Interesting. In Vermont, the parties to a small claims matter MAY be represented by an attorney. Not so in California. Here, you have to handle the matter yourself. Of course, you can somewhat sidestep this prohibition by having an attorney "review" your paperwork. But when it comes to presenting your matter in court, you're flying solo.
Keep in mind this all under the assumption that the person who emailed ACTUALLY is the person that received the cards and not someone yanking Greg's chain.
There have been a lot of accusations and claims made in this thread, but the fact remains that there is still no tangible proof that the cards were received by the indivdual that has been identified.
It is possible that the cards are still in the possession of Mr. Bednarik as the result of an oversight. But in the typical mentallity of many on these boards, it is easier to point a finger, assign blame and try and convict another without having all of the facts.
Not too long ago, I sent a card and a donation to Bill Dudley. I received the protective index cards back signed, but my card was not in the envelope. However, on the outside of the envelope (on the back) was a note from Mr. Dudley mentioning that he may have overlooked putting my card in the envelope as he had a extra on his table. He noted that if it was mine, to let him know. I wrote him and explained the situation and included the SASE he made the note on (I added another donation as well). Subsequently, he signed the card and wrote a note back to me. During the time that he signed the card and before it was mailed, he apparently took ill and was hospitalized. I received the card back, postmarked from Florida rather than Virginia and it had an additional note from his wife/daughter regarding the fact that Bill wanted the item returned to me and that he was hospitalized and the tone of the rest of the note was very sad as it sounds as if Mr. Dudley isn't doing very well.
Had the item been lost, it's the cost of the TTM process. Had someone else received it, then it would be the cost of the TTM process. It's not a perfect process, but it certainly beats buying these items from others that exploit these athletes for their own personal gain. As I've said before, if an athlete is deceased, that's a whole different ball of wax, but surviving athletes should be cut some slack. Most are very accomodating. However, when they are taken advantage of or exploited, then the TTM process is being abused and that is, for lack of a better word, the byproduct of greed.
"...There have been a lot of accusations and claims made in this thread, but the fact remains that there is still no tangible proof that the cards were received by the indivdual that has been identified...."
///////////////////////////////
ALL I think we know:
A person claims to have the cards.
We know who that person is. (Not the athlete BT.)
Finders Keepers don't apply.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
<< <i> But in the typical mentallity of many on these boards, it is easier to point a finger, assign blame and try and convict another without having all of the facts. >>
Like what you just did.
I'd like to know how many people here have had this happen to them... here?
CU members usually get the right man from what I see.
I'd like to know how many people here have had this happen to them... here?
CU members usually get the right man from what I see. >>
Like what I just did? I don't see your correlation.
All I am saying is that it is possible that one person is jerking Greg's chain. He could've actually received them, but perhaps not. If he didn't and he's just being an azz, then the mob may have gone overboard (harrassing emails and the like).
If this guy did receive the cards, then by all means, have at him. I'm just suggesting that this guy may NOT actually have the cards. Keep in mind the responses on the SCN boards and the fact that there are some real trolls over there. Trust me, I've experienced some of them.
The legal advice is great and it may be the best option, but consider that if this person were brought to court, what proof is there that he actually has the cards? If he's done this on a lark, then he'll have some admonishment from the judge, but I don't think there's any legal ground for recovery without proof of receipt. And to this point, we do not know for certain that the cards have even left the Bednarik household. All we know is that Greg did not receive them.
Well, like wagging your finger and blaming us for not having the facts. That's what this thread has been about, getting the facts. We all know that no one is for sure the perp. And we all know that there's a good possibility that even the perp of the spoof may not have the cards... "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
And sorry, who was it again that was wrongly accussed by us? And for what was that? I wouldn't ask if I could remember one example.
<< <i>Well, like wagging your finger and blaming us for not having the facts. That's what this thread has been about, getting the facts. We all know that no one is for sure the perp. And we all know that there's a good possibility that even the perp of the spoof may not have the cards... "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
And sorry, who was it again that was wrongly accussed by us? And for what was that? I wouldn't ask if I could remember one example. >>
Yes, but there have been those who suggested (1) mail bombing this Turcotte guy. not the explosive kind, mind you, but sending him lots and lots of e-mails (2) calling certain telephone numbers.
both of which could have severe negative consequences.
"...but I don't think there's any legal ground for recovery without proof of receipt. ..."
//////////////////////////////////////////
The subject has made numerous admissions against interest; acknowledging receipt. (This ain't PayPal rules, it's real life.)
If he later claims to be "just a troll," the judge, in my view, is unlikely to buy that defense.
I would love the irony of a false confesser - who is clearly guilty of some things - getting nailed. Many judges do, too.
.........
In fact, if the troll keeps it up, he might be lucky to escape an intentional infliction action in regular claims; for a lot more than the measly $5K small claims limit.
<< <i>Yes, but there have been those who suggested (1) mail bombing this Turcotte guy. not the explosive kind, mind you, but sending him lots and lots of e-mails (2) calling certain telephone numbers.
both of which could have severe negative consequences. >>
The only emails went back to the "possible spoof" sender. No problem there.
As for calling him, I hope no one has been doing that. They'd have do deal with that on their own if it ever came up.
n. an admission of the truth of a fact by any person, but especially by the parties to a lawsuit, when a statement obviously would do that person harm, be embarrassing, or be against his/her personal or business interests. Another party can quote in court an admission against interest even though it is only hearsay.
"Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true...."
.....
Words have consequences.
That's why the lawyers tell their clients to SHUT UP.
Spoofer or THIEF, I think/know I could nail the guy on his email statements.
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
I always thought hearsay referred to third party knowledge. e.g. in this case, "I heard that a Mr. Brett Turcotte sent an e-mail claiming that he had the cards." I always thought that first party admissions were usually admissible.
<< <i>I always thought hearsay referred to third party knowledge. e.g. in this case, "I heard that a Mr. Brett Turcotte sent an e-mail claiming that he had the cards." I always thought that first party admissions were usually admissible. >>
/////////////
I don't fully understand your question, but here is the wiki on the rule:
<< <i>I always thought hearsay referred to third party knowledge. e.g. in this case, "I heard that a Mr. Brett Turcotte sent an e-mail claiming that he had the cards." I always thought that first party admissions were usually admissible. >>
/////////////
I don't fully understand your question, but here is the wiki on the rule:
Yes, but if Mr. Turcotte sent the e-mail claming that he had the cards, then it is not hearsay because it came from his own words.
If I were in a court of law that I heard that Mr. Turcotte had the cards, without actually communicating with him personally or seeing the action of his having the cards, then I believe that is hearsay.
I have seen your recent posts on Sports Collectors.net and I am possibly the person you are referring to. I recently wrote to Mr. Bednarik and received back my signed index card in addition to a 1948 Leaf and 1961 Fleer. I am sorry if you are upset, but I will not be sending you back these cards. I am not dishonest, but there is no way you can prove the cards are yours. I feel that Mr. Bednarik sent me the cards as a gift because of the nice letter I wrote. He would not have sent them if he did not want me to have them. If the cards did originally come from you, I am sorry, but I also feel that ownership is 9/10ths of the law. Once you send something through the mail, it may or not come back. I hope you understand my stance and wish you the best with your collection. I have never had cards this nice before and I have even been thinking of exclusively collecting the older stuff from now on.
Good luck!
Brett >>
Maybe you should write asking if Mr. Bednarik wrote a letter stating that the cards were a gift. After all, wouldn't someone who sends a gift at least write a letter stating that it was a gift? I would.
Yes. I agree. But back to this situation. this alleged Mr. Turcotte's statement does not fall into this category, because he is the alleged "defendant" in this case, and it is his statement via e-mail.
Whether his statements are true are an entirely different story.
An alleged "declaration of interest" is I believe significantly different. Let's take the following hypothetical scenario.
(1) I heard from a friend that Executive X stole a million dollars from the bank. (2) I strongly believe that the main premise in (1) to be true, that Executive X stole money from the bank. (3) There is a law stating that I must report thefts upon probable knowledge within 24 hours. (4) I fail to follow the law in (3).
Based on (2) and (4), I have committed a declaration against interest based on a "hearsay statement" that someone else told me.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
In my opinion there are too many variables here. First off, the guy might just be jerking your chain. There are plenty of goobs out there who would do that. Second, even if true, you can't prove conclusively the cards are yours, unless you had the only two such cards in existence. In short, you have circumstantial evidence at best. You can't even prove he has any cards at all...all you can prove is that he SAYS he has two similar cards. He could just say he's a serial practical joker and was kidding the whole time. And I doubt Bednarik will want to get involved in this.
If you are convinced he has your stuff, rather than seeking advice from armchair lawyers on an internet forum why don't you contact a real attorney to discuss your options, if any?
CB wrote back to me saying that he didn't have the cards and must have accidentally sent them to someone else. There is nothing else I can do. I don't know for sure who has the cards (I have an idea)...so it looks like I'm out $300+.
Rgs,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
Comments
/s/ JackWESQ
//////////////////////////
I was just going to say that is about the only non-stinky thing
about the VT rules.
In this matter, the OP would be well served by allowing a lawyer
to file. Some/all reasonable fees may be recoverable; maybe not.
If anybody sues me, I hope they do so in VT small claims. The carppy
rules will let me tie the plaintiff up for a loooooooongtime.
.........
Back in the day, many small claims courts allowed defendants to use
lawyers AND to move the case into regular claims.
This put consumer plaintiffs at a severe disadvantage, and has mostly
been done away with.
In VT, they have an almost equally screwy scheme that allows the def to ask
for a jury trial. lol
....
The OP can still operate under the rules and get the job done, if he decides to.
There have been a lot of accusations and claims made in this thread, but the fact remains that there is still no tangible proof that the cards were received by the indivdual that has been identified.
It is possible that the cards are still in the possession of Mr. Bednarik as the result of an oversight. But in the typical mentallity of many on these boards, it is easier to point a finger, assign blame and try and convict another without having all of the facts.
Not too long ago, I sent a card and a donation to Bill Dudley. I received the protective index cards back signed, but my card was not in the envelope. However, on the outside of the envelope (on the back) was a note from Mr. Dudley mentioning that he may have overlooked putting my card in the envelope as he had a extra on his table. He noted that if it was mine, to let him know. I wrote him and explained the situation and included the SASE he made the note on (I added another donation as well). Subsequently, he signed the card and wrote a note back to me. During the time that he signed the card and before it was mailed, he apparently took ill and was hospitalized. I received the card back, postmarked from Florida rather than Virginia and it had an additional note from his wife/daughter regarding the fact that Bill wanted the item returned to me and that he was hospitalized and the tone of the rest of the note was very sad as it sounds as if Mr. Dudley isn't doing very well.
Had the item been lost, it's the cost of the TTM process. Had someone else received it, then it would be the cost of the TTM process. It's not a perfect process, but it certainly beats buying these items from others that exploit these athletes for their own personal gain. As I've said before, if an athlete is deceased, that's a whole different ball of wax, but surviving athletes should be cut some slack. Most are very accomodating. However, when they are taken advantage of or exploited, then the TTM process is being abused and that is, for lack of a better word, the byproduct of greed.
///////////////////////////////
ALL I think we know:
A person claims to have the cards.
We know who that person is. (Not the athlete BT.)
Finders Keepers don't apply.
<< <i> But in the typical mentallity of many on these boards, it is easier to point a finger, assign blame and try and convict another without having all of the facts. >>
Like what you just did.
I'd like to know how many people here have had this happen to them... here?
CU members usually get the right man from what I see.
<< <i>Like what you just did.
I'd like to know how many people here have had this happen to them... here?
CU members usually get the right man from what I see. >>
Like what I just did? I don't see your correlation.
All I am saying is that it is possible that one person is jerking Greg's chain. He could've actually received them, but perhaps not. If he didn't and he's just being an azz, then the mob may have gone overboard (harrassing emails and the like).
If this guy did receive the cards, then by all means, have at him. I'm just suggesting that this guy may NOT actually have the cards. Keep in mind the responses on the SCN boards and the fact that there are some real trolls over there. Trust me, I've experienced some of them.
The legal advice is great and it may be the best option, but consider that if this person were brought to court, what proof is there that he actually has the cards? If he's done this on a lark, then he'll have some admonishment from the judge, but I don't think there's any legal ground for recovery without proof of receipt. And to this point, we do not know for certain that the cards have even left the Bednarik household. All we know is that Greg did not receive them.
Just some food for thought.
And sorry, who was it again that was wrongly accussed by us? And for what was that? I wouldn't ask if I could remember one example.
<< <i>Well, like wagging your finger and blaming us for not having the facts. That's what this thread has been about, getting the facts. We all know that no one is for sure the perp. And we all know that there's a good possibility that even the perp of the spoof may not have the cards... "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
And sorry, who was it again that was wrongly accussed by us? And for what was that? I wouldn't ask if I could remember one example. >>
Yes, but there have been those who suggested
(1) mail bombing this Turcotte guy. not the explosive kind, mind you, but sending him lots and lots of e-mails
(2) calling certain telephone numbers.
both of which could have severe negative consequences.
//////////////////////////////////////////
The subject has made numerous admissions against interest;
acknowledging receipt. (This ain't PayPal rules, it's real life.)
If he later claims to be "just a troll," the judge, in my view, is
unlikely to buy that defense.
I would love the irony of a false confesser - who is clearly guilty
of some things - getting nailed. Many judges do, too.
.........
In fact, if the troll keeps it up, he might be lucky to escape an
intentional infliction action in regular claims; for a lot more
than the measly $5K small claims limit.
////////////
///////////////////
////////////////////////
AGAIN, the famous BT guy has nothing to do with this matter.
/s/ JackWESQ
<< <i>Yes, but there have been those who suggested
(1) mail bombing this Turcotte guy. not the explosive kind, mind you, but sending him lots and lots of e-mails
(2) calling certain telephone numbers.
both of which could have severe negative consequences. >>
The only emails went back to the "possible spoof" sender. No problem there.
As for calling him, I hope no one has been doing that. They'd have do deal with that on their own if it ever came up.
<< <i>You give someone enough rope and he'll hang himself. Declarations against interest - Very powerful in a court of law.
/s/ JackWESQ >>
////////////////////////////////
admission against interest
n. an admission of the truth of a fact by any person, but especially by the parties to a lawsuit, when a statement obviously would do that person harm, be embarrassing, or be against his/her personal or business interests. Another party can quote in court an admission against interest even though it is only hearsay.
"Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a person's statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so prejudicial to the person making it that they would not have made the statement unless they believed the statement was true...."
.....
Words have consequences.
That's why the lawyers tell their clients to SHUT UP.
Spoofer or THIEF, I think/know I could nail the guy on his email statements.
<< <i>I always thought hearsay referred to third party knowledge. e.g. in this case, "I heard that a Mr. Brett Turcotte sent an e-mail claiming that he had the cards." I always thought that first party admissions were usually admissible. >>
/////////////
I don't fully understand your question, but here is the wiki on the rule:
hearsay
<< <i>
<< <i>I always thought hearsay referred to third party knowledge. e.g. in this case, "I heard that a Mr. Brett Turcotte sent an e-mail claiming that he had the cards." I always thought that first party admissions were usually admissible. >>
/////////////
I don't fully understand your question, but here is the wiki on the rule:
hearsay >>
Yes, but if Mr. Turcotte sent the e-mail claming that he had the cards, then it is not hearsay because it came from his own words.
If I were in a court of law that I heard that Mr. Turcotte had the cards, without actually communicating with him personally or seeing the action of his having the cards, then I believe that is hearsay.
"Hearsay is the legal term that describes statements made outside of court or other judicial proceedings..."
<< <i>Brett Turcotte
Greg,
I have seen your recent posts on Sports Collectors.net and I am possibly the person you are referring to. I recently wrote to Mr. Bednarik and received back my signed index card in addition to a 1948 Leaf and 1961 Fleer. I am sorry if you are upset, but I will not be sending you back these cards. I am not dishonest, but there is no way you can prove the cards are yours. I feel that Mr. Bednarik sent me the cards as a gift because of the nice letter I wrote. He would not have sent them if he did not want me to have them. If the cards did originally come from you, I am sorry, but I also feel that ownership is 9/10ths of the law. Once you send something through the mail, it may or not come back. I hope you understand my stance and wish you the best with your collection. I have never had cards this nice before and I have even been thinking of exclusively collecting the older stuff from now on.
Good luck!
Brett >>
Maybe you should write asking if Mr. Bednarik wrote a letter stating that the cards were a gift. After all, wouldn't someone who sends a gift at least write a letter stating that it was a gift? I would.
<< <i>DONT TELL ME WHAT SOMEONE ELSE TOLD YOU >>
/////////////////////////////
Exactly!!!!!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>DONT TELL ME WHAT SOMEONE ELSE TOLD YOU >>
/////////////////////////////
Exactly!!!!!!!! >>
Yes. I agree. But back to this situation. this alleged Mr. Turcotte's statement does not fall into this category, because he is the alleged "defendant" in this case, and it is his statement via e-mail.
Whether his statements are true are an entirely different story.
An alleged "declaration of interest" is I believe significantly different. Let's take the following hypothetical scenario.
(1) I heard from a friend that Executive X stole a million dollars from the bank.
(2) I strongly believe that the main premise in (1) to be true, that Executive X stole money from the bank.
(3) There is a law stating that I must report thefts upon probable knowledge within 24 hours.
(4) I fail to follow the law in (3).
Based on (2) and (4), I have committed a declaration against interest based on a "hearsay statement" that someone else told me.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
If you are convinced he has your stuff, rather than seeking advice from armchair lawyers on an internet forum why don't you contact a real attorney to discuss your options, if any?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!?!?!?
Authorized wholesale dealer for BCW, if you need any supplies let me know and I will get you a quote
Authorized wholesale dealer for BCW, if you need any supplies let me know and I will get you a quote
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>SteveK knows plenty of lawyers, I'm told... >>
500 at the bottom of the ocean would be a good start.
This guy who wrote the letter should be ashamed of himself in every which way.