Peter G

. Mike, you owe the board an explanation....we are waiting Mitch, You will be waiting a long time because Mike will not be posting on this subject any more. Surely he has spoken with counsel and will say no more on this subject. Jaybuck and Chris have been pretty revealing in their posts that we should all just go away now. . That is why the donation by Mike, coupons from auction houses would have gotten some type of justice or repair... And to play fair...we all have to be more vilgent in our "blind" purchases from here on out...lession learned Please... I know that everyone has their perceptions/ opinions/ experience but please wait for him to either respond or stay silent regarding how the "deals" were worked out. Again.... Mike, on your post (#9114012 - 01/20/16 02:29 AM) you stated "i've worked out numerous deals with other collectors to get a hundred or so back if I felt the prices at auction were undervalued and I could sell it for more on my website in the future if I just give it time"... Help me (us) understand how you did this... You will only hear radio silence from Mike from here on out.

. Mike, you owe the board an explanation....we are waiting Mitch, You will be waiting a long time because Mike will not be posting on this subject any more. Surely he has spoken with counsel and will say no more on this subject. Jaybuck and Chris have been pretty revealing in their posts that we should all just go away now.

In the real world I agree with you, but in a legal sense you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial (i.e. wire fraud) or based on a preponderance of the evidence that it is more likely than not in a civil trial. So all Mike's lawyer(s) would need to do in a criminal trial is poke enough holes that one juror is not 100% convinced that Mike did it and that is the end of that conviction. Now as to the civil matter, then you stand a better chance but you still have to put together some evidence that Mike colluded with these individuals to reacquire the pieces. On top of the fact that you have to still prove the other elements of whatever you are suing him over. (This case will never see the light of discovery if the case is not brought on the merits, it has to be able to withstand a 3211 motion.)

Dude, for real. You cant lambast him in one section for not providing him with a sufficiently lawyerly answer then berate him when he does. Overruled! I have been consistent. Jaybuck just gives his opinion and masquerades it as legal advice. The advice is always bad advice. Always ! I still haven't figured out if it's purposeful or if he is just a really bad lawyer. But I don't care his intentions anymore. He is a dangerous poster.

so basically a CYA "nothing to see here, move along" with no substance. I can understand not wanting to publicly name the shill proxy bidders, but they should be named to the auction houses. otherwise, the apology is just empty words. no way to verify or audit what went on. Pretty much what I expected from HA. At least at this point. The only real pressure they (or Mike, even) that would get their notice and make them look to do more, would be to hit them where it would hurt... right in the wallet. But, knowing this "community" as I do, I don't see that happening, so this is about all you can expect to happen. It'll all blow over in a couple weeks and folks will go back to their usual buying patterns. That is what HA and Mike are banking on. And my experiences tell me they have valid reasoning to expect such. Yes, maybe but maybe not too. There is a civil suit here for sure even if nobody wants Mike to go to jail. I smell money.

The easiest solution is vodous suggestion unless one of us wants to certify a class.

And Jaybuck please refrain from ever telling me "how things work"

You do realize Jaybuck that heritage has all the names of mikes "friends" ? That doesn't need to be subpoenaed. So long as heritage as named party, I am pretty sure that information will flow during discovery. There is no need to subpoena Mike. Although it would have been nice if he was cooperative in this matter.

So Mike won't cooperate and "roll over" like he did on the board ? This is gonna have to be done the hard way you think ?

so basically a CYA "nothing to see here, move along" with no substance. I can understand not wanting to publicly name the shill proxy bidders, but they should be named to the auction houses. otherwise, the apology is just empty words. no way to verify or audit what went on. The proxies will not be named unless there is a lawsuit (criminal or civil) and the co-conspirators names obtained via discovery. That much should be obvious. Peter, discovery does not work that way. IF there was a lawsuit (civil) or charges levied (criminal) then the prosecuting body (be it the government in a criminal case or the Plaintiff's attorney in a civil case) will subpoena information. Mike is protected by the fifth amendment from being compelled to make any statements against interest. So he does not have to name any "co-conspirators". Now in theory the prosecuting body would have to try to get that information from a third party (cellular network, email company etc) but I can tell you from experience that those parties will fight almost any subpoena tooth and nail, and in most cases (especially civil ones) win. So getting Verizon/AT&T to turn over Mike's text records (with the actual content) may be impossible. And that of course is assuming Mike put it in writing. If Mike just called a friend and said it, then there would be no record. This is again the reason I have called for people to slow down the blood lust and try to get information. There is still so much not known, and calling Heritage or the FBI won't do anything to help that at this point.

so basically a CYA "nothing to see here, move along" with no substance. I can understand not wanting to publicly name the shill proxy bidders, but they should be named to the auction houses. otherwise, the apology is just empty words. no way to verify or audit what went on. The proxies will not be named unless there is a lawsuit (criminal or civil) and the co-conspirators names obtained via discovery. That much should be obvious.

The Internet is a dangerous place.

Terry, Is that really outside the realm of possibility ? Somebody shilled Mike's auctions. While it could have been merely an administrative "friend" of mike's, it more likely was a person or people intimately involved in the hobby. While ADMITTEDLY speculative on my part that people on this board that are silent are these "friends" of Mike, it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility by a long shot.

Maybe some of the silent posters are Mikes "friends" ?

Jaybuck, Are you really a lawyer ? Because I see no legal analysis here on your part. None. Just conclusory non-legal statements. Also, your legal commentary on other threads are dubious. He's a lawyer. Spoonish comment by you btw Yes he's offered no analysis but no doubt that's because 1) you don't do that publicly 2) he doesn't feel he has enough info to analyze anything. If you ARE a lawyer you're not going to shoot your mouth off when you have incomplete information. Britney, He came onto the thread announcing he was a lawyer but then did no legal analysis. That is appeal to authority of the worst type. I will not abide that. Spoonish of me ? Maybe, but he invited it. I actually think he did give an analysis, he said there is not enough information to draw conclusions. So mikes friends purchased the art for other reasons besides shilling ? That is preposterous. Well, that was jaybucks incomplete conclusory statement which "on its face" is untenable that I objected to. Certainly it wasn't any legal analysis on his part. It was a post claiming to be a lawyer but then not Articulating anything that was even remotely cogent.

Jaybuck, Are you really a lawyer ? Because I see no legal analysis here on your part. None. Just conclusory non-legal statements. Also, your legal commentary on other threads are dubious. He's a lawyer. Spoonish comment by you btw Yes he's offered no analysis but no doubt that's because 1) you don't do that publicly 2) he doesn't feel he has enough info to analyze anything. If you ARE a lawyer you're not going to shoot your mouth off when you have incomplete information. Britney, He came onto the thread announcing he was a lawyer but then did no legal analysis. That is appeal to authority of the worst type. I will not abide that. Spoonish of me ? Maybe, but he invited it. I actually think he did give an analysis, he said there is not enough information to draw conclusions. So mikes friends purchased the art for other reasons besides shilling ? That is preposterous.

Darn autocorrect. Sorry Bronty

Jaybuck, Are you really a lawyer ? Because I see no legal analysis here on your part. None. Just conclusory non-legal statements. Also, your legal commentary on other threads are dubious. He's a lawyer. Spoonish comment by you btw Yes he's offered no analysis but no doubt that's because 1) you don't do that publicly 2) he doesn't feel he has enough info to analyze anything. If you ARE a lawyer you're not going to shoot your mouth off when you have incomplete information. Britney, He came onto the thread announcing he was a lawyer but then did no legal analysis. That is appeal to authority of the worst type. I will not abide that. Spoonish of me ? Maybe, but he invited it.

Jaybuck, Are you really a lawyer ? Because I see no legal analysis here on your part. None. Just conclusory non-legal statements. Also, your legal commentary on other threads are dubious.

+1

Money Money Money Money Money Money Money I'm rollin' in the Money Money Money Money Money Money Money

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

If this behavior is on the up and up then why did he only admit it reluctantly after being caught ?

We should just ask "Transparent Mike"