Options
Should the defendants in the PCGS lawsuit hire defense attorneys who are in the hobby..........
SanctionII
Posts: 11,716 ✭✭✭✭✭
........... as either collectors, dealers, etc [thus with personal knowledge/experience of the hobby].
Or does this not matter?
Your thoughts please?
Or does this not matter?
Your thoughts please?
0
Comments
The goal will be to confuse the jurors and move the main issues away from breach of contract to a broad presentation of coin manipulation (including dipping) and
get the jury to conclude that there are no standards regarding doctored coins.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Keep an open mind, or get financially repressed -Zoltan Pozsar
<< <i>Won't matter---just secure the testimony of expert witnesses. There are plenty of dealers and collectors who will testify for a fee.
The goal will be to confuse the jurors and move the main issues away from breach of contract to a broad presentation of coin manipulation (including dipping) and
get the jury to conclude that there are no standards regarding doctored coins. >>
I think you have watched enough Judge Judy to devise this strategy.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>I would be more interested in the backround of who is deliberating the outcome >>
Agreed. It certainly wouldn't hurt to have an attorney who is knowledgeable, but not so sure about the jury. Not everyone here has the same opinion of things like dipping, etc. Then again there are no laws against most of those activities; no CPSC or other consumer watchdog groups. I wonder if defacing Federal property will have any teeth?
I have this sneaky feeling that the SecurePlus thing will come into play and that PCGS might well have been using it to set some of these guys up.
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
<< <i>........... as either collectors, dealers, etc [thus with personal knowledge/experience of the hobby].
Or does this not matter?
Your thoughts please? >>
Yes I would think that it would be a better idea to have an attorney who not only understands the coin bus. but is also a collector. What do you say about this?
BST Transactions: DonnyJf, MrOrganic, Justanothercoinaddict, Fivecents, Slq, Jdimmick,
Robb, Tee135, Ibzman350, Mercfan, Outhaul, Erickso1, Cugamongacoins, Indiananationals, Wayne Herndon
Negative BST Transactions:
My experience working with attorneys suggests that good attorneys can quickly learn what they need to know about the issue(s) under trial. I recall one then 78-year old attorney who knew nothing about statistics but learned enough so that he, combined with my guidance, made a jackass during a deposition of an opposing expert who was testifying about some statistical results. Now it helped that this other expert had said some (subtly) stupid things but nonetheless I was truly impressed. So I think the defendants likely will be looking for the best attorneys they can afford regardless of numismatic expertise.
Now, all that said, it definitely would be ironic if they wind up with the attorney (Fenton?) pursuing the 1933 double eagle case...
<< <i>SanctionII:
My experience working with attorneys suggests that good attorneys can quickly learn what they need to know about the issue(s) under trial. I recall one then 78-year old attorney who knew nothing about statistics but learned enough so that he, combined with my guidance, made a jackass during a deposition of an opposing expert who was testifying about some statistical results. Now it helped that this other expert had said some (subtly) stupid things but nonetheless I was truly impressed. So I think the defendants likely will be looking for the best attorneys they can afford regardless of numismatic expertise.
Now, all that said, it definitely would be ironic if they wind up with the attorney (Fenton?) pursuing the 1933 double eagle case... >>
Mark, Steve "Fenton" was the person arrested, while in possession of the 1933 $20, which was the subject of the lawsuit years ago.
Thanks for the reminder. The name was sticking in my memory for some reason and you nailed it.
Thanks again.
<< <i>Won't matter---just secure the testimony of expert witnesses. There are plenty of dealers and collectors who will testify for a fee. >>
Just make sure the "experts" are actually experts.
There was a recent high-profile case in federal court here in California (still ongoing) in which the defendant's "expert" witnesses were clearly far from it. The judge ripped them a new one, calling the expert "equivocal at best."
60 years into this hobby and I'm still working on my Lincoln set!
<< <i>As a defense attorney who is in the hobby, this question applies to me. But, I do not believe prior knowledge of the hobby adds a lot to the defense of the case. As someone said earlier, any lawyer worth his salt will become somewhat of an expert on the subject of his lawsuit anyway. Prior knowledge only brings prior preferences (biases). While consulting with a defense attorney who is in the hobby might be helpful, I do not believe a defense lawyer who is in the hobby should be lead counsel for any of the defendants. >>
Not sure I agree with that last sentence. It helps to know your field. I have handled a few coin disputes and I enjoyed them. But I agree that in this case, prior knowledge would not add much, and defendants' focus should be on getting appropriate counsel.
Tom
There was a recent high-profile case in federal court here in California (still ongoing) in which the defendant's "expert" witnesses were clearly far from it. The judge ripped them a new one, calling the expert "equivocal at best." "
Hmm. Try looking at some of the last few years of autograph lawsuits between individuals, auction houses and authentication services.
Best,
Eric
It's more important to have an attorney who can make the other side's experts look stupid. With something as subjective as grading that probably won't be too hard. All you have to do is put up a bunch of MS69 and MS70 coins with masking tape over the grade and make the expert witness tell which is which. After that's done, you can call a monkey as a witness and see if he does any better.
I wish PCGS the best but this one is going to be tough. You have to admire them for sticking their necks out here for the greater good, probably a lot of business people would advise them otherwise.
The cross-examinations will make for very interesting reading.
<< <i>It's probably not that important.
It's more important to have an attorney who can make the other side's experts look stupid. With something as subjective as grading that probably won't be too hard. All you have to do is put up a bunch of MS69 and MS70 coins with masking tape over the grade and make the expert witness tell which is which. After that's done, you can call a monkey as a witness and see if he does any better.
I wish PCGS the best but this one is going to be tough. You have to admire them for sticking their necks out here for the greater good, probably a lot of business people would advise them otherwise.
The cross-examinations will make for very interesting reading. >>
The difficulty of distinguishning MS69 from MS70 coins has no bearing on whether the defendants did what they have been accused of. Or on how easy or difficult it would be to convince a jury that they did it.
<< <i>The language in the document is "natural surfaces." So, take my argument above and replace 69/70 with AT/NT. You are in the same boat. Get a bunch of "questionable color" coins in genuine holders and compare them to colorful coins in regular holders. A good defense team will be able to find enough coins right on the edge to sufficiently confuse the jury as to the consistency of the standard. >>
The important differences that you have omitted are that PCGS claims it has proof that something was done to the coins by the defendants, that it went far beyond simply adding artificial color and that the defendants did so in violation of signed contracts.
Have you read the complaint? If so, I don't understand why you would mention debates over grades and artificial toning, as opposed to what was alleged to have been done to the coins in question.
<< <i>The language in the document is "natural surfaces." So, take my argument above and replace 69/70 with AT/NT. You are in the same boat. Get a bunch of "questionable color" coins in genuine holders and compare them to colorful coins in regular holders. A good defense team will be able to find enough coins right on the edge to sufficiently confuse the jury as to the consistency of the standard. >>
I have at least a handful of them... QC or Altered Surfaces in Round One... holdered AND graded on Round Two...
No ill will intended... I would like to see coin docs shut down... don't see it happening though... what I do see is alot of innocent folks getting legitimate coins "bagged" or "genuined" ... just in case... and multiple submissions needed to get legitimate coins properly graded... What ever the heck "properly graded" means...
I will add this... for PCGS's sake, I do hope they have checked all their closets to be sure there are no old cobwebs in there that could cause a "sticky situation"
<< <i>
<< <i>The language in the document is "natural surfaces." So, take my argument above and replace 69/70 with AT/NT. You are in the same boat. Get a bunch of "questionable color" coins in genuine holders and compare them to colorful coins in regular holders. A good defense team will be able to find enough coins right on the edge to sufficiently confuse the jury as to the consistency of the standard. >>
The important differences that you have omitted are that PCGS claims it has proof that something was done to the coins by the defendants, that it went far beyond simply adding artificial color and that the defendants did so in violation of signed contracts.
Have you read the complaint? If so, I don't understand why you would mention debates over grades and artificial toning, as opposed to what was alleged to have been done to the coins in question. >>
Mark ... I have not read the complaint... I am one of those folks whose eyes glaze over in the face of legal mumbo jumbo... and that is actually a valid point in this case... as long as the defendant's lawyers feel they have a chance of swaying a jury, this case just might make it to a courtroom. In my limited experience, I have seen that jury's are mainly comprised of everyday folks... many of whom are not even pleased with being on the jury... who have little tolerance for legal "mumbo jumbo" and who can often be swayed by the most convincing lawyer... jury's often ignore the judge's instructions once in deliberation... and the decisions that can come from such deliberations can often be as ambiguous as the grades/opinions offered by a TPG.
This case is not a slam dunk, IMHO... a noble effort to be sure... but no sure thing... I would assume (an often "dangerous" thing to do
Only one thing is for certain here, from my perspective... a number of lawyers will be making some good money as a result of this case...
<< <i>
<< <i>It's probably not that important.
It's more important to have an attorney who can make the other side's experts look stupid. With something as subjective as grading that probably won't be too hard. All you have to do is put up a bunch of MS69 and MS70 coins with masking tape over the grade and make the expert witness tell which is which. After that's done, you can call a monkey as a witness and see if he does any better.
I wish PCGS the best but this one is going to be tough. You have to admire them for sticking their necks out here for the greater good, probably a lot of business people would advise them otherwise.
The cross-examinations will make for very interesting reading. >>
The difficulty of distinguishning MS69 from MS70 coins has no bearing on whether the defendants did what they have been accused of. Or on how easy or difficult it would be to convince a jury that they did it. >>
You can count on the defense lawyers putting PCGS and their graders on trial (blame the victim) and they will change the agenda to suit their purposes.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
roadrunner
<< <i>What if the defense lawyers put a few professional coin dealers on the witness stand and they testify under oath that they sent in coins that were rejected for altered surfaces, AT, etc and that when they later resubmitted these same coins, they came back graded and slabbed by PCGS? I wonder how the jury will react to such testimony. I wish the best for PCGS but I don't think this will be an easy case for them to win. >>
I think a lot of money will be spent with out a clear cut final answer. In the end the jury will not be as concerned with the wording in the pcgs dealer contract. I think they will be hard pressed to be found quilty when they are shown 100's of doctors coins that are slabbed by others that are not on trail. Juries can be hard on big corporations verse the little guy. I know the charged have plenty of $$ but the lawyers will spin a web.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>What if the defense lawyers put a few professional coin dealers on the witness stand and they testify under oath that they sent in coins that were rejected for altered surfaces, AT, etc and that when they later resubmitted these same coins, they came back graded and slabbed by PCGS? I wonder how the jury will react to such testimony. I wish the best for PCGS but I don't think this will be an easy case for them to win. >>
Dealers? I wonder how many collectors just on these message boards.
Last year I had my dad submit a 1964-D Kennedy half dollar on one of our orders. It was a “dog”, ugly dark toning, not a high grade coin, we were figuring between MS60 – MS62. The only thing we liked about the coin was that it was a DDO-013 (the one with a light doubling on the profile) and it took us five years to find one. When the grades posted, code .91, (Questionable Color) we scratched our heads. When we got the coin back in the mail, what “Questionable Color” I mean it is “butt ugly”, you know that black tarnish that looks like something molted on it.
After about two month, I pestered dad to try it again so we cracked it out and resubmitted it raw. Guess what, this time it body bagged with a code 94 (Altered Surface). Looking at the coin again when it came back we scratched our heads again (dad complaining that he didn’t have much hair on top to scratch anymore). The coin was still butt ugly but there was nothing altered about it.
After a little pleading, we cracked the coin out and submitted it for the third time. This time it graded AU58. I still don’t see any wear on the coin but dad says that after three times if PCGS can’t get it right he is not going to put anymore money into this coin.
Since all of this happened, I was able to get another 1964-D DDO-013 and it graded MS64
I too hope PCGS makes out OK with this case for if they don’t the cost might be past along to the customers in higher fees.
I think a lot of the commentary about what other submitters have done may be found to be largely irrelevant since the case is about specific submissions by specific individuals, and some big players at that. In addition, I think that the technology is probably there to ascertain and to prove that the coins mentioned in the lawsuit have been doctored. Experts will disagree on many things, but I would think that proving a coin to be altered is within our technological grasp. And, PCGS's contract language is clear and judges and juries do read the contract. PCGS's contract is the same one we all use when we submit coins and it is strongly worded in favor of PCGS. You should read it. I'm no huge fan of that contract because it is difficult to go against if you are a consumer or small dealer with a relatively small monetary claim, but in this case it will serve PCGS well.
Also, if you haven't read the complaint in this case, I would recommend it to you. I know the lawyer speak is confusing, but the initial part of the complaint is factual and it's a pretty easy read until you get to the counts. It details specific acts of submissions of coins that have been doctored and in many cases, PCGS still has those coins.
In my view, the tough part of this case will be establishing that the defendants submitted altered coins with knowledge that they were altered and/or as part of some conspiracy to knowingly get an altered coin in a PCGS graded slab. Many of us have submitted coins to a TPG not knowing if the coin would grade, or to determine if it would, but few if any of us ( I hope) have taken a part in the act of intentionally altering a coin to fool a TPG into getting more value out of a coin. And that is the crux of the complaint as I see it. So, in the end it will be a factual question to be determined by a trier of fact through testimony, exhibits and experts. But if PCGS can prove these things, then they will have taken a positive step toward cleaning up the hobby. I, too, don't know how it will turn out, and I don't know personally any of the defendants, but it seems that PCGS is doing this for a simple reason: it is hurting their business to get fooled. And if PCGS can limit the number of times they get fooled, it will help their business and it will help the coin community at large.
Tom
<< <i>link to lawsuit >>
You people may be getting a little ahead of yourselves, here, speculating on trial strategies, and such. What I mean is, does anybody here even know for a fact whether this amended complaint has been served on any of these named defendants, as yet? And, if so, let's start there, which ones?
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)
Good comment and question Kurtdog. Rick Wesslink was dropped. Does 11-25 were dropped. The last entry on the docket sheet was 6/10/10. No proof of service was filed. So we don't know if it has been served on anyone yet.
Tom
How do you know that? Is there a link to the latest docket sheet?
<< <i>Thank you dlmtorts...glad to be aboard. I hope to be a regular here as there is much of interest.
Good comment and question Kurtdog. Rick Wesslink was dropped. Does 11-25 were dropped. The last entry on the docket sheet was 6/10/10. No proof of service was filed. So we don't know if it has been served on anyone yet. >>
Thanks! And that's a lot of Does.
Basically they're got 4 months to pull the trigger on these guys unless they can get that rule extended and so they're pretty safe still sitting on the complaint at this point and perhaps thinking things over a little better. I'm just sayin'...
As for hiring lawyers who collect coins--probably largely irrelevant. But, they are going to have to hire expert witnesses--there is very little debate about that. Testifying as experts themselves has built into it problems of logical credibility. They need other experts to verify their own expertise.
<< <i>Good comment and question Kurtdog. Rick Wesslink was dropped. Does 11-25 were dropped. The last entry on the docket sheet was 6/10/10. No proof of service was filed. So we don't know if it has been served on anyone yet.
How do you know that? Is there a link to the latest docket sheet? >>
It's called Pacer and it's not available for free. You need to subscribe. See http://www.pacer.gov/psc/faq.html
I thought you needed to be an attorney, but given the name, Pacer (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), I'm guessing that you do not need to be an attorney. Neverhteless, you can check the user requirements. It's not expensive, but you need to set up an account.
Tom
so if you have it, why wouldn't you post it?
I says we gets us a rope and hangs um afor the trial, jest
in case.
Camelot
<< <i>It's called Pacer and it's not available for free. You need to subscribe. See http://www.pacer.gov/psc/faq.html I thought you needed to be an attorney, but given the name, Pacer (Public Access to Court Electronic Records), I'm guessing that you do not need to be an attorney. Neverhteless, you can check the user requirements. It's not expensive, but you need to set up an account.
so if you have it, why wouldn't you post it? >>
http://www.pacer.gov/
I included a reference to the website in my last post, but I'm afraid I'm a bit technologically challenged. I include herein a link. I would be happy to post things from time to time that are relevant, but there is really nothing new on the docket sheet, just a notation of one line filings dismissing Wesslink and the Does. Nothing else. But I will check up and if anything relevant happens, I can post it.
Pacer
Tom
Tom