Foolkiller

He still unethical, that link i posted proves that that is why I take what he says not to serious. hard to take a lawyer seriously when he has ethics issues. Mark and I have had our disagreements over the years, but one thing I can tell you is Zaid is not in any way unethical.

No, and I give to charities a lot, including a direct withdrawal at work for United Way, but as the saying goes, there can be too much of a good thing. I hit the forums for a break from real life, to talk/argue/etc. funny books, and I would imagine I'm not alone. When real bad news hits a member of our community, I'm all for a discussion and help (like with Nik's untimely passing) but I also think running a Forum Auction for someone's second cousin is going a bit too far. I have to admit JC, I think you absolutely have something there Joe. And I think that the response was somewhat reflective of that sentiment. Now that being said, I also think that there's some nobility in Mark's efforts, and if it will genuinely lead to the discovery of information, I don't want to be overly negative about it either. But again, you're expressing a fair point.

TOS 70 CGC 9.4 white (white mountain) -- this book is surprisingly tough for the non key TOS books in 9.4

It's a fantastic copy.

Uh, no. I think you misunderstand the situation and the proceedings. First, it wouldn't cost six figures, as I believe Mark is simply retaining this attorney as specialized help. This isn't going to cost six figiures. I think Mark will be doing a great deal of the work, but as he mentioned, he may need oe help with respect to how family court works, issues about who the judge is, nuances with regards to child support Second, this isn't a situation where he can counter sue. This is a child support hearing in family court. If he wanted to sue Jan, he'd have to do so in a separate action. I haven't misunderstood anything. You are kidding youself if you don't think Dupcak if he feels he is wrongly accused wouldn't file suit against esquirecomics or anyone else whom he feels is ruining his buisness and public reputation. Simply bringing up what some feel are unethical buisness practices at a single custody hearing and to think that you're going to get the answers you're looking for isn't even realistic. Is this the same guy that was convicted of Scheming to Defraud which I believe is a Class E Felony in the State of NY? What exactly is his public reputation right now? According to public records all I can find is a conviction involving over $30,000 in funds stolen in a forgery scheme with many of the victims being children? That's the guy who's going to protect his public reputation by counter suing? I just want to be sure we are talking about the same guy because I would fly out to see him make that claim to a judge with a straight face. That's right. There's almost a zero chance of success that DD would ever succeed in any counter suit and that it wouldn't be tossed on summary judgment or before. You have indeed, completely misunderstood the situation of the parties and their respective ability to succeed on the merits, even in this hypothetical.

I think if the court did consider it and it was determined to be money gained by fraud it would be forfeited (which would also result in no child support being gained). However, IF it can be proven that Danny Dupcak has financial records indicating income of more than reported in consideration of his child support THEN he can be ordered to pay more. IF during the course of reviewing his financial records also indicates fraud THEN someone else will have access to bring action in another court. It's all geometry really. I think this is a pretty good summary, which all relates back to the fact that Scott is raising a very legitimate point on the ethical conflict.

Let me see if I can understand this. You are asking if it's ethical to sue for child support in such a manner that DD might be put out of business if it can be proven that he indeed withheld evidence of income? I think it's a win/win. The child gets nothing now. If after millions of dollars of illegal revenue auncovered the courts find a percentage of that belongs to the child, that is a substantial amount of money that the child would not be able to access otherwise. The other option is to allow DD to function as a fraudulent entity to continue to support the child from here on after but with no compensation for the past. That doesn't make any sense to me. Roy -- you misunderstand Scott. This is a question legal ethics because the actions Mark takes may end up working counter productively to Jan's interests. In essence, if you put DD out of business, he can't make any money moving forward. The fraudulent money may already be gone, so trying to uncover past amounts may not necessarily mean that it's all recoverable. Your last statement is incorrect, he can certainly look at past income, regardless of whether or not the activity is fraudulent, recover based on income statements alone, and then move forward with an accurate accounting of what's made. The question of whether or not DD is operating and selling fraudulent books is not really one the court need to technically consider in this case.

Scott, I think that's the issue of whether this is a real or potential conflict. From just a purely monday morning quarterback standpoint, I would not have revealed anything about my intent of what to do with the information, I simply would have stated that this case and investigation will reveal information about Danny's business practices etc. and other parties may use that information how they see fit. I'd have to think about and look at NY law to determine whether a conflict actually exists and I certainly don't know what the ethics are for this situation. I think you raise an extremely significant and important point for Mark to consider though as he moves forward and it's something really other lawyers understand but potentially not those in the public at large.

Mark will probably answer on his own, but from what Mark has posted it is the contention that DD is hiding the income he makes from comics as a means to defraud the mother of his child (probably amongst many parties that would be entitled to some of the money as well). Mark said he hope this puts DD out of his comic business, we don't know that this is his only business or source of income or how that income is distributed to his child at this time. All we know is that Jan is not getting it now and if you don't take DD to court she stands zero chance of getting it at all. If, as a result of the proceedings, DD winds up in dutch with the IRS, NY Dept. of Revenue, or various other creditors it is not the fault of Mark, Jan, or anyone other than himself. It is not uncommon in cases such as these that the party seeking to hide their income from the other party to do so illegally. That is also not the fault of the party seeking compensation. The party entitled to compensation has little choice in the matter. Either they allow the fraud to continue and they are uncompensated or they attempt to attain their rightful share of the income in the courts. If, through that court action the party they are against incriminates himself that is not the fault of the innocent party. Everything that DD has done or has coming he has done to himself. Mark bringing it to light in an attempt to prevent further fraud and to get Jan what she is due is not a negative. The negatives are on the other side of the ledger in my opinion. Best, Chris I think you need to re-read Mark's post from last night where he talks about what he plans to do with the information he gets in discovery after Jan's case is finished. I don't know if you're a lawyer or not, but I am and I was very troubled from an ethical perspective by what I read in that post. While I think both causes are noble (not to mention long overdue), I don't see a way around the obvious conflict of interest here. Maybe someone will enlighten me. Chris is a lawyer Scott. As to the ethical conflict I believe that it may present an issue, but isn't it only an issue really if Jan turns it into one? I mean this from a practical standpoint, not theoretical.

This is a little different Drew. While I don't have any of the specifics, there's not an amount that's specified in controversy, i.e. a specific demand. What generally happens is that child support is based somewhat on the income of the father. If the income is being fraudulently reported, the mother can go back to court and demand more payment. In order to do this though, the family court will hold a hearing to determine what the father does/doesn't make. Mark's banking on having some latitude in order to explore this and to be able to have access in discovery to certain financial records etc. Also, Mark has the ability to track what is already public record and do some math on his own. That being said, a bright defense attorney will be able to dodge some of these bullets. Since Mark is an extremely aggressive litigator, I would expect that unless Danny is willing to expend some serious cash on a lawyer, he's going to find himself in a poor position during these proceedings. Taking the step to also retain counsel who is experienced and knowledgeable in this area is also a very wise move.

If it's so tedious, then don't bother selling here. That being said, I'm not intending for you to be run off with that comment. My point is, there are specific rules and guidelines that are heavily policed by the members because the CGC mods don't want to (and shouldn't have to) police this area heavily. This is a privilege and so it is incumbent upon the members to regulate and police it on their own so that the guidelines are followed. When someone comes on and their only contribution is to sell, it rubs some people the wrong way. I'm less concerned about that and more concerned with the rules and the guidelines being followed properly. When it's pointed out (and I make mistakes in this vein as well occasionally) the best thing to do isn't take it as some sort of persecution, but rather as a learning tool if you intend to sell here in the future.

Uh, no. I think you misunderstand the situation and the proceedings. First, it wouldn't cost six figures, as I believe Mark is simply retaining this attorney as specialized help. This isn't going to cost six figures. I think Mark will be doing a great deal of the work, but as he mentioned, he may need some help with respect to how family court works, issues about who the judge is, nuances with regards to child support etc. Second, this isn't a situation where he can counter sue. This is a child support hearing in family court. If he wanted to sue Jan, he'd have to do so in a separate action.

of course.

I've had a number of requests for the Planets and war books, so I'm posting my thread sale announcement here a day early about what will be for sale so everyone feels like they have plenty of notice regarding what and when the sale will occur. On New Year's Day and Jan 2nd. I will running another fairly large sales thread, though not quite as large as the holiday sale thread. There will be some good deals, but the discounts may not be quite as deep as in the Holiday thread (though there will be some at those levels), though there will be some very nice material offered. I have more Fiction House to offer, Planets, Jungles, Jumbos and a few Wings. There will also be a few early Marvels, HG bronze, and other goodies. I also have some early war books (things like 1st Rock prototype, early Easy Co. appearances etc.) that are nice respectable copies. I will begin at around 10 PM EST on New Year's Day. The thread will end, and then pick up on the 2nd, probably in the afternoon. I will specify the exact time when I end on New Year's day. The rules, and my inclination, unless a very large order, will be to hold on to any material left over and not blow it out through discount. Shipping is not included. Thanks for looking and see you guys tomorrow.

Now that he's been added, I'll throw my two cents here too... Chrissr flaked on $280 worth of stuff in my thread after cheating to try and buy stuff as well. He should certainly be added.

I have to think storage conditions. There's no mold or anything, but a very strong odor. Generally the grade range was like VG - VF. They were all really nice books except that odor. I probably could pick those up -- I should be buying a nice large run of DC war bronze age and I can buy the Fiction House as well I suppose, Planets won't be til the end of December though.

You know, I just looked at a long box of Fiction Houses (including Jungles etc. and there were Planets available not in the box) but they had a musty odor -- otherwise, really nice books... didn't buy any yet as I just didn't know enough about them, but would have been able to get them for around half guide or so.

Total nightmare John.

I agree that there is a degree of inconsistency since they are human but what that percentage is, is where we disagree. I believe that they are more accurate. You believe that they are less accurate. I actually believe that they are more accurate as the grade increases as there are less variables. I'd say that they are more careful to give a 9.9 label than they are a 4.0, 8.0 or a 9.0...meaning not that they proactively "protect" that 9.9 grade but they want to make sure the book deserves the grade. Can you really tell me that you see differences in 9.9s and 9.8s that you see? I don't. And it's not because I don't know what to look for -- it's because to me, they are essentially arbitrary. Technically the answer is that a 9.9 is to have fewer defects (or one less) defect. Yet there are 9.9s with hairline stresses not present on 9.8s I've seen. There are 10s that have visible defects in the slab. Sorry, I don't see consistency or even accuracy. And I don't fault them other than factoring it in -- it just isn't feasible to put faith in these grades. I'm sure they are careful to give 9.9s and 10s -- it doesn't mean they can do it consistently or accurately. And there's plenty of slabs out there that bear it out.

Untrue. But the overall point that there is subjectivity in the grading is true. It's not wholly arbitrary, and I agree with Roy that most 9.6s will grade the same, just as most 9.8s will. But there are some that won't make it because they were on the borderline to begin with. I already discussed this when I talked about weak, average, and strong grades. I didn't say every 9.6 could be a 9.4. But a weak 9.6 could easily be a strong 9.4 on another day. Most 9.6s WILL grade the same...but if even one doesn't (and we know that it's not just one, but hundreds), then the idea of paying a huge premium for one grade over another begins to not make much sense. Bottom line is that I agree with your fundamental thesis -- which is that 9.8/9.9/10 is extremely arbitrary. There's no way they can be graded by anyone on the planet with consistency.

No, not at all. It is not a "dartboard guess." And neither is it an exact science. You prove my point. So "the majority" comes back the same grade...and I don't dispute this at all...but if even ONE book doesn't come back the same grade...what is the point of paying the huge premium for the one that has a higher label number...? What are you paying for? A book that is in better condition than all the 9.8s? Or just a label that says 9.9 (or 9.8, or 9.6, or insert whatever "one of one", or two of two, or whatever book there is)....? Paying for a label. No doubt about it -- in many cases. Roy -- I've long held that above 9.6, the grades are arbitrary. You can't tell me that 9.8s, 9.9s and 10s have discernible, consistent differences.

That is the essence of what I have said (hopefully not in vain) this entire thread.... I'll disagree with John. He's saying that 9.0-9.8 is pretty cut and dry and then all of a sudden 9.8-9.9 isn't. I'd argue and say that 9.8-9.9 is the easiest to grade (besides 10.0-9.9) because you are dealing with the least amount of variables possible. I said 8.5 to 9.8 is cut and dry. I could give you ten books that got 9.9's and I bet you would call most of them 9.8's after I cracked them out for you to re-grade. Especially if Vodka was involved. ...but you know me I would give most books that CGC gives a 9.8 a 9.6 grade. I'd be willing to test that theory at a panel at SD next year. Same book, three different grades...9.8. 9.9. 10. Then, with a couple of independent, trustworthy witnesses, de-slab all the books, and have everyone pick which ones they thought graded what at CGC.... Then, after that's done, reveal what was what. Then, after that's done....send the books back, under different accounts (so you can keep track of which book was which), and see if they all come back the same original grades. It would probably work best with onsite slabbing, over a weekend. Deslabbing a 10 is dicey. Any handling damage might affect the grade. But I think with 9.6 and 9.8, that'd be interesting. I think if you chose 9.4, 9.6, 9.8 -- you'd find that the books would likely come back in those grades.

Untrue. But the overall point that there is subjectivity in the grading is true. It's not wholly arbitrary, and I agree with Roy that most 9.6s will grade the same, just as most 9.8s will. But there are some that won't make it because they were on the borderline to begin with.

Smarty pants. But yes, you could call weak 9.8s "9.7" And eventually....they will. Not weak books just weak GRADERS. Once again you will never see 9.7 or 9.5, unless your that stupid company called Wizard. When the 9.7s and 9.5s come out...ignore Wiztard, that has nothing to do with this....will you come back and say "ok, RMA was right"....? (And whether it's a weak book, or weak graders, the end result is still the same.) It doesn;t make sense to break down the grading scale anymore. It's not going to happen. The book is the same the end result is determined by the grader. Sure, it doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to a lot of people. But that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense to the market...especially with the vast differences paid between the uber grades. MS61, MS62, MS64...those grades didn't make sense to a lot of people, either. Look, CGC didn't really HAVE to have a 9.9, did they? I mean, 9.8 and 10 would have worked fine, right....? So why do they have a 9.9? And wouldn't a 9.7 alleviate some of the problems with cracking and resubbing, hoping for 9.8s? The one difference is that 9.8 and below did correlate to the traditional OS grading designations. 9.9 is the only creation off the grading scale.

Not sure about the rest of the statements, but each of these are true.