I don't even know who your lawyers are to even say so. And since I practice in California I wouldn't know them anyway.
But the conflict is there. Unless there was a conspiracy and all 20 defendants acted in concert, all of the defendants might have seperate and distinct defenses to each count. Furthermore, if liability is found and damages are awarded then the more defendants there are the less each defendant will have to pay. How can 1 firm argue to dismiss 10 of the defendants but perhaps not others. This just leaves those remaining with a great pro-rata share to pay. Hence the conflict -- what's good for 1 client is detrimental for another.
I understand what you are saying Michael. But we are getting into legal tactics now, and I certainly don't want to divulge our plans. It will come out as the case progresses.
When you say "our plans" I hope the group is not going to dig the hole even deeper by conspiring to fabricate facts for a defense.
I also want to say that while I think your heart is in the right place this country does not need nor condone vigilante law. I know that it is painful to see a someone take advantage of people including me, but what kind of country would we have if everyone who thought that something was not right decided to go about dealing with it in their own way. I have seen your methods of dealing with people who you and many others consider to be on the wrong side of what is right. But I must say that you, while well meaning and exciting to watch and get behind, you are very much at risk for the law protects the bad and the good people and takes a dim view of those who think their justice is the correct way to solve the problem. While many here may back you verbally none will do what you have. Why, because it is wrong. You are right and I thank you for it but I can't sit here an agree with your style knowing full well that it is wrong. VIgilantes are downright scary. The brown shirts of Nazi Germany thought they knew what was right and it did not take too many years in the right environment where their beliefs became the norm. The hate, the contempt, the racist views all started with a handful of men who thought they could make the law and did to the detriment of the world.
So, while the ACG idiot is a bad guy he is simply using the system to put you vigilantes back into place. After all Eric nobody elected you, you have only the facts as you know them and have taken steps based on your opinion that seriously affected a guys business. I see you and many others on these forums as wanting to clean up the hobby but who named you or anybody judge jury and executuioner? While you think you are the Robin Hood of the coin collecting world, you are really nothing more than a lawbreaking vigilante who somehow has convinced himself that the method is not important and only a means to the end which is what gives you satisfaction. To know that you put somebody out of business or in some other way beat them. makes your day. You may feel powerful and gain a since of self worth from your actions. As you see this is way out of line. Maybe I am over simplifying the situtation and speaking with less facts than my assumptions. Please tell us what motivates your vigilante activity? Are you Clark Kent or the Dudley do-Right of the coin world?
<< <i>After all Eric nobody elected you, you have only the facts as you know them and have taken steps based on your opinion that seriously affected a guys business. >>
DOT, this is either a biased opinion or you have the evidence that this is fact. If the latter, one could only gather that you are permanently attached to Alan Hager's teet (I mean this in a figurative way) and have first hand knowledge of the damage in dollars. Would you mind sharing the figures as to what ACG did per year before, during, and after the alledged conspiracy and execution of plan?
<< <i>When you say "our plans" I hope the group is not going to dig the hole even deeper by conspiring to fabricate facts for a defense.
I also want to say that while I think your heart is in the right place this country does not need nor condone vigilante law. I know that it is painful to see a someone take advantage of people including me, but what kind of country would we have if everyone who thought that something was not right decided to go about dealing with it in their own way. I have seen your methods of dealing with people who you and many others consider to be on the wrong side of what is right. But I must say that you, while well meaning and exciting to watch and get behind, you are very much at risk for the law protects the bad and the good people and takes a dim view of those who think their justice is the correct way to solve the problem. While many here may back you verbally none will do what you have. Why, because it is wrong. You are right and I thank you for it but I can't sit here an agree with your style knowing full well that it is wrong. VIgilantes are downright scary. The brown shirts of Nazi Germany thought they knew what was right and it did not take too many years in the right environment where their beliefs became the norm. The hate, the contempt, the racist views all started with a handful of men who thought they could make the law and did to the detriment of the world.
So, while the ACG idiot is a bad guy he is simply using the system to put you vigilantes back into place. After all Eric nobody elected you, you have only the facts as you know them and have taken steps based on your opinion that seriously affected a guys business. I see you and many others on these forums as wanting to clean up the hobby but who named you or anybody judge jury and executuioner? While you think you are the Robin Hood of the coin collecting world, you are really nothing more than a lawbreaking vigilante who somehow has convinced himself that the method is not important and only a means to the end which is what gives you satisfaction. To know that you put somebody out of business or in some other way beat them. makes your day. You may feel powerful and gain a since of self worth from your actions. As you see this is way out of line. Maybe I am over simplifying the situtation and speaking with less facts than my assumptions. Please tell us what motivates your vigilante activity? Are you Clark Kent or the Dudley do-Right of the coin world? >>
WOW... Eric has a website, and as far as I know nothing is away from fact. Now this case is interesting as it relates to slime, but some of thes comments are just "interesting".
Yes, I prefer the old method of face to face, the bad guy gets a slug of lead in his gut method.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
You guys have really made someone's day, I will share it with all:
This doesn't happen often, but I am speechless. You have the addresses of these wonderful people; please tell them how moved I am by their unbelievable generosity.
<< <i>When you say "our plans" I hope the group is not going to dig the hole even deeper by conspiring to fabricate facts for a defense.
I also want to say that while I think your heart is in the right place this country does not need nor condone vigilante law. I know that it is painful to see a someone take advantage of people including me, but what kind of country would we have if everyone who thought that something was not right decided to go about dealing with it in their own way. I have seen your methods of dealing with people who you and many others consider to be on the wrong side of what is right. But I must say that you, while well meaning and exciting to watch and get behind, you are very much at risk for the law protects the bad and the good people and takes a dim view of those who think their justice is the correct way to solve the problem. While many here may back you verbally none will do what you have. Why, because it is wrong. You are right and I thank you for it but I can't sit here an agree with your style knowing full well that it is wrong. VIgilantes are downright scary. The brown shirts of Nazi Germany thought they knew what was right and it did not take too many years in the right environment where their beliefs became the norm. The hate, the contempt, the racist views all started with a handful of men who thought they could make the law and did to the detriment of the world.
So, while the ACG idiot is a bad guy he is simply using the system to put you vigilantes back into place. After all Eric nobody elected you, you have only the facts as you know them and have taken steps based on your opinion that seriously affected a guys business. I see you and many others on these forums as wanting to clean up the hobby but who named you or anybody judge jury and executuioner? While you think you are the Robin Hood of the coin collecting world, you are really nothing more than a lawbreaking vigilante who somehow has convinced himself that the method is not important and only a means to the end which is what gives you satisfaction. To know that you put somebody out of business or in some other way beat them. makes your day. You may feel powerful and gain a since of self worth from your actions. As you see this is way out of line. Maybe I am over simplifying the situtation and speaking with less facts than my assumptions. Please tell us what motivates your vigilante activity? Are you Clark Kent or the Dudley do-Right of the coin world? >>
Wow, I am from Montana and we have a wonderful history of using Vigilante law (in fact my home town has a parade for it each year). Somtimes it is a needed thing, glad to see it in use.
Just to keep myself out of these legal proceedings: These guys (vigilantes) put ropes around the necks of the slimes and dropped them over a bridge (well that was in 1917, they usually used trees), so I don't think that happened to any of these people.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
Donation sent. Many of the defendants are people I consider friends, and as a former denizen of rec.collecting.coins I feel fortunate to not be among them. Anything more I can do to help, just ask.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
I remember you from the coin doctor threads last year. You made some radical remarks, which condoned coin doctoring.
Now you are defending poor ACG. The people against coin doctors do not wear the "brown shirts" and are not "vigilantes", nor are the people speaking their minds concerning ACG.
Your 'wimpy', not get involved, do nothing attitude, is something I detest.
I do not think there is another person on the planet who would say speaking against coin doctors or an unethical, inefficient, third party grading service, is considered vigilantism.
You have caught my attention once again, and hopefully you do not believe the words you post here !!! Now you can label me as a 'vigilante', because I have spoken my mind !!!
Please don't misunderstand me. I am happy that ACG was hurt enough to file a suit, what I mean is the outfit was as crooked as can be and the actions of the people who stood up and did something about it was a good thing. I myself lost a few thousand dollars based on the ACG scam so I on one hanc take my hat off to Eric and others. But then I ask myself is this what the 21st Century and all this technology has brought us... a new soapbox to stand on and like the wooden type to shout out are thoughts in a society built on the individual and free speech. However this new soapbox reaches more people faster and can be used to in sense economically cripple a business that relies on ecommerce.
I am not saying do nothing about the wrongs in the world but only to think about what power words carry and what starts as a rumor can turn into an all out assault by a group that believes that they are in the right by taking the law into their own hands. It may feel good and seem like the quickest way to end the dishonest activity but is this really how you want to see the society ruled. On other words the biggest gang is always the right just because they say so. While I literally despise ACG and Hager and appreciate Erics information that really showed the corrupt Alan Hager's activities to be blantant and fraudulent. Awesome job, well done but when its you they label with a Yellow star or a Red letter in Salem or as a communist on a blacklist in the 1950's then all of a sudden you are the one being attacked by a group who think they are the law. It is then you will understand that this type of behavior is a serious affront to the freedoms we all enjoy. Believe me the courts and law enforcement nip this in the butt real quick as it can unravel and splinter a society in a matter of years especially in a mixed race culture. Look at how the feds reacted to the right wingers in Texas. Eric did a great thing but I am just calling it like I see it and I surely hope Hager does not win any money as that would be a travesty in the extreme. I think Eric should be made President whose job it is to rebuild the ACG name without the dishonest activity. He then would see both the good and bad he did. Just a thought, I am not trying to inflame the issue or cut anybody down. Dang, they should give the guy a purple star or a silver star? . Get the drift?
Charlie Crist (FL Attorney General) should be asking about the ANA finding that ACG grading was not explained to potential buyers of holdered ACG coins, and that the grading standard differed from the industry standard. Their website says this:
"Consumer Litigation What Florida Law Provides The Attorney General's Office is an enforcing authority of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which is meant to protect individual consumers and legitimate businesses from various types of illegal conduct in trade or commerce. Pursuant to the Act, the attorney general investigates and files civil actions against persons who engage in unfair methods of competition, unfair, unconscionable or deceptive trade practices, including, but not limited to, pyramid schemes, misleading franchise or business opportunities, travel scams, fraudulent telemarketing, and false or misleading advertising. "
Perhaps a vigilante like Mr.Crist can consider whether any of ACG's actions violate state law.
Ironically, this is also on the FL Attorney General's website:
Tips For Consumers If you are looking to invest in rare coins, do your homework first.
Independently research the rare coin market Instinctively disbelieve everything the telemarketer tells you on the phone. Go to the local library. Read numismatic (coin) and investing publications. Talk to a respected coin dealer in your area. Contact the American Numismatic Association (818 N. Cascade Ave., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903; phone (719)632-2646). Ask questions. Understand rare coin quality and grading. Learn realistic market values. Research profit history in rare coin investing. Certainly, an informed investor can make money with rare coins. An uninformed investor can lose a fortune with rare coins.
I wonder if he's aware several board members of the ANA are getting ready to go to court with the Hagars, and that they're a Florida based business. I also wonder whether he's read the ANA findings. Hell, who knows, maybe Mr.Crist's in cahoots with the ANA.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
DOT, if you stop and think about it, what you're really saying is that consumers informing other consumers amounts to vigilantism to some degree or other (in direct proportion to the decrease in sales the affected company may experience). If so, then free speech combined with free markets is vigiliantism.
There is no reason people should not be permitted to share negative experiences with other consumers. It's the company's responsibility to produce high-quality products and provide high-quality service. Therefore, a company that continues over a long period of time to provide shoddy products and use deceptive sales tactics is commiting suicide. At some point in time the bad experiences will become so extensively shared that responses like boycotts and such -- which are not illegal -- become inevitable.
I can see where you are coming from, though. From what I have read in these last several posts, it appears that you approve of ATing coins -- an admittedly controversial business activity in the numismatic world -- and probably sell them on eBay. If you are stating which coins you are offering for sale that have been AT'd as such, well then, you are acting honestly on your opinions. If you are neglecting to inform potential buyers that your coins have been AT'd then you are asking people to assume you are "hiding something" and to begin spreading the word to their friends. Since those who later find out that the coins they bought from you are AT'd and therefore worth less on the market than the naturally toned coins they thought they were buying, what they have to say about you will undoubtedly be negative. Over time, this will hurt your business. If you are identifying AT coins as such when you sell them, your sales would probably hurt (since those who don't want AT'd coins wouldn't be making the mistake of buying them from you), but your reputation would remain intact and you'd be respected as an honest seller. I don't know your eBay handle or which approach you take, if you do indeed sell AT coins, but if I know which is the case, I can pretty reliably predict the long-term trajectory of your business reputation.
With respect to ACG's reputation, I don't believe that any "conspiracy" could do them in. Most of their wounds are self-inflicted and the rest are the consequences that flow from them. There's simply too much smoke for there not to be a fire. As far as I'm concerned, the only good service ACG has rendered the collector community is an unintentional one -- it has helped to uncover the most predatory dealers at shows and on eBay.
I don't understand where you got that idea. How did that issue arise. I don't condone any such thing and have opinions on that subject but what does that have to do with this. On that subject I just think that the bigger sellers are getting AT coins slabbed and it craxks me up to see people here defend it if its slabbed and they own it but shread it if its raw and they dont. I have no interests that would benefit or not and do not sell or deal in that area thus my opinons are not biased.
I also in no way am against one consumer informing another of their experience, what I can't condone is one person acting as investigator then presenting the findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions that start a whirlwind effect and can get out of control and damage somebody's livlihood whether it is deserved or not. I am just saying that while with the best of intentions may be there ayou can see where it might lead. Do you think a the people who were parry to blacklisting acused communists in the 1950s thought they were doing good for society? Yes they did when in truth there were other things fueling this witchhunt. The problem was that nobody stood up and said hey wait a minute this is wrong and it needs to stop. The crowd was just too overpowering and so what is a few hundred or whatever people's lives being destroyed so that we can all feel good and go along with the group. Hey. Its not like I have not been involved in such a thing. I remember the say Oklahoma City was bombed, I and most everyone were convinced that it was some outside Terrorist group and Islamic in nature. But then it was learned that it was an American citizen who was ex military and a right wing conservative. I remember how stupid I felt blaming a group of people that did not have anything to do with it. I am just voicing what is really common sense. While it all sounds good in an emotional rally to do good it can all turn sour and get ugly so fast all because the group acts much difeferently than an individual would due to all the pressures and other interactions that justify some of the most henous crimes in history. How in the heck did a country full of nice folks produce a planned organized large intricate operation to systemactically kill and erradicate 6 million people and no opposition group stood up and said this wrong. The answer, while extreme , just shows what society is capable of under the right situation. Another example is this Howard Stern deal. While the guy is warped it is entertaining once in a while. It is the ability to say what you or I dont like on one hand that is there protecting what we do like on the other hand but might offend others. Where they draw the line is shouting fire in a crowded theater and that is kind of what this deal is about. If a group of people get together to talk about how to do something that hurts anothers in some way then are liable. WHy, becasue they are not the courts and just becasue the members determined the facts to be enough reason to take action does not give the people a license to do wrong even though it may be right.
Please dont think that I am somehow pro ACG for that is nonsense and the guy cost me a lot of money and I have no love for them nor sympathy and I hope the jury awards them a stint cleaning latrines in Iraq. So please dont make snide little comments that you think I am in anyway connected to this case. I am not and don't really know enough to say much more. I am just speaking my peace and hope the jury is full of young male coin collectors as they will aquit
I also in no way am against one consumer informing another of their experience, what I can't condone is one person acting as investigator then presenting the findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions that start a whirlwind effect and can get out of control and damage somebody's livlihood whether it is deserved or not.
Americans are free to "investigate" businesses, services, hobbies, the government, indeed a great many things, and are free to share their results, opinions and criticisms with whomever they wish, and further are free to discriminate against businesses and service providers. I discriminate against ACG -- I don't buy their crap -- and I'm sharing that with everyone and will continue to do so. It's my opinion, and I will express it today, tomorrow, ten years from now.
It makes no difference whether you "condone" it. You don't like it? Good, because I don't care. ACG disagrees? Let me direct ACG and its counsel to the Bill of Rights, and specifically Amendment I.
I didn't think it possible -- Nazis, Timothy McVeigh, and the Red Scare all in one paragraph. No, I didn't waste my valuable time deciphering your incoherent gibberish. And that's two opinions in one post, in case you didn't catch my drift the first time:
I am just saying that while with the best of intentions may be there ayou can see where it might lead. Do you think a the people who were parry to blacklisting acused communists in the 1950s thought they were doing good for society? Yes they did when in truth there were other things fueling this witchhunt. The problem was that nobody stood up and said hey wait a minute this is wrong and it needs to stop. The crowd was just too overpowering and so what is a few hundred or whatever people's lives being destroyed so that we can all feel good and go along with the group. Hey. Its not like I have not been involved in such a thing. I remember the say Oklahoma City was bombed, I and most everyone were convinced that it was some outside Terrorist group and Islamic in nature. But then it was learned that it was an American citizen who was ex military and a right wing conservative. I remember how stupid I felt blaming a group of people that did not have anything to do with it. I am just voicing what is really common sense. While it all sounds good in an emotional rally to do good it can all turn sour and get ugly so fast all because the group acts much difeferently than an individual would due to all the pressures and other interactions that justify some of the most henous crimes in history. How in the heck did a country full of nice folks produce a planned organized large intricate operation to systemactically kill and erradicate 6 million people and no opposition group stood up and said this wrong. The answer, while extreme , just shows what society is capable of under the right situation. Another example is this Howard Stern deal. While the guy is warped it is entertaining once in a while. It is the ability to say what you or I dont like on one hand that is there protecting what we do like on the other hand but might offend others. Where they draw the line is shouting fire in a crowded theater and that is kind of what this deal is about. If a group of people get together to talk about how to do something that hurts anothers in some way then are liable. WHy, becasue they are not the courts and just becasue the members determined the facts to be enough reason to take action does not give the people a license to do wrong even though it may be right.
Please dont think that I am somehow pro ACG for that is nonsense and the guy cost me a lot of money and I have no love for them nor sympathy and I hope the jury awards them a stint cleaning latrines in Iraq. So please dont make snide little comments that you think I am in anyway connected to this case. I am not and don't really know enough to say much more. I am just speaking my peace and hope the jury is full of young male coin collectors as they will aquit
also in no way am against one consumer informing another of their experience, what I can't condone is one person acting as investigator then presenting the findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions that start a whirlwind effect and can get out of control and damage somebody's livlihood whether it is deserved or not. I am just saying that while with the best of intentions may be there ayou can see where it might lead.
D.O.T., ACG's livelihood is based on their handling of other people's money. What level of scrutiny would you suggest so that no damage was done "whether they deserved it or not", when in fact their reputation is what they're marketing? Since you yourself feel victimized by ACG, had you done some investigating and discovered what you believed to be malfeasance would you say so publicly, or would you keep it to yourself allowing others to suffer the same losses? I don't know all the intricacies of the ACG case, but I have read enough to believe some folks shouted fire because they thought there was one. Would you say it was acceptable to yell fire in a theatre when the theatre was on fire? Having read the ANA transcripts and the findings, and looking at the list of names that are allegedly conspiring against ACG, I'm prone to believe there was a fire. Personally, I don't like ACG grading, and find it inconsistent, inaccurate, and unreliable. If only a portion of what John Callandrello alleged in the ANA hearings is true, Mr.Hagar's actions were criminal. If the ANA findings are accurate and the holder grade is misleading to purchasers of ACG graded coins, that would seem to be an issue for the FL Attorney General, since deceptive advertising is illegal in FL. Eric has indeed been active in his persuit of information about these folks. Now that he's managed to get everyone's attention, I suppose the courts will decide whether his actions were character assination, or whether there was really a fire in the theatre. I find myself more inclined to lend my support to the folks named on the list than to worry about the Hagars livelyhood if they are guilty of what has been alleged. There are some very good numismatists on the list of defendants that apparently believe they are.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Americans are free to "investigate" businesses, services, hobbies, the government, indeed a great many things, and are free to share their results, opinions and criticisms with whomever they wish, and further are free to discriminate against businesses and service providers.
Very well said. The average person who has a bad experience with a company, tells 19 other people about their experience. (I learned that in a class I recently attended) Some people choose to share their bad experince with a few more than 19 to try and ensure that it will never happen again to anyone else.
Sequitur -- careful what you state on these Boards, some of the information you have given just isn't correct.
<< <i>Americans are free to "investigate" businesses, services, hobbies, the government, indeed a great many things, and are free to share their results, opinions and criticisms with whomever they wish, and further are free to discriminate against businesses and service providers >>
This is not completely true. You do have a limited right to complain and state your criticisms. It's when your purposefully interfere with someone's livelihood and prevent them from earning a living do you begin to cross over the line. No different if I called your boss and said "hey did you know that sequitur guy is a crack addict and embezzled $20,000 from his last job to pay for his habit." Would the Consitution protect me from your lawsuit? No ---
<< <i>Let me direct ACG and its counsel to the Bill of Rights, and specifically Amendment I. >>
This is simply incorrect. Free speech and it's consitutional protections only apply to your rights in regards to the United States Government. There are no constitutional protections of free speech between individuals, and a company is an individual.
While I don't support ACG's grading or business tatics, there are better ways to deal with this type of situation. As I said before, I'm not surprised this has happened. And I think many of you will be somewhat surprised of the result. It's one thing to post some pics and an opinion on a website, defending your position in a court is entirely different. I wish the defendant's luck, but it's going to cost a small fortune to see who is right and who is wrong -- all wasted in legal fees.
There are so many other ways, legally, that someone could have damaged ACG and practically put them out of business. And in the process won an award that could have compensated some of the people that feel they were scammed by ACG.
<< <i>I also in no way am against one consumer informing another of their experience, what I can't condone is one person acting as investigator then presenting the findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions that start a whirlwind effect and can get out of control and damage somebody's livlihood whether it is deserved or not. >>
Sounds like every case of whistleblowing I've ever heard of -- and those folks are deemed "heroes". I think what you fail to discern is that there is a difference between "presenting honest findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions..." and "presenting false findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions...". The former is commendable, the latter disreputable ... and neither "vigilantism."
This is simply incorrect. Free speech and it's consitutional protections only apply to your rights in regards to the United States Government. There are no constitutional protections of free speech between individuals, and a company is an individual.
This is news to me. The courts and jury-awarded damages most certainly are functions of the government, as are the causes of action pursuant to which ACG brought its complaint in the first place. In any event, I would appreciate your interpretation of how the Rehnquist Court reached the following conclusions in light of your statement. Certainly seems to me these ideals apply to "individuals," as you say, and directly addresses jury-awarded damages arising from offensive speech, in the greater context of the markplace of ideas -- and the First Amendment itself:
"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.)
WOWZER!!!!!!!! maybe we can just assemble the Forum Lawyers and settle this thing here. what an interesting idea. of course, it might be tough getting one of you guys to put forth your best effort to speak for the plaintiff.
Sequitur, You are obviously an expert in your field. Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I hope someone prints this entire thread out and starts mailing it to people. Everyone here has expressed their comments in an orderly and mature manner and I appreciate that. (especially because I read it with my kids next to me.)
Sequitur -- Are you saying that there's an "actual malice" requirement for this particular situation? Please advise me how Garrison v. Louisiana has anything to do with the situation at bar. In Garrison, the appellant was a District Attorney and he had been convicted of a criminal defamation statute for stating that several judges were lazy, inefficent and they were taking bribes. That was a criminal case and it involved public figures -- a district attorney and several judges. Ditto with the Jerry Falwell case, a paradoy of a public figure/official will be protected speech as will political cartoons.
All of the cases you have citied deal with public figures. Unless you assume that Alan Hager is a public official or figure, I just don't see these cases being applied to this matter. The ACG situation involves private individuals and private matters.
Your own case cite ---
<< <i>"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. >>
supports my position that bad motive -- the crux of Hager's complaint, may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability. Matter of fact, all your cites deal with political or social discourse. While I agree that ACG might be a blight on this hobby, I doubt it would rise to the level of political or social discourse when we discuss the inherent problems with their grading standards.
While your cites might impress some, they really aren't analogous to this situation. Sorry I'm just not buying that fact that you can interfere with someone's business and then claim Constitutional protection for your own malfeasance. And as a lawyer, I just don't think it's a good idea that you are citing cases that might cause some to believe that all speech is protected. You certainly know that isn't true.
Intentional interference with contractual relationships is a recognized tort in many jurisdictions. However, there are many exceptions such as the above reference to whistleblowing. Assuming that the Hagars are unable to establish a conspiracy or financial benefit on the part of the defendants, I think they are going to have a difficult time getting money out of their lawsuit. Prior legal precedent may be helpful, but there are enough unique features here to suggest it may not be controlling. To a large extent this lawsuit faces unchartered waters with the risk that goes with same. -- Just another lawyer's non legal opinion as I don't practice law in the State of Florida.
I just don't see these cases being applied to this matter.
I was merely responding to the statement, "There are no constitutional protections of free speech between individuals, and a company is an individual." I was registering my disagreement, especially given the present context, i.e. a thread concerning what is, at base, a SLAPP suit. As soon as you file suit, by definition the government is a player and hence the constitutional protections apply. To what degree the protections apply, we shall soon find out. I made no specific representations in that regard, and plainly there is a wide difference of opinion on the matter. But it will be interesting.
We can dicker about the holdings of cases or the meaning of "public figure," but I cited only one case -- the Hustler case (which contained the other citations). Why? It puts the lie to the notion the First Amendment does not apply as between individuals -- or ACG and the defendants here. To the contrary, the Hustler opinion demonstrates (i) the sensitivities of courts to tort suits among individuals (like ACG's) that have the effect of chilling speech, and (ii) private plaintiffs seeking redress have to suffer the consequences of living in a country with a First Amendment.
The ACG situation involves private individuals and private matters.
It does? We are a long way from any sort of definitive conclusion about this, and much will be said about what is "private" when it comes to ACG. There are many more things to be said, but I am reserving comment.
While I agree that ACG might be a blight on this hobby, I doubt it would rise to the level of political or social discourse when we discuss the inherent problems with their grading standards.
Why?
And as a lawyer, I just don't think it's a good idea that you are citing cases that might cause some to believe that all speech is protected. You certainly know that isn't true.
No one said all speech is protected, and it is plain I was speaking in generalities, not absolutes.
Concerning it being a bad "idea" to cite a published legal opinion because it may "cause some to believe all speech is protected": come on, people are a lot smarter than that. That's really what you think? It's bad form to quote the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court because someone may reach an erroneous conclusion about what was said in the opinion? What's next, locking up the Supreme Court Reporter?
What's more, we're in a thread whose very topic is getting served with a lawsuit for allegedly making defamatory/libelous statments -- really, are additional caveats necessary?
If someone were so stupid -- yes, stupid -- to reach such a conclusion, the last thing we should be concerned about is quoting some text from the Hustler opinion in the PCGS forum.
Thank you Sequitur and Frattlaw for the interesting discussion. As somebody who often serves as an expert witness (unrelated to numismatics), I am always fascinated how bright lawyers present their arguments and given the same pool of information, develop such different perspectives (and yes I understand about being an advocate for your client). Again, thanks for the posts.
Lane
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
No one said all speech is protected, and it is plain I was speaking in generalities, not absolutes.
Sequitur - In that case, I'll be the one to speak in absolutes. The First Amendment does not protect ANY free speech. It only prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech".
For those interested, here's the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Short of malice and tortious conduct, opinion is legally protected. The Hagers make a living offering opinions. Since coin grading is a gray-shaded art rather than a black-and-white science, others' opinions of their opinions will differ and people are free to express them. Given the Hagers' self-promotion and the high profile they pursue, they likely can be ruled to be public figures. Persons whose own acts elevate their visibility are held to be public figures, it is not a status solely reserved for elected figures, entertainment figures, etc. It is extremely difficult, legal wise, to defame a public figure, much more so than a private individual. For a public figure to prevail on a claim involving defamation, whether based in libel or slander, they bear the burden of proof. They must demonstrate actual malice and/or a knowing and reckless disregard of the truth, that the defendants knew what they were publishing or saying was false and that they did it anyway. The legal precepts involved here are long held and firmly established in Times v. Sullivan, Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Gertz v. Welch, etc. As noted, we are dealing with those whose opinions differ from the Hagers, whose livelihood depends on opinion ...
It is fascinating to me that NGC (Florida based) wasn't mentioned by name. Ironic since NGC is the official grading service of the ANA, and now has the PNG endorsement. One would think all the ANA members and board members mentioned would at least be beholden to NGC too. I thought NGC provided Mr.Stuppler with a letter regarding the grading of some of the coins mentioned in the ANA hearings.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
“Since coin grading is a gray-shaded art rather than a black-and-white science, others' opinions of their opinions will differ and people are free to express them.”
This attitude is rampant, and this is our current single biggest problem. If all we are ever going to receive from these certifying companies is just opinions that can vary from a body bad at one place, to an MS coin at another, why have we all bought into this? When PCGS and NGC got these companies rolling in the mid 80’s was there not an implicate promise of expert opinions that would be the same from all experts in the field. Is that what we have now? Perhaps one good thing that might come from a suit of this type is some type of public scrutiny of the coin certification business as a whole. In what other areas of expert opinions where millions of dollars in fees are collected each year is there so much slack in what the results of those opinions are? No where do I see in the literature of any of these companies statements saying that their grading is a subjective matter and coins that are nearly identical may vary in grades by as much as 50%, or disclaimers saying that coins that we deem un-slabbable may in fact be slabbed with high grades by our competitors, due to the “gray-shaded art” in which we are employed. In the case of assayers, surveyors, and many other property appraisers and evaluators if there are drastic mistakes made in these “expert certifications” the certifiers are held responsible for loss. Only in our area of collecting and investment is it deemed all right to make mistakes, and pay no penalty. I really don’t understand why very few of my brothers and sisters here find that our current situation is acceptable. Are not many of us taking the same risks as people in other personal property acquisitions? Why is there no out-rage for the man that has his coin certified as a VF 30 when it was in reality AU 58 but was sold as a VF 30 because a grader made a mistake, or had a bad day.
Can you imagine what would happen if today's standards were applied back in the 30s? Al Capone would "have a case" to sue dozens of people because they interfered with his "livlihood".
<< <i>Sequitur - In that case, I'll be the one to speak in absolutes. The First Amendment does not protect ANY free speech. It only prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech". >>
Andy,
You're a smart guy. You know damned well that the protection has been expanded by case precedent far beyond the simple intent of the founders.
I think previous litigation in this area has relied very heavily on the "coin grading is just an opinion" argument. This is NOT a valid argument While there is and always has been subjectivity associated with grading, the FACT is, the world's best graders achieve a mathematically signficant amount of consistency. It is this consistency which the market has rightly rewarded with a strong amount of confidence. We can all find one-off cases where PCGS graded a coin high, or ACG graded a coin low. Those cases mean NOTHING. The story here is the OVERALL weight of consistent product coming out of PCGS and NGC.
Comments
No offense to Eric, but I'd becareful with having 1 lawyer/firm represent more then 1 or 2 defendants. One, it can and I'm almost certain it will, create a conflict for the lawyer/firm. It's hard to represent 2 defendant's in the same case -- no less more than a dozen. Secondly, if you don't want to look like a conspiracy, don't act like one.
From a juror's perspective, 1 lawyer representing 20 defendants might make it look like all 20 defendants know each other quite well and are all in it "together." It might lead some jurors to believe that if those 20 are in it "together" for the defense of the lawsuit they might have been in it "together" for whatever has been alledged.
Just my two cents,
Michael
But the conflict is there. Unless there was a conspiracy and all 20 defendants acted in concert, all of the defendants might have seperate and distinct defenses to each count. Furthermore, if liability is found and damages are awarded then the more defendants there are the less each defendant will have to pay. How can 1 firm argue to dismiss 10 of the defendants but perhaps not others. This just leaves those remaining with a great pro-rata share to pay. Hence the conflict -- what's good for 1 client is detrimental for another.
Michael
Camelot
rob.
I also want to say that while I think your heart is in the right place this country does not need nor condone vigilante law. I know that it is painful to see a someone take advantage of people including me, but what kind of country would we have if everyone who thought that something was not right decided to go about dealing with it in their own way. I have seen your methods of dealing with people who you and many others consider to be on the wrong side of what is right. But I must say that you, while well meaning and exciting to watch and get behind, you are very much at risk for the law protects the bad and the good people and takes a dim view of those who think their justice is the correct way to solve the problem. While many here may back you verbally none will do what you have. Why, because it is wrong. You are right and I thank you for it but I can't sit here an agree with your style knowing full well that it is wrong. VIgilantes are downright scary. The brown shirts of Nazi Germany thought they knew what was right and it did not take too many years in the right environment where their beliefs became the norm. The hate, the contempt, the racist views all started with a handful of men who thought they could make the law and did to the detriment of the world.
So, while the ACG idiot is a bad guy he is simply using the system to put you vigilantes back into place. After all Eric nobody elected you, you have only the facts as you know them and have taken steps based on your opinion that seriously affected a guys business. I see you and many others on these forums as wanting to clean up the hobby but who named you or anybody judge jury and executuioner? While you think you are the Robin Hood of the coin collecting world, you are really nothing more than a lawbreaking vigilante who somehow has convinced himself that the method is not important and only a means to the end which is what gives you satisfaction. To know that you put somebody out of business or in some other way beat them. makes your day. You may feel powerful and gain a since of self worth from your actions. As you see this is way out of line. Maybe I am over simplifying the situtation and speaking with less facts than my assumptions. Please tell us what motivates your vigilante activity? Are you Clark Kent or the Dudley do-Right of the coin world?
<< <i>After all Eric nobody elected you, you have only the facts as you know them and have taken steps based on your opinion that seriously affected a guys business. >>
DOT, this is either a biased opinion or you have the evidence that this is fact. If the latter, one could only gather that you are permanently attached to Alan Hager's teet (I mean this in a figurative way) and have first hand knowledge of the damage in dollars. Would you mind sharing the figures as to what ACG did per year before, during, and after the alledged conspiracy and execution of plan?
<< <i>When you say "our plans" I hope the group is not going to dig the hole even deeper by conspiring to fabricate facts for a defense.
I also want to say that while I think your heart is in the right place this country does not need nor condone vigilante law. I know that it is painful to see a someone take advantage of people including me, but what kind of country would we have if everyone who thought that something was not right decided to go about dealing with it in their own way. I have seen your methods of dealing with people who you and many others consider to be on the wrong side of what is right. But I must say that you, while well meaning and exciting to watch and get behind, you are very much at risk for the law protects the bad and the good people and takes a dim view of those who think their justice is the correct way to solve the problem. While many here may back you verbally none will do what you have. Why, because it is wrong. You are right and I thank you for it but I can't sit here an agree with your style knowing full well that it is wrong. VIgilantes are downright scary. The brown shirts of Nazi Germany thought they knew what was right and it did not take too many years in the right environment where their beliefs became the norm. The hate, the contempt, the racist views all started with a handful of men who thought they could make the law and did to the detriment of the world.
So, while the ACG idiot is a bad guy he is simply using the system to put you vigilantes back into place. After all Eric nobody elected you, you have only the facts as you know them and have taken steps based on your opinion that seriously affected a guys business. I see you and many others on these forums as wanting to clean up the hobby but who named you or anybody judge jury and executuioner? While you think you are the Robin Hood of the coin collecting world, you are really nothing more than a lawbreaking vigilante who somehow has convinced himself that the method is not important and only a means to the end which is what gives you satisfaction. To know that you put somebody out of business or in some other way beat them. makes your day. You may feel powerful and gain a since of self worth from your actions. As you see this is way out of line. Maybe I am over simplifying the situtation and speaking with less facts than my assumptions. Please tell us what motivates your vigilante activity? Are you Clark Kent or the Dudley do-Right of the coin world? >>
WOW... Eric has a website, and as far as I know nothing is away from fact. Now this case is interesting as it relates to slime, but some of thes comments are just "interesting".
Yes, I prefer the old method of face to face, the bad guy gets a slug of lead in his gut method.
This doesn't happen often, but I am speechless. You have the addresses of these wonderful people; please tell them how moved I am by their unbelievable generosity.
Thanks,
Chrysta
<< <i>When you say "our plans" I hope the group is not going to dig the hole even deeper by conspiring to fabricate facts for a defense.
I also want to say that while I think your heart is in the right place this country does not need nor condone vigilante law. I know that it is painful to see a someone take advantage of people including me, but what kind of country would we have if everyone who thought that something was not right decided to go about dealing with it in their own way. I have seen your methods of dealing with people who you and many others consider to be on the wrong side of what is right. But I must say that you, while well meaning and exciting to watch and get behind, you are very much at risk for the law protects the bad and the good people and takes a dim view of those who think their justice is the correct way to solve the problem. While many here may back you verbally none will do what you have. Why, because it is wrong. You are right and I thank you for it but I can't sit here an agree with your style knowing full well that it is wrong. VIgilantes are downright scary. The brown shirts of Nazi Germany thought they knew what was right and it did not take too many years in the right environment where their beliefs became the norm. The hate, the contempt, the racist views all started with a handful of men who thought they could make the law and did to the detriment of the world.
So, while the ACG idiot is a bad guy he is simply using the system to put you vigilantes back into place. After all Eric nobody elected you, you have only the facts as you know them and have taken steps based on your opinion that seriously affected a guys business. I see you and many others on these forums as wanting to clean up the hobby but who named you or anybody judge jury and executuioner? While you think you are the Robin Hood of the coin collecting world, you are really nothing more than a lawbreaking vigilante who somehow has convinced himself that the method is not important and only a means to the end which is what gives you satisfaction. To know that you put somebody out of business or in some other way beat them. makes your day. You may feel powerful and gain a since of self worth from your actions. As you see this is way out of line. Maybe I am over simplifying the situtation and speaking with less facts than my assumptions. Please tell us what motivates your vigilante activity? Are you Clark Kent or the Dudley do-Right of the coin world? >>
Wow, I am from Montana and we have a wonderful history of using Vigilante law (in fact my home town has a parade for it each year). Somtimes it is a needed thing, glad to see it in use.
Just to keep myself out of these legal proceedings: These guys (vigilantes) put ropes around the necks of the slimes and dropped them over a bridge (well that was in 1917, they usually used trees), so I don't think that happened to any of these people.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
The only "fabrication" is your statement.
I remember you from the coin doctor threads last year. You made some radical remarks, which condoned coin doctoring.
Now you are defending poor ACG. The people against coin doctors do not wear the "brown shirts" and are not "vigilantes", nor are the people speaking their minds concerning ACG.
Your 'wimpy', not get involved, do nothing attitude, is something I detest.
I do not think there is another person on the planet who would say speaking against coin doctors or an unethical, inefficient, third party grading service, is considered vigilantism.
You have caught my attention once again, and hopefully you do not believe the words you post here !!! Now you can label me as a 'vigilante', because I have spoken my mind !!!
Please don't misunderstand me. I am happy that ACG was hurt enough to file a suit, what I mean is the outfit was as crooked as can be and the actions of the people who stood up and did something about it was a good thing. I myself lost a few thousand dollars based on the ACG scam so I on one hanc take my hat off to Eric and others. But then I ask myself is this what the 21st Century and all this technology has brought us... a new soapbox to stand on and like the wooden type to shout out are thoughts in a society built on the individual and free speech. However this new soapbox reaches more people faster and can be used to in sense economically cripple a business that relies on ecommerce.
I am not saying do nothing about the wrongs in the world but only to think about what power words carry and what starts as a rumor can turn into an all out assault by a group that believes that they are in the right by taking the law into their own hands. It may feel good and seem like the quickest way to end the dishonest activity but is this really how you want to see the society ruled. On other words the biggest gang is always the right just because they say so. While I literally despise ACG and Hager and appreciate Erics information that really showed the corrupt Alan Hager's activities to be blantant and fraudulent. Awesome job, well done but when its you they label with a Yellow star or a Red letter in Salem or as a communist on a blacklist in the 1950's then all of a sudden you are the one being attacked by a group who think they are the law. It is then you will understand that this type of behavior is a serious affront to the freedoms we all enjoy. Believe me the courts and law enforcement nip this in the butt real quick as it can unravel and splinter a society in a matter of years especially in a mixed race culture. Look at how the feds reacted to the right wingers in Texas. Eric did a great thing but I am just calling it like I see it and I surely hope Hager does not win any money as that would be a travesty in the extreme. I think Eric should be made President whose job it is to rebuild the ACG name without the dishonest activity. He then would see both the good and bad he did. Just a thought, I am not trying to inflame the issue or cut anybody down. Dang, they should give the guy a purple star or a silver star? . Get the drift?
al h.
"Consumer Litigation
What Florida Law Provides
The Attorney General's Office is an enforcing authority of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which is meant to protect individual consumers and legitimate businesses from various types of illegal conduct in trade or commerce. Pursuant to the Act, the attorney general investigates and files civil actions against persons who engage in unfair methods of competition, unfair, unconscionable or deceptive trade practices, including, but not limited to, pyramid schemes, misleading franchise or business opportunities, travel scams, fraudulent telemarketing, and false or misleading advertising. "
Perhaps a vigilante like Mr.Crist can consider whether any of ACG's actions violate state law.
Ironically, this is also on the FL Attorney General's website:
Tips For Consumers
If you are looking to invest in rare coins, do your homework first.
Independently research the rare coin market
Instinctively disbelieve everything the telemarketer tells you on the phone. Go to the local library. Read numismatic (coin) and investing publications. Talk to a respected coin dealer in your area. Contact the American Numismatic Association (818 N. Cascade Ave., Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903; phone (719)632-2646). Ask questions. Understand rare coin quality and grading. Learn realistic market values. Research profit history in rare coin investing. Certainly, an informed investor can make money with rare coins. An uninformed investor can lose a fortune with rare coins.
I wonder if he's aware several board members of the ANA are getting ready to go to court with the Hagars, and that they're a Florida based business. I also wonder whether he's read the ANA findings. Hell, who knows, maybe Mr.Crist's in cahoots with the ANA.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
There is no reason people should not be permitted to share negative experiences with other consumers. It's the company's responsibility to produce high-quality products and provide high-quality service. Therefore, a company that continues over a long period of time to provide shoddy products and use deceptive sales tactics is commiting suicide. At some point in time the bad experiences will become so extensively shared that responses like boycotts and such -- which are not illegal -- become inevitable.
I can see where you are coming from, though. From what I have read in these last several posts, it appears that you approve of ATing coins -- an admittedly controversial business activity in the numismatic world -- and probably sell them on eBay. If you are stating which coins you are offering for sale that have been AT'd as such, well then, you are acting honestly on your opinions. If you are neglecting to inform potential buyers that your coins have been AT'd then you are asking people to assume you are "hiding something" and to begin spreading the word to their friends. Since those who later find out that the coins they bought from you are AT'd and therefore worth less on the market than the naturally toned coins they thought they were buying, what they have to say about you will undoubtedly be negative. Over time, this will hurt your business. If you are identifying AT coins as such when you sell them, your sales would probably hurt (since those who don't want AT'd coins wouldn't be making the mistake of buying them from you), but your reputation would remain intact and you'd be respected as an honest seller. I don't know your eBay handle or which approach you take, if you do indeed sell AT coins, but if I know which is the case, I can pretty reliably predict the long-term trajectory of your business reputation.
With respect to ACG's reputation, I don't believe that any "conspiracy" could do them in. Most of their wounds are self-inflicted and the rest are the consequences that flow from them. There's simply too much smoke for there not to be a fire. As far as I'm concerned, the only good service ACG has rendered the collector community is an unintentional one -- it has helped to uncover the most predatory dealers at shows and on eBay.
Come on over ... to The Dark Side!
I don't understand where you got that idea. How did that issue arise. I don't condone any such thing and have opinions on that subject but what does that have to do with this. On that subject I just think that the bigger sellers are getting AT coins slabbed and it craxks me up to see people here defend it if its slabbed and they own it but shread it if its raw and they dont. I have no interests that would benefit or not and do not sell or deal in that area thus my opinons are not biased.
I also in no way am against one consumer informing another of their experience, what I can't condone is one person acting as investigator then presenting the findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions that start a whirlwind effect and can get out of control and damage somebody's livlihood whether it is deserved or not. I am just saying that while with the best of intentions may be there ayou can see where it might lead. Do you think a the people who were parry to blacklisting acused communists in the 1950s thought they were doing good for society? Yes they did when in truth there were other things fueling this witchhunt. The problem was that nobody stood up and said hey wait a minute this is wrong and it needs to stop. The crowd was just too overpowering and so what is a few hundred or whatever people's lives being destroyed so that we can all feel good and go along with the group. Hey. Its not like I have not been involved in such a thing. I remember the say Oklahoma City was bombed, I and most everyone were convinced that it was some outside Terrorist group and Islamic in nature. But then it was learned that it was an American citizen who was ex military and a right wing conservative. I remember how stupid I felt blaming a group of people that did not have anything to do with it. I am just voicing what is really common sense. While it all sounds good in an emotional rally to do good it can all turn sour and get ugly so fast all because the group acts much difeferently than an individual would due to all the pressures and other interactions that justify some of the most henous crimes in history. How in the heck did a country full of nice folks produce a planned organized large intricate operation to systemactically kill and erradicate 6 million people and no opposition group stood up and said this wrong. The answer, while extreme , just shows what society is capable of under the right situation. Another example is this Howard Stern deal. While the guy is warped it is entertaining once in a while. It is the ability to say what you or I dont like on one hand that is there protecting what we do like on the other hand but might offend others. Where they draw the line is shouting fire in a crowded theater and that is kind of what this deal is about. If a group of people get together to talk about how to do something that hurts anothers in some way then are liable. WHy, becasue they are not the courts and just becasue the members determined the facts to be enough reason to take action does not give the people a license to do wrong even though it may be right.
Please dont think that I am somehow pro ACG for that is nonsense and the guy cost me a lot of money and I have no love for them nor sympathy and I hope the jury awards them a stint cleaning latrines in Iraq. So please dont make snide little comments that you think I am in anyway connected to this case. I am not and don't really know enough to say much more. I am just speaking my peace and hope the jury is full of young male coin collectors as they will aquit
Americans are free to "investigate" businesses, services, hobbies, the government, indeed a great many things, and are free to share their results, opinions and criticisms with whomever they wish, and further are free to discriminate against businesses and service providers. I discriminate against ACG -- I don't buy their crap -- and I'm sharing that with everyone and will continue to do so. It's my opinion, and I will express it today, tomorrow, ten years from now.
It makes no difference whether you "condone" it. You don't like it? Good, because I don't care. ACG disagrees? Let me direct ACG and its counsel to the Bill of Rights, and specifically Amendment I.
I didn't think it possible -- Nazis, Timothy McVeigh, and the Red Scare all in one paragraph. No, I didn't waste my valuable time deciphering your incoherent gibberish. And that's two opinions in one post, in case you didn't catch my drift the first time:
I am just saying that while with the best of intentions may be there ayou can see where it might lead. Do you think a the people who were parry to blacklisting acused communists in the 1950s thought they were doing good for society? Yes they did when in truth there were other things fueling this witchhunt. The problem was that nobody stood up and said hey wait a minute this is wrong and it needs to stop. The crowd was just too overpowering and so what is a few hundred or whatever people's lives being destroyed so that we can all feel good and go along with the group. Hey. Its not like I have not been involved in such a thing. I remember the say Oklahoma City was bombed, I and most everyone were convinced that it was some outside Terrorist group and Islamic in nature. But then it was learned that it was an American citizen who was ex military and a right wing conservative. I remember how stupid I felt blaming a group of people that did not have anything to do with it. I am just voicing what is really common sense. While it all sounds good in an emotional rally to do good it can all turn sour and get ugly so fast all because the group acts much difeferently than an individual would due to all the pressures and other interactions that justify some of the most henous crimes in history. How in the heck did a country full of nice folks produce a planned organized large intricate operation to systemactically kill and erradicate 6 million people and no opposition group stood up and said this wrong. The answer, while extreme , just shows what society is capable of under the right situation. Another example is this Howard Stern deal. While the guy is warped it is entertaining once in a while. It is the ability to say what you or I dont like on one hand that is there protecting what we do like on the other hand but might offend others. Where they draw the line is shouting fire in a crowded theater and that is kind of what this deal is about. If a group of people get together to talk about how to do something that hurts anothers in some way then are liable. WHy, becasue they are not the courts and just becasue the members determined the facts to be enough reason to take action does not give the people a license to do wrong even though it may be right.
Please dont think that I am somehow pro ACG for that is nonsense and the guy cost me a lot of money and I have no love for them nor sympathy and I hope the jury awards them a stint cleaning latrines in Iraq. So please dont make snide little comments that you think I am in anyway connected to this case. I am not and don't really know enough to say much more. I am just speaking my peace and hope the jury is full of young male coin collectors as they will aquit
D.O.T., ACG's livelihood is based on their handling of other people's money. What level of scrutiny would you suggest so that no damage was done "whether they deserved it or not", when in fact their reputation is what they're marketing? Since you yourself feel victimized by ACG, had you done some investigating and discovered what you believed to be malfeasance would you say so publicly, or would you keep it to yourself allowing others to suffer the same losses? I don't know all the intricacies of the ACG case, but I have read enough to believe some folks shouted fire because they thought there was one. Would you say it was acceptable to yell fire in a theatre when the theatre was on fire? Having read the ANA transcripts and the findings, and looking at the list of names that are allegedly conspiring against ACG, I'm prone to believe there was a fire. Personally, I don't like ACG grading, and find it inconsistent, inaccurate, and unreliable. If only a portion of what John Callandrello alleged in the ANA hearings is true, Mr.Hagar's actions were criminal. If the ANA findings are accurate and the holder grade is misleading to purchasers of ACG graded coins, that would seem to be an issue for the FL Attorney General, since deceptive advertising is illegal in FL. Eric has indeed been active in his persuit of information about these folks. Now that he's managed to get everyone's attention, I suppose the courts will decide whether his actions were character assination, or whether there was really a fire in the theatre. I find myself more inclined to lend my support to the folks named on the list than to worry about the Hagars livelyhood if they are guilty of what has been alleged. There are some very good numismatists on the list of defendants that apparently believe they are.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Very well said. The average person who has a bad experience with a company, tells 19 other people about their experience. (I learned that in a class I recently attended) Some people choose to share their bad experince with a few more than 19 to try and ensure that it will never happen again to anyone else.
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
<< <i>Americans are free to "investigate" businesses, services, hobbies, the government, indeed a great many things, and are free to share their results, opinions and criticisms with whomever they wish, and further are free to discriminate against businesses and service providers >>
This is not completely true. You do have a limited right to complain and state your criticisms. It's when your purposefully interfere with someone's livelihood and prevent them from earning a living do you begin to cross over the line. No different if I called your boss and said "hey did you know that sequitur guy is a crack addict and embezzled $20,000 from his last job to pay for his habit." Would the Consitution protect me from your lawsuit? No ---
<< <i>Let me direct ACG and its counsel to the Bill of Rights, and specifically Amendment I. >>
This is simply incorrect. Free speech and it's consitutional protections only apply to your rights in regards to the United States Government. There are no constitutional protections of free speech between individuals, and a company is an individual.
While I don't support ACG's grading or business tatics, there are better ways to deal with this type of situation. As I said before, I'm not surprised this has happened. And I think many of you will be somewhat surprised of the result. It's one thing to post some pics and an opinion on a website, defending your position in a court is entirely different. I wish the defendant's luck, but it's going to cost a small fortune to see who is right and who is wrong -- all wasted in legal fees.
There are so many other ways, legally, that someone could have damaged ACG and practically put them out of business. And in the process won an award that could have compensated some of the people that feel they were scammed by ACG.
Michael
<< <i>I also in no way am against one consumer informing another of their experience, what I can't condone is one person acting as investigator then presenting the findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions that start a whirlwind effect and can get out of control and damage somebody's livlihood whether it is deserved or not. >>
Sounds like every case of whistleblowing I've ever heard of -- and those folks are deemed "heroes". I think what you fail to discern is that there is a difference between "presenting honest findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions..." and "presenting false findings in such a way that it stirs up emotions...". The former is commendable, the latter disreputable ... and neither "vigilantism."
Come on over ... to The Dark Side!
This is simply incorrect. Free speech and it's consitutional protections only apply to your rights in regards to the United States Government. There are no constitutional protections of free speech between individuals, and a company is an individual.
This is news to me. The courts and jury-awarded damages most certainly are functions of the government, as are the causes of action pursuant to which ACG brought its complaint in the first place. In any event, I would appreciate your interpretation of how the Rehnquist Court reached the following conclusions in light of your statement. Certainly seems to me these ideals apply to "individuals," as you say, and directly addresses jury-awarded damages arising from offensive speech, in the greater context of the markplace of ideas -- and the First Amendment itself:
"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.)
al h.
Sequitur, You are obviously an expert in your field. Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I hope someone prints this entire thread out and starts mailing it to people. Everyone here has expressed their comments in an orderly and mature manner and I appreciate that. (especially because I read it with my kids next to me.)
All of the cases you have citied deal with public figures. Unless you assume that Alan Hager is a public official or figure, I just don't see these cases being applied to this matter. The ACG situation involves private individuals and private matters.
Your own case cite ---
<< <i>"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. >>
supports my position that bad motive -- the crux of Hager's complaint, may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability. Matter of fact, all your cites deal with political or social discourse. While I agree that ACG might be a blight on this hobby, I doubt it would rise to the level of political or social discourse when we discuss the inherent problems with their grading standards.
While your cites might impress some, they really aren't analogous to this situation. Sorry I'm just not buying that fact that you can interfere with someone's business and then claim Constitutional protection for your own malfeasance. And as a lawyer, I just don't think it's a good idea that you are citing cases that might cause some to believe that all speech is protected. You certainly know that isn't true.
Michael
I was merely responding to the statement, "There are no constitutional protections of free speech between individuals, and a company is an individual." I was registering my disagreement, especially given the present context, i.e. a thread concerning what is, at base, a SLAPP suit. As soon as you file suit, by definition the government is a player and hence the constitutional protections apply. To what degree the protections apply, we shall soon find out. I made no specific representations in that regard, and plainly there is a wide difference of opinion on the matter. But it will be interesting.
We can dicker about the holdings of cases or the meaning of "public figure," but I cited only one case -- the Hustler case (which contained the other citations). Why? It puts the lie to the notion the First Amendment does not apply as between individuals -- or ACG and the defendants here. To the contrary, the Hustler opinion demonstrates (i) the sensitivities of courts to tort suits among individuals (like ACG's) that have the effect of chilling speech, and (ii) private plaintiffs seeking redress have to suffer the consequences of living in a country with a First Amendment.
The ACG situation involves private individuals and private matters.
It does? We are a long way from any sort of definitive conclusion about this, and much will be said about what is "private" when it comes to ACG. There are many more things to be said, but I am reserving comment.
While I agree that ACG might be a blight on this hobby, I doubt it would rise to the level of political or social discourse when we discuss the inherent problems with their grading standards.
Why?
And as a lawyer, I just don't think it's a good idea that you are citing cases that might cause some to believe that all speech is protected. You certainly know that isn't true.
No one said all speech is protected, and it is plain I was speaking in generalities, not absolutes.
Concerning it being a bad "idea" to cite a published legal opinion because it may "cause some to believe all speech is protected": come on, people are a lot smarter than that. That's really what you think? It's bad form to quote the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court because someone may reach an erroneous conclusion about what was said in the opinion? What's next, locking up the Supreme Court Reporter?
What's more, we're in a thread whose very topic is getting served with a lawsuit for allegedly making defamatory/libelous statments -- really, are additional caveats necessary?
If someone were so stupid -- yes, stupid -- to reach such a conclusion, the last thing we should be concerned about is quoting some text from the Hustler opinion in the PCGS forum.
Lane
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
What about when people picket a business? Doesn't that interfere?
Sequitur - In that case, I'll be the one to speak in absolutes. The First Amendment does not protect ANY free speech. It only prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech".
For those interested, here's the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
NEVER LET HIPPO MOUTH OVERLOAD HUMMINGBIRD BUTT!!!
WORK HARDER!!!!
Millions on WELFARE depend on you!
Citing case law is meaningful, but nowhere near a battle winner.
Don't count any money until the fat lady sings.
TP
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
This attitude is rampant, and this is our current single biggest problem.
If all we are ever going to receive from these certifying companies is just opinions that can vary from a body bad at one place, to an MS coin at another, why have we all bought into this? When PCGS and NGC got these companies rolling in the mid 80’s was there not an implicate promise of expert opinions that would be
the same from all experts in the field. Is that what we have now? Perhaps one good thing that might come from a suit of this type is some type of public scrutiny of the coin certification business as a whole. In what other areas of expert opinions where millions of dollars in fees are collected each year is there so much slack in what the results of those opinions are? No where do I see in the literature of any of these companies statements saying that their grading is a subjective matter and coins that are nearly identical may vary in grades by as much as 50%, or disclaimers saying that coins that we deem un-slabbable may in fact be slabbed with high grades by our competitors, due to the “gray-shaded art” in which we are employed.
In the case of assayers, surveyors, and many other property appraisers and evaluators if there are drastic mistakes made in these “expert certifications” the certifiers are held responsible for loss. Only in our area of collecting and investment is it deemed all right to make mistakes, and pay no penalty. I really don’t understand why very few of my brothers and sisters here find that our current situation is acceptable. Are not many of us taking the same risks as people in other personal property acquisitions? Why is there no out-rage for the man that has his coin certified as a VF 30 when it was in reality AU 58 but was sold as a VF 30 because a grader made a mistake, or had a bad day.
Happy Easter!
Lenny Briscoe
In Memory of BigIndie (Mike Dalzell) 1974-2004
Vietnam Vet 1968-1969
So a suspected drug dealer should NEVER be reported to the authorities?
If a robber breaks into your house you don't call the police because after all the poor guy is just trying to make a living?
A used car business that sets back odometers should not be reported cuz afterall they are trying to make a living albeit dishonestly?
<< <i>Sequitur - In that case, I'll be the one to speak in absolutes. The First Amendment does not protect ANY free speech. It only prohibits Congress from "abridging the freedom of speech". >>
Andy,
You're a smart guy. You know damned well that the protection has been expanded by case precedent far beyond the simple intent of the founders.
Russ, NCNE