Options
I just read the complaint filed in the PCGS lawsuit. Funny thing is that .......................
SanctionII
Posts: 11,732 ✭✭✭✭✭
…………….. I know two of the attorneys representing PCGS.
Specifically Keith Attlesey and Suzanne Shaw Storm.
A few years back I was involved in a lawsuit where these two attorneys represented other parties. I have spoken with Suzanne Shaw Storm since she handled the case on a daily basis. I vaguely recall also speaking to Mr. Attlesey when I first contacted his office at the beginning of the case. It was a real estate loan foreclosure dispute for a No. Cal. property. Back then they both worked for another law firm (Keith Attlesey was a name partner in the prior firm and Suzanne Shaw Storm was Suzanne Shaw. The prior firm has obviously broken up; Keith Attlesey and Suzanne Shaw went into business together; and Ms. Shaw got married to become Suzanne Shaw Storm.) Good luck to both of them.
The complaint is an interesting read. The use of Doe Defendants [fictitiously named defendants when you suspect that other persons/companies are out there who have done you wrong but you do not know their names and identities yet] is a common practice in California state courts. I do not know how common it is in federal court practice since I rarely get involved in federal court cases. Most complaints that use Doe Defendants list much more than 10 of them. Usually Does 1-25, 1-50 or even 1-100 are used simply to give you more flexibility in bringing additional defendants into the case after yoiu discover who they are. I suspect that there could be additional persons that will be added to this case as defendants after their names are revealed through discovery.
The wording quoted in the complaint contained within PCGS Dealer Agreements is very strong. It clearly prohibits the dealer who signs the agreement from doctoring coins or knowingly submitting to PCGS coins which have been doctored. Like others who have commented in the main thread on the lawsuit, I suspect that PCGS has, during the course of its operations, kept very good records about coins submitted by suspected doctors or third persons submitting on behalf of suspected doctors, including records of claims paid to owners of the doctored coins under the PCGS guarantee. This evidence will be strong and hard for the defendants to deal with.
Commercial law, including laws designed to protect consumers, on both the state and federal level is vast and complex. They are designed to promote stable and fair commercial transactions and to protect the public from being taken advantage of by the "bad guys".
However, in most fields of human endeavor [i.e. science (we can build a new super weapon , but should we), medicine (we can clone humans but should we), sports (we can take artificial substances that allow us to run faster, hit more homeruns, but should we), business (we can make a 100% LTV ARM home loan to someone who we know, will not be able to pay it back after the teaser rate expires, but should we], many people conduct themselves in a manner whereby they are motivated by fame, greed and immediate gratification. So much so that these people conduct themselves without regard to laws, morals and ethics. Abuses inevitably arise and in response to these abuses, society reacts. These reactions are almost always after the fact and many times take the form of laws and regulations enacted by government at local, state and national levels. Many times the laws and regulations passed and enacted are designed to address specific abuses.
If the reactions by society in response to abuses have success, many times the success is fleeting because the bad guys simply abandon their current business model and go on to the next one. Some of them may be taken down individually, but for those who go down in flames, there are always others waiting in the wings to take their places.
An analogy would be a watercourse that floods a certain area when too much water enters the watercourse. Humans react to prevent flooding of the certain area by altering the conditions [i.e. diverting the water to a different course, or raising the banks alongside the watercourse adjacent to the certain area]. Altering the conditions does not stop the problem, it just moves the problem to another location [i.e. the certain area is spared floods, but other areas downstream or along the different course end up flooded].
The PCGS lawsuit [coupled with improved technology that it has acquired and is acquiring that will enable it to determine which coins submitted to it have and have not been "doctored"] will, at a minimum, "alter the conditions" [by shutting down specified "coin doctors" and/or by reducing/eliminating the number of doctored coins that make it into PCGS holders]. Whether the lawsuit and improved technology will "stop the problem" of doctored coins is yet to be seen. If I had to guess, I would guess that the lawsuit and improved technology will not totally stop coin doctoring [just like boiler room telemarketers and roachs can not be stopped since they scurry from one place to another].
One of the main problems with "coin doctoring" is definitional. What exactly is "coin doctoring"? Hard to define, as is attested to by the many threads on the topic posted on the forums over the years. Solid matter [including coins] changes due to environmental conditions. Sometimes the changes take a long time. Sometimes changes take a short amount of time. Humans can speed up the changes and can make the changes "improve" the specific piece of solid matter. The answer to whether a particular coin has been doctored may well be the "intent" of the person that owns the coin or that has possession of the coin during the time the change took place.
No hard and fast rule or definition will ever be agreed upon regarding what is or is not a "doctored coin". However, as knowledge expands and allows a greater number of coins to be definitively labeled as "doctored" and "not doctored", smaller number of coins will fall into the category of "we can not tell". This expansion of knowledge is a benefit to the hobby and PCGS is to be applauded for taking a lead in this expansion and in addressing the problem of doctored coins.
PCGS's efforts may very well result in the stopping of doctored coins making it to; and making it through the PCGS grading room. If PCGS is successful in stopping doctored coins from making it to and through the PCGS grading room, that, in and of itself, will give PCGS a huge amount of additional influence over the hobby, [more "street cred" as it were]. The hobby will develop to where:
1. collectors who collect raw, at the shallow end of the hobby pool, spending a few dollars here and there for nice raw coins to fill their albums will continue having fun with the hobby since the money invested is not great and the fun is;
2. colletors who chose to collect in deeper areas of the hobby pool, with substantial amounts of money being paid for the coins they desire to collect will be able to do so with greater confidence through their purchase of slabbed PCGS coins; and
3. collectors who choose to spend substantial sums of money on coins without first becoming educated about the hobby and the risks present in same will continue to be at risk of getting taken advantage of the "bad guys" in the hobby who conduct themselves without any regard for laws, morals and ethics.
Best of luck to PCGS, Keith Attlesey and Suzanne Shaw Storm (and Mr. Vartian)
Specifically Keith Attlesey and Suzanne Shaw Storm.
A few years back I was involved in a lawsuit where these two attorneys represented other parties. I have spoken with Suzanne Shaw Storm since she handled the case on a daily basis. I vaguely recall also speaking to Mr. Attlesey when I first contacted his office at the beginning of the case. It was a real estate loan foreclosure dispute for a No. Cal. property. Back then they both worked for another law firm (Keith Attlesey was a name partner in the prior firm and Suzanne Shaw Storm was Suzanne Shaw. The prior firm has obviously broken up; Keith Attlesey and Suzanne Shaw went into business together; and Ms. Shaw got married to become Suzanne Shaw Storm.) Good luck to both of them.
The complaint is an interesting read. The use of Doe Defendants [fictitiously named defendants when you suspect that other persons/companies are out there who have done you wrong but you do not know their names and identities yet] is a common practice in California state courts. I do not know how common it is in federal court practice since I rarely get involved in federal court cases. Most complaints that use Doe Defendants list much more than 10 of them. Usually Does 1-25, 1-50 or even 1-100 are used simply to give you more flexibility in bringing additional defendants into the case after yoiu discover who they are. I suspect that there could be additional persons that will be added to this case as defendants after their names are revealed through discovery.
The wording quoted in the complaint contained within PCGS Dealer Agreements is very strong. It clearly prohibits the dealer who signs the agreement from doctoring coins or knowingly submitting to PCGS coins which have been doctored. Like others who have commented in the main thread on the lawsuit, I suspect that PCGS has, during the course of its operations, kept very good records about coins submitted by suspected doctors or third persons submitting on behalf of suspected doctors, including records of claims paid to owners of the doctored coins under the PCGS guarantee. This evidence will be strong and hard for the defendants to deal with.
Commercial law, including laws designed to protect consumers, on both the state and federal level is vast and complex. They are designed to promote stable and fair commercial transactions and to protect the public from being taken advantage of by the "bad guys".
However, in most fields of human endeavor [i.e. science (we can build a new super weapon , but should we), medicine (we can clone humans but should we), sports (we can take artificial substances that allow us to run faster, hit more homeruns, but should we), business (we can make a 100% LTV ARM home loan to someone who we know, will not be able to pay it back after the teaser rate expires, but should we], many people conduct themselves in a manner whereby they are motivated by fame, greed and immediate gratification. So much so that these people conduct themselves without regard to laws, morals and ethics. Abuses inevitably arise and in response to these abuses, society reacts. These reactions are almost always after the fact and many times take the form of laws and regulations enacted by government at local, state and national levels. Many times the laws and regulations passed and enacted are designed to address specific abuses.
If the reactions by society in response to abuses have success, many times the success is fleeting because the bad guys simply abandon their current business model and go on to the next one. Some of them may be taken down individually, but for those who go down in flames, there are always others waiting in the wings to take their places.
An analogy would be a watercourse that floods a certain area when too much water enters the watercourse. Humans react to prevent flooding of the certain area by altering the conditions [i.e. diverting the water to a different course, or raising the banks alongside the watercourse adjacent to the certain area]. Altering the conditions does not stop the problem, it just moves the problem to another location [i.e. the certain area is spared floods, but other areas downstream or along the different course end up flooded].
The PCGS lawsuit [coupled with improved technology that it has acquired and is acquiring that will enable it to determine which coins submitted to it have and have not been "doctored"] will, at a minimum, "alter the conditions" [by shutting down specified "coin doctors" and/or by reducing/eliminating the number of doctored coins that make it into PCGS holders]. Whether the lawsuit and improved technology will "stop the problem" of doctored coins is yet to be seen. If I had to guess, I would guess that the lawsuit and improved technology will not totally stop coin doctoring [just like boiler room telemarketers and roachs can not be stopped since they scurry from one place to another].
One of the main problems with "coin doctoring" is definitional. What exactly is "coin doctoring"? Hard to define, as is attested to by the many threads on the topic posted on the forums over the years. Solid matter [including coins] changes due to environmental conditions. Sometimes the changes take a long time. Sometimes changes take a short amount of time. Humans can speed up the changes and can make the changes "improve" the specific piece of solid matter. The answer to whether a particular coin has been doctored may well be the "intent" of the person that owns the coin or that has possession of the coin during the time the change took place.
No hard and fast rule or definition will ever be agreed upon regarding what is or is not a "doctored coin". However, as knowledge expands and allows a greater number of coins to be definitively labeled as "doctored" and "not doctored", smaller number of coins will fall into the category of "we can not tell". This expansion of knowledge is a benefit to the hobby and PCGS is to be applauded for taking a lead in this expansion and in addressing the problem of doctored coins.
PCGS's efforts may very well result in the stopping of doctored coins making it to; and making it through the PCGS grading room. If PCGS is successful in stopping doctored coins from making it to and through the PCGS grading room, that, in and of itself, will give PCGS a huge amount of additional influence over the hobby, [more "street cred" as it were]. The hobby will develop to where:
1. collectors who collect raw, at the shallow end of the hobby pool, spending a few dollars here and there for nice raw coins to fill their albums will continue having fun with the hobby since the money invested is not great and the fun is;
2. colletors who chose to collect in deeper areas of the hobby pool, with substantial amounts of money being paid for the coins they desire to collect will be able to do so with greater confidence through their purchase of slabbed PCGS coins; and
3. collectors who choose to spend substantial sums of money on coins without first becoming educated about the hobby and the risks present in same will continue to be at risk of getting taken advantage of the "bad guys" in the hobby who conduct themselves without any regard for laws, morals and ethics.
Best of luck to PCGS, Keith Attlesey and Suzanne Shaw Storm (and Mr. Vartian)
0
Comments
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
This is an excellent evaluation and wrought with foresight.
The water analogy was right on.
And you'll get more disagreement over what constitutes "doctoring" probably today than any other single subject in numismatics.
Dan
<< <i>No hard and fast rule or definition will ever be agreed upon regarding what is or is not a "doctored coin". >>
If there is no definition of "it", who can be expected to abide by rules forbidding it. Unless someone sets a hard and fast rule to show that someone did something wrong, I can't see where any lawsuit forbidding a nebulus action has merit. Once a definition is set, and I believe that it would have to be if the plaintiff wants to show that the defendants did something wrong, the argument of why two exact chemical processes on a coin are looked at differently when the product that the processes produce cannot be differentiated even by an expert. This may be a case of justice being handed out according to which side has the deepest pockets for the legal bills, but given equal funding, I wouldn't be too sure that the outcome will be a slam-dunk against the coin doctors...after all, most of us know people who willfully dipped coins ugly coins with the intent of sending them in and receiving a higher grade. There are too many people wearing rose colored glasses when looking at this whole situation.
Authorized dealer for PCGS, PCGS Currency, NGC, NCS, PMG, CAC. Member of the PNG, ANA. Member dealer of CoinPlex and CCE/FACTS as "CH5"
Many times what one person would believe to be:
1. an outrageous wrong; or
2. perfectly acceptable conduct
is completely different from what another person would believe.
Same thing with a court decision. Someone would think it is proper and just. Another would think it improper and unjust.
For legal cases where the subject matter is specialized and not on the radar screen of the average person [juror or judge], the parties [PCGS and the defendants in this case] and their attorneys have much more knowledge of the subject matter [coin collecting, coin grading, conserving coins, doctoring coins] than do anyone else who is involved in the case.
The parties and their lawyers have to present the case in a fashion that can be understood by a judge or jury who may know nothing about the subject matter [and who may, upon learning what the subject matter is, simply frown and dismiss the subject matter as nerdy and stupid (like our non collecting spouses, kids and friends do, thinking we are geeks)]. If required to deccide the case, a jury or judge may not care in the least about resolving the issues in the case that the parties, their lawyers and the collecting public think is of crucial importance. The judge may be overworked and just wants to get the file off of his/her desk. The jurors may complain about having to decide such a stupid case and simply vote in favor or against one side or another because they do or do not like a witness, party or lawyer.
Judge or jury decisions can be woefully disappointing on various and multiple levels. This case may generate such a decision.
The only thing I can say that may have some validity to it is that this case will most likely not take as long as the Langbord lawsuit.
No big shock that you provide very insightful commentary. Thanks VERY much!
Isn't that what the Appellate courts are for? I will bet a nice shiny and polished state quarter that what ever the trial court decision is, this case will be appealed by whoever loses.
-----------BigE
If PCGS has photos of the coin before the repair work was done and can show a definitive chain of custody thereafter, I think the case would be hard to lose.
My Early Large Cents
Edited to add that I wrote this before I saw the other thread that addresses the same issue
<< <i>
One of the main problems with "coin doctoring" is definitional. What exactly is "coin doctoring"? Hard to define, as is attested to by the many threads on the topic posted on the forums over the years. Solid matter [including coins] changes due to environmental conditions. Sometimes the changes take a long time. Sometimes changes take a short amount of time. Humans can speed up the changes and can make the changes "improve" the specific piece of solid matter. The answer to whether a particular coin has been doctored may well be the "intent" of the person that owns the coin or that has possession of the coin during the time the change took place.
>>
From what I understand, the targeted doctors aren't folks who are manipulating coins in ways that are simply on the cusp of debatable doctoring (an example of a debatable topic would be artificial toning). PCGS is more targeting the worst of the worst--guys who are moving substantial amounts of metal to cover up problems, reconstructing details on coins using non-metal substances, eliminating hairlines, etc. Although there's a fuzzy area on the border of coin doctoring vs. conservation, there are some things which are without a doubt taboo and something that would never happen in any type of natural setting.
What will be very interesting will be to see how NGC makes it out alive of all this. They definately ruin (I mean conserve) coins. What they do not do is put it on thier holders. Of course, they are the "offical grading service" of the PNG. Amazing.
Some of the defendants have probably been doing this for 20-25 yrs. They may have submitted thousands of doctored coins among tens of thousands of regular coins. It would not be far-fetched that many might have no memory of specific coins brought to light, especially from 5-10 yrs ago or longer. A simple "I do not recall" would suffice.
I don't believe NGC/NCS has moved metal, used lasers, frosted proof coins, and tooled high point details. They should be fine.
roadrunner
It may very well be that the definition of coin doctoring becomes
a defined industry standered as a result of the lawsuit.
The more I learn about the lawsuit the more I want to know
My knowlage of law is little and I really depend on posters like yourself to help me digest the information.
Great post keep them comming.
<< <i>I enjoyed reading your very interesting post!! >>
Me too. Thanks!
Good quality post.
I have just one question about a subject item you brought up which is really not critical to your discussion here.
However, you did get my curiosity up.
You stated:
<< <i>
PCGS's efforts may very well result in the stopping of doctored coins making it to; and making it through the PCGS grading room. If PCGS is successful in stopping doctored coins from making it to and through the PCGS grading room, that, in and of itself, will give PCGS a huge amount of additional influence over the hobby, [more "street cred" as it were]. The hobby will develop to where:
1. collectors who collect raw, at the shallow end of the hobby pool, spending a few dollars here and there for nice raw coins to fill their albums will continue having fun with the hobby since the money invested is not great and the fun is; >>
I am not sure why collectors collecting raw coins is relevant to your main topic of discussion other than for the sake of describing the entire hobby. However, regarding the above continuation of collectors continuing to collect raw coins and having fun with them will continue if PCGS is successful in stopping doctored coins makes me wonder what your thoughts are in the unlikely event that PCGS is unsuccessful in stopping the doctors. You did not state the "alternative outcome" if PCGS does not succeed in stopping the doctors.
Just curious here.
Thanks.
I have no idea other than a general feeling that if PCGS is not successful in its lawsuit, some collectors will sour on the hobby and either quit altogether or limit their participation to areas where substantial dollars are not tied up in coins due to the risk of getting burned.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>I think that you touch on some intresting points but I see the sticking point being the definition of coin doctoring.
It may very well be that the definition of coin doctoring becomes
a defined industry standered as a result of the lawsuit.
The more I learn about the lawsuit the more I want to know
My knowlage of law is little and I really depend on posters like yourself to help me digest the information.
Great post keep them comming. >>
I would think the definition of coin doctoring was set so broadly to
be as inclusive of those who are involved in this as possible. Ob-
viously they can't go after every kid who ever stuck a penny to his
forehead.
Even if he noticed it looked better afterward.
Me and my wife had recently had a fraud case against one of our ex-employees...We had a contract with this person as well...After more then 5 years it took getting to court it took another 8 months to finally get it behind us...This was in criminal court so it might have been different in a civil case...Never the less we found a fraud case to be a very complicated thing and even with this person being found guilty of fraud and several other counts if me and my wife had to do it again plain and simple we wouldn`t...At the end of the day it just wasn`t worth all the stress and aggravation we had to deal with...And if i was a betting man i would think this is going to be no slam dunk...With that said never the less i agree with you 100% that PCGS should be applauded for taking the lead in addressing the problem of doctored coins and wish them the very best with it...I also believe it will eventually benefit the coin hobby both for fun and investment...
Thanks again for your input...
AB
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>So Sanction II does this mean you've been given the green light/invitation by our hosts to discuss the merits of the case? >>
I think I can answer for him and our hosts.
No. The thread won't be deleted until it becomes a legal, political, moderation, or public relations
nightmare. I personally doubt that will happen.
We'll see.
No.
My OP in this thread did not discuss the merits of the case [though some may view it so, it was not my intent to do so]. My OP mentions that I know two of the PCGS lawyers in the case; that I had read the complaint; comments on the Doe Defendant procedure used in California state law; comments on the complaint quoting language contained in PCGS contracts; comments on probable good record keeping by PCGS; and provides personal comments on the topic of coin doctoring and possible consequences of the lawsuit.
Since the lawsuit was very recently filed there is nothing to report about what is happening in the case. Nor can the merits of the case be discussed since the defendants apparently have not filed any papers with the court yet.
As far as me reporting to the forums on this case like I have done so in the Langbord case, it is not going to happen [even if our host gave permission for me to do so]. I do hope PCGS is successful in the lawsuit. I also hope their attorneys do a great job and get recognized accordingly.