bluehorseshoe

So where do things stand as far as folks starting a civil action against CGC for this stuff?

On 2/26/2024 at 4:08 PM, RedGiant said:

Crazy tough book in true high grade. Zero 9.8s prior to 2020. Now 2, both of which I owned (sold one to another CFD fanatic). Always has rusty staples inside at centerfold. If you are lucky enough to find one with clean staples - that shiny red cardboard cover shows every possible tiny defect and 9 times out of 10 it can’t be pressed out. Tbh I’m surprised that book didn’t go for more than it did. 

On 2/26/2024 at 4:08 PM, RedGiant said:

Crazy tough book in true high grade. Zero 9.8s prior to 2020. Now 2, both of which I owned (sold one to another CFD fanatic). Always has rusty staples inside at centerfold. If you are lucky enough to find one with clean staples - that shiny red cardboard cover shows every possible tiny defect and 9 times out of 10 it can’t be pressed out. Tbh I’m surprised that book didn’t go for more than it did. 

This book is back up for auction, I don’t know what to make of that, but generally, it’s not for a good reason.

On 3/6/2024 at 5:33 PM, RedGiant said:

FINALLY!  It’s been more than 3 years since I’ve had an upgrade to my CFD set. This #5 limited is now 1 of 2 in grade.  Only one more 9.8 to go. A #7 limited (deluxe letterbox edition). Still zero on census in 24+ years of CGC slabbing books. Wild!  Extremely happy to finally get this #5 limited, been a long road. 

The famed executive copy.  Well done man, what a beautiful book. All collections pale in comparison to yours.

On 2/26/2024 at 4:08 PM, RedGiant said:

Crazy tough book in true high grade. Zero 9.8s prior to 2020. Now 2, both of which I owned (sold one to another CFD fanatic). Always has rusty staples inside at centerfold. If you are lucky enough to find one with clean staples - that shiny red cardboard cover shows every possible tiny defect and 9 times out of 10 it can’t be pressed out. Tbh I’m surprised that book didn’t go for more than it did. 

I have one that I think has a shot, but its going to have to be examined by someone who is in the business of knowing what to fix in terms of what I don't know with the cardstock covers.  I am going to submit it either way, but I love and I am amazed at the chase at the same time.

On 2/25/2024 at 2:13 PM, RedGiant said:

Posted in WTB thread as well. Anyone have a look sharp alphabet book they’d sell?  A-Z copies. Example below (not mine). 

I saw one for sale at the Baltimore CC two years ago, which happened to be the last time JML attended...and the dealer wanted 5 dimes for it, and got him down to 4500 and that was it.  Too much, I couldnt justify that even with being able to walk it over to JLM for him to put a eye tear on it and then walk it over to CGC and get a green/yellow label for it.

The chase for high grade copies of this book is just incredible.  I did not even think this was a 9.6, though with a press on the bottom front staple area it might be.  But regardless, wow.

On 2/11/2024 at 1:01 PM, HighGrade said:

Wow congrats! when did that pop up? was it an auction? and more importantly how did I miss it? The 9.8's never show up but that one was graded recently! it was over 500 right?

It went to auction the last round with Comiclink.  It went for 575, but I had much more than that loaded up into it bid-wise. Like I said, I have not seen one on Comiclink since 2010.  

On 2/6/2024 at 7:44 PM, Nick Furious said:

 

As long as CGC owns the monopoly on public trust, they will be a magnet for opportunists who hope to misuse that trust for nefarious purposes.  Perhaps these two latest issues are just a matter of being duped.  If they had happened in a vacuum it would be reasonable enough to just chalk it up to a lack of anticipation on the part of CGC.  But there have been enough "bad look" situations in the past for the general public to start wondering just how committed CGC is to closing the door on those opportunists who wish to misuse their monopoly on public trust.  Can anyone really look at past shenanigans and conclude that CGC is committed, first and foremost, to protecting the hen house and preventing bad actors from gaining access it, regardless of the financial opportunity for CGC?         

This x 1000000.  Its incredible that so many boardies actually have an option that CGC needs to do better.  If all that comes from any of this is a thread that says exactly that, then the CGC accountants are not losing a single wink of sleep, because all of that and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee.

You people vote with your dollars. Beg and plead and demand and shout your opinion to the rafters all you want; but at the end of the day, if you want things to change, then do something else, instead of exactly what you did before this stuff and after this stuff (and before and after all of the other instances of goofball antics).  Or don't and keep writing your diatribes on here. 

On 2/3/2024 at 8:24 AM, comix4fun said:

That’s possible I guess. What’s weird is, this was my first post (below) in the thread , answering the questions regarding the meaning of  “plaintiff has not publicized” and the meaning of the plaintiff putting up “security” against seized assets of the defendant. I can’t imagine this would be the cause of the response.  

 

I think part of that requirement has to do with how CGC indicated on the Civil Action Info Sheet in terms of service.  If they don't know how to serve the Defendants, then publication is the default.  Or you can choose not to serve the Defendants, but if you have a Motion for TRO and are requesting injunctive relief, then you have to be able to walk into that hearing and demonstrate service or notice or both.

The other interesting thing is if you have to post a bond for the "value" of the books you want seized under and by the executive ability of the Courts (Marshalls I would guess) then is the "value" of the bond the sum of the listed values by the poor schmucks that sent in these books and were stolen, or is the "value" FMV-because those numbers could be wildly different.  The answer to that must be contemplated very carefully by CGC law firm, because absolutely everything that happens in this case is going to be scrutinized and relied upon in one form or another in the next action and the action after that.  If I was law firm I would have asked that bond information be subject to a protective order.

On 2/3/2024 at 12:07 AM, ttfitz said:

If I had to guess, I'd say @bluehorseshoe has confused you with @Stefan_W which is where his condescension started. You mentioned looking something up on PACER - which he laughed about - which had been part of his response to Stefan. Given this post:

It seems clear he hasn't kept things straight since "your first post about this stuff" came largely in response to his strange picture of the dismissal.

Although I could be wrong, that's just what it looked like to me.

You could be and are wrong.

On 2/2/2024 at 10:33 PM, comix4fun said:

That’s interesting. Had not considered an intentional aspect. It’s a really expensive filing to go for a dismissal intentionally. I’d never be comfortable deciding that was the intent without knowing more. It’s possible this first run was to splash all of that extra broad detail out there now as it shows a lot of proactive measures to find the issues, and address them. When it’s refiled in a more narrow and well plead format the information is now already out there perhaps? 
I’ve found defendants, who didn’t want to be found, on the other side of the country though. A good PI is worth his weight in gold in those situations. And a judgement, even with no direct financial recourse is, maybe, a shield or with a benefit not yet known. 
 

I was hoping this would go the distance to see all of the pleadings as they are filed. But that’s my selfish curiosity.

I guess we have to wait and see where this goes. 

To me, if what I proposed above is just a bunch of krap , then the lawyers might have got a call from the insurance carrier, who is probably paying for all this lawyering anyway, and they said, if you don’t plead A, B, and C, then the coverage doesn’t kick in. CGC tells them to go pound sand, and then you have an insurance company hiring a bunch of other expensive lawyers, filing a dec (declaratory for the readers) action against CGC, arguing that there is no insurance coverage for prosecuting a claim for the relief requested in the first place. And the interesting thing about filing a declaratory action against CGC, you would have your absolute choice of venue, which would basically be in whatever state and district thee insurance company does business in, so forum/judge shopping is absolutely on the menu at that point.

On 2/2/2024 at 10:33 PM, comix4fun said:

That’s interesting. Had not considered an intentional aspect. It’s a really expensive filing to go for a dismissal intentionally. I’d never be comfortable deciding that was the intent without knowing more. It’s possible this first run was to splash all of that extra broad detail out there now as it shows a lot of proactive measures to find the issues, and address them. When it’s refiled in a more narrow and well plead format the information is now already out there perhaps? 
I’ve found defendants, who didn’t want to be found, on the other side of the country though. A good PI is worth his weight in gold in those situations. And a judgement, even with no direct financial recourse is, maybe, a shield or with a benefit not yet known. 
 

I was hoping this would go the distance to see all of the pleadings as they are filed. But that’s my selfish curiosity.

I guess we have to wait and see where this goes. 

On 2/2/2024 at 10:35 PM, DougC said:

I am assuming the first sentence above is the entire point of the filing. I have previously assisted with something like this in the past where the complaint filed is meant to be rejected by the court and used only to tell a one sided PR mitigating story favoring one party on public record. Civil court with all the huge financial verdicts are impotent unless the guilty party has actual property you can eventually file liens against.

The average American believes winning a civil suit mean you actually receive the financial assets of the verdict; that is rarely what happens.

Just for personal interest I do hope they refile as I was looking forward to reading all the interviews and employee statements that were to be exhibited to try and find a thread of a link between label swap guy who said they "knew someone on the inside, that was assisting them".

I am right in line behind both of you to get the look at the stuff that comes from a discovery phase of a proceeding like this. Hell, the deposition transcripts would be so good I’d send them in to be graded and pray for white pages PQ wise. And right behind us would be a lot of other lawyers that have been looking for information FOR YEARS THAT IS needed for a good class-level test case against CGC.
Interrogatories, responses, deposition transcripts, it’s hard to imagine all of that stuff not being filed with either a blanket protection order or à la cart. The gravy would be in the trial exhibits, because those would be available on PACER, but this isn’t a trial case; this is a default judgment case. Again, against a couple of defendants, that will make no appearances in the case ever, and to them, a judgment is just another piece of paper you get in the mail.

On 2/2/2024 at 9:39 PM, comix4fun said:

I did look it up on pacer, yesterday, and downloaded full pdfs. 
I’m just not where I can look it up on a Friday night, chief. 
I didn’t say you didn’t know how to look things up, that was you talking to pretty much everyone else in this thread, so I was just wondering why everything you write drips with condescension. 
Sad about the lack of hot chicks though….we bond on that.  

To me, there is something really weird about what has happened over the course of two days.

Consider this: CGC is paying 3 lawyers a minimum of 800 bucks an hour and a partner that is in charge of those lawyers 1200 bucks an hour, to put together this complaint and file. The record entry stamp isnt even dry before one of the judge’s law clerks glances at the complaint and recognizes it is insufficiently pled. Less than 24 hours later, the case is dismissed, albeit without prejudice, and the motion for preliminary injunctive relief is dismissed as well.

But back up to 1/31, and the narrative is: We (CGC) investigated a couple bad guys for almost 2 years. We filed a lawsuit against them, but it’s doubtful the defendants will even be able to be served with that lawsuit, because who the hell knows where they are. The PR department releases a statement stating we are going after said bad guys and doing the right thing. Your average CGC customer is satisfied, or your average CGC customer doesn’t have a clue any of this is happening anyway.

What in the world would be the incentive to re-file this lawsuit? If you re-file it, you are going to collect exactly what you were going to collect the first time you filed against the defendants, which is nothing, because they are judgment-proof. You have no shareholders to answer to if you don’t refile the lawsuit. The PR stuff is still out there that you are fighting the good fight and pursuing legal action.

And as such: What if the complaint was filed with a “poison pill” added into it (in the form of insufficient pleading) to ensure exactly what happened, which was a dismissal of the complaint and the motion for injunctive relief? I mean are you paying all those lawyers all that money to prosecute this case, only to have the whole thing kicked 24 hours after filing because said lawyers weren’t smart enough to file a sufficiently pled complaint? And even though you have no lawsuit going because it got kicked, is that the worst thing if you can still live off the PR from filing it in the first place? Again, what in the world would be your incentive to refile this lawsuit?
 

It’s just weird.

On 2/2/2024 at 9:14 PM, comix4fun said:

Any time you want to compare legal backgrounds, I’m your huckleberry. I’ve been at it longer than there’s been an CGC , just for a benchmark. And I won’t have to make cryptic three word posts with half-assed phone pics to pump my ego either. Someone way out of their depth would post about a case being dismissed, connoting finality, and leave out “without prejudice”..to, I don’t know, be provocative.  
 

But, really, enjoy not having the first clue who you’re talking to. 

Well tough guy, if you did have any sort of legal background, you would have already looked up this case on PACER. And then you would have looked at who is listed as counsel of record for CGC (Defendants of course have no counsel, duh)  And then you would’ve googled those 3 to see if they are smoking hot chicks.

And then you would have been disappointed because all three of them are…well they are not exactly the coldest beers in the fridge. Not even the coldest beers in the fridge in their litigation practice group for that matter. Which is weird because this firm is a front-line entertainment industry intellectual property firm (undoubtedly a 4zero outfit), and they tend to employ…you guessed it…smoking hot chicks, that happen to be smart as hell.

So don’t you try to tell me I don’t know how to do this. I know how to legal research the important stuff. 

On 2/2/2024 at 8:54 PM, comix4fun said:

Not sure why that’s funny……but you seem to be enjoying it.  

It’s funny because you were way out of your depth from your first post about this stuff and all signs seem to indicate you are going to stay right there. But keep going, even a broken clock right exactly twice a day.

On 2/2/2024 at 8:48 PM, comix4fun said:

I can’t access it from where I am but a kitchen sink or shotgun complaint is deemed too broad or too many repeated nested allegations when courts want you to use as few paragraphs as needed to save on time and costs.  So, yeah, it’s a clerical dismissal if that’s what this is, the “without prejudice” part is the key one. It just has to be reformatted, sharpened, and refiled. 

 :secret: I know you googled it, but bad news, you still got it wrong. :secret:

On 2/2/2024 at 7:56 PM, comix4fun said:

So there's a clerical dismissal ? That's the world's worst screen shot. Is that using a phone? 
A non-substantive dismissal, if that's what happened, is a reset. No time for a hearing or even full service I'd wager. 
I need to jump on pacer so I don't get vertigo trying to read it this way. 

 

yeah good luck with that

On 2/2/2024 at 6:17 PM, comix4fun said:

The day after it was filed? There hasn't even been a hearing set yet. I put the chances of that at ZERO and Absolute ZERO, but I think he needed three or four more emojis for proper joke identification. 

You gonna get this work. EDMF.

On 2/2/2024 at 10:10 AM, ft88 said:

1994 SkyBox DC Master Series $95

Warriors of Plasm Sealed Tin Box $10

Topps Wildcats Sealed Box $20

Warriors of Plasm 

On 2/2/2024 at 5:54 PM, Nick Furious said:

Any links to the details? 

Honestly, I feel like that would get this thread closed.

Annndddd just like that, Plaintiff's Complaint is Dismissed and Plaintiff's Motion for Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunctive Relief is Denied.

Life moves at you pretty fast. 

On 2/2/2024 at 4:32 PM, HighGrade said:

In all honesty in many companies this would have been covered up, they would have let the perps go free sometimes they leave with having to signing documents to not discuss reason for dismissal.  Seriously, damage control in many situations lets the criminals go to keep a good company image, they didn’t do that here, they are taking the high road and going after them. So I know they are serious about removing these threats, not just covering it up, believe me the cover ups of inside scandals is wide spread for PR reasons.

I had something go missing in an antique auction house, was told it was "lost" LOL.. I was compensated for it, but pretty sure it was an employee, this was over 30 years ago but I found out later others had stuff mysteriously go missing and a person was later fired but never gone after and  there was zero press. So I have to respect the fact this out in the open, it didn't have to be, they could have just fired them and let it go at that.

  And yet here we are.  CGC has no shareholders; it and all of its subsidies are formed to be a closely-held corporation.  There is no one to report any of this to - or at anyone that is legally entitled to this information - for any reason.

CGC is in business for the sole purpose of making money.  The minute it stops doing that, it folds.  I just don't get how you and others on here really think this is "taking the high road."  

A two paragraph media release is not taking the high road.

Filing some goofball lawsuit against two ex-employees (that probably will never even respond to or make any appearance at a courthouse for) is not taking the high road.

Not shutting this thread down (yet) is not taking the high road.

CGC just screwed up when it came to managing this mess, it is as simple as that. 

On 2/2/2024 at 11:51 AM, CitrusZ28 said:

bluehorseshoe loves Bluestar Airlines.

You're walking around blind without a cane, pal. A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place.