CGC Response on Suspected Ewert Books

[Foolkiller]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

 

C'mon, Troop. Hearing something second-hand is not "direct from the horse's mouth." It's not corporate policy. It's just hearsay actually.

 

If Haspel, as the company president, has something to say, he should come on hear and say it.

 

Now, if he wanted to "leak" this info, he made a huge mistake since you don't leak information by having the source say, "I had dinner with _____ and he said this."

 

That's just lame.

 

Gary,

 

Your characterization isn't correct. Mark asked me to post his replies. He actually spends only a small amount of time reading the boards and has told me repeatedly he has NO intention of posting here. Ever. On this subject or any other.

 

This is as direct from the horse's mouth as you will ever get, short of you picking up the phone and calling him yourself. He's more than happy to discuss issues and take calls, but he won't be posting here.

[buttock]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

Because they arent the answers they want to hear.

 

what he said.

[arexcrooke]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

Because they arent the answers they want to hear.

 

what he said.

 

 

[Sal]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

Because they arent the answers they want to hear.

 

what he said.

 

eh, i think that's overly simplistic.

 

i think most people want CGC - and by extension, the CS - to be proactive regarding certain issues, given the close nature CGC has with its clients/customers.

 

given the makeup of the CS - and CGC's position within it - this is not likely to ever happen, and as a result, some people will continue to be frustrated by the perceived "curtain of mystery" wrt certain topics / issues

[Paratrooper]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

 

C'mon, Troop. Hearing something second-hand is not "direct from the horse's mouth." It's not corporate policy. It's just hearsay actually.

 

If Haspel, as the company president, has something to say, he should come on hear and say it.

 

Now, if he wanted to "leak" this info, he made a huge mistake since you don't leak information by having the source say, "I had dinner with _____ and he said this."

 

That's just lame.

 

Gary,

 

Your characterization isn't correct. Mark asked me to post his replies. He actually spends only a small amount of time reading the boards and has told me repeatedly he has NO intention of posting here. Ever. On this subject or any other.

This is as direct from the horse's mouth as you will ever get, short of you picking up the phone and calling him yourself. He's more than happy to discuss issues and take calls, but he won't be posting here.

 

Can't really say I blame the guy for not coming on here.

[DrWatson]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

Because they arent the answers they want to hear.

 

what he said.

 

eh, i think that's overly simplistic.

 

i think most people want CGC - and by extension, the CS - to be proactive regarding certain issues, given the close nature CGC has with its clients/customers.

 

given the makeup of the CS - and CGC's position within it - this is not likely to ever happen, and as a result, some people will continue to be frustrated by the perceived "curtain of mystery" wrt certain topics / issues

You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

[nik]

I'm happy 99% of the time

[arexcrooke]

I'm happy 99% of the time

Im around you about 1% of the year. Are you trying to tell me something

[arexcrooke]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

Because they arent the answers they want to hear.

 

what he said.

 

eh, i think that's overly simplistic.

 

i think most people want CGC - and by extension, the CS - to be proactive regarding certain issues, given the close nature CGC has with its clients/customers.

 

given the makeup of the CS - and CGC's position within it - this is not likely to ever happen, and as a result, some people will continue to be frustrated by the perceived "curtain of mystery" wrt certain topics / issues

IN several members cases here, it isnt overly simplistic at all.

[nik]

I'm happy 99% of the time

Im around you about 1% of the year. Are you trying to tell me something

 

That 1% is only for Mondays

[DrWatson]

I'm happy 99% of the time

Im around you about 1% of the year. Are you trying to tell me something

You know, I never made the connection, but you could be correct.

[arexcrooke]

I'm happy 99% of the time

Im around you about 1% of the year. Are you trying to tell me something

You know, I never made the connection, but you could be correct.

[Moondog]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

 

C'mon, Troop. Hearing something second-hand is not "direct from the horse's mouth." It's not corporate policy. It's just hearsay actually.

 

If Haspel, as the company president, has something to say, he should come on hear and say it.

 

Now, if he wanted to "leak" this info, he made a huge mistake since you don't leak information by having the source say, "I had dinner with _____ and he said this."

 

That's just lame.

 

Gary,

 

Your characterization isn't correct. Mark asked me to post his replies. He actually spends only a small amount of time reading the boards and has told me repeatedly he has NO intention of posting here. Ever. On this subject or any other.

 

This is as direct from the horse's mouth as you will ever get, short of you picking up the phone and calling him yourself. He's more than happy to discuss issues and take calls, but he won't be posting here.

 

 

I'm sure the company's designated spokesperson would suffice.

 

 

[Transplant]

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

 

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

 

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

 

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

 

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

 

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

 

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

 

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

 

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

 

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

 

Thanks, Brian, but am I the only one puzzled that the president of the company is using board members to disseminate corporate policy?

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least. As mention it is plausible deniability.

 

What surprises me is that Ewert basically broke the terms of the contract and CGC admitted as much. They even "chased him from the hobby" yet they feel bound by the contract which was essentially rendered null and void by Ewert.

 

As well they basically did the final outing which also breaches that contract they are standing by. They revealed certain books which were Ewert subs and let information regarding certain submissions be revealed through their forum and yet still feel bound by their contract.

 

Honestly? This is all fairly silly and to let a board member release this lame duck policy is pretty weak. Not a surprise, mind you, but very disappointing.

I'm still waiting for someone to point me to this contract language that says that they won't divulge the identity of someone who registers or submits a book.

 

Arex:

There are federal laws dealing with the disclosure of private financial information. This is hardly a fair comparison.

[Mr. Zipper]

I'm still waiting for someone to point me to this contract language that says that they won't divulge the identity of someone who registers or submits a book.

 

Because it probably doesn't exist. We're not talking about private financial data or HIPAA.

 

That said, it doesn't mean that Ewert wouldn't attempt to sue, or perhaps his attorney has already fired a shot across CGC's bow.

 

CGC did a risk/reward analysis and concluded that the grief they put up with here is less risky and expensive than dealing with legal proceedings. Simple.

[arexcrooke]

I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

 

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

 

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

 

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

 

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

 

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

 

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

 

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

 

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

 

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

 

Thanks, Brian, but am I the only one puzzled that the president of the company is using board members to disseminate corporate policy?

 

It doesn't surprise me in the least. As mention it is plausible deniability.

 

What surprises me is that Ewert basically broke the terms of the contract and CGC admitted as much. They even "chased him from the hobby" yet they feel bound by the contract which was essentially rendered null and void by Ewert.

 

As well they basically did the final outing which also breaches that contract they are standing by. They revealed certain books which were Ewert subs and let information regarding certain submissions be revealed through their forum and yet still feel bound by their contract.

 

Honestly? This is all fairly silly and to let a board member release this lame duck policy is pretty weak. Not a surprise, mind you, but very disappointing.

I'm still waiting for someone to point me to this contract language that says that they won't divulge the identity of someone who registers or submits a book.

 

Arex:

There are federal laws dealing with the disclosure of private financial information. This is hardly a fair comparison.

Its a more fair comparison than comparing it to eBay's privacy policy like Dav did

[codfish]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

 

It is simply not a reasonable explanation. I doubt there is anything legally binding to prevent them from releasing this information since Ewert null and voided any contract by trying to slide manipulated books through the system. If Ewert was going to sue he would have done it when CGC asked him to get out of the industry.

 

In the end they would not be disseminating any vital personal info they could just release a group of numbers and since the guy who submitted it voided his rights and is no longer in the industry there is little harm it could do. In fact I think releasing this data to the public would be more beneficial than harmful.

 

Anyway ... all I am saying is that they are simply not dealing with this situation very well. They should be doing better. Especially in light of the fact that Haspel's, I believe, criticism of the NOD's attempt to get the information out in the open. If they want to keep handling each situation like this they are going to do more harm to themselves than any critic could.

 

 

[Foolkiller]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

 

It is simply not a reasonable explanation. I doubt there is anything legally binding to prevent them from releasing this information since Ewert null and voided any contract by trying to slide manipulated books through the system. If Ewert was going to sue he would have done it when CGC asked him to get out of the industry.

 

In the end they would not be disseminating any vital personal info they could just release a group of numbers and since the guy who submitted it voided his rights and is no longer in the industry there is little harm it could do. In fact I think releasing this data to the public would be more beneficial than harmful.

 

Anyway ... all I am saying is that they are simply not dealing with this situation very well. They should be doing better. Especially in light of the fact that Haspel's, I believe, criticism of the NOD's attempt to get the information out in the open. If they want to keep handling each situation like this they are going to do more harm to themselves than any critic could.

 

 

CGC isn't going to do any harm to themselves either way. Submissions are up -- they had an extremely strong show in NYC. They handled the Ewert situation and guess what -- I would wager that the overwhelming majority either a) didn't care or b) approved of it or c) didn't approve but still want to submit.

 

Translation -- the criticism falls on mostly deaf ears.

[DrWatson]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

 

It is simply not a reasonable explanation. I doubt there is anything legally binding to prevent them from releasing this information since Ewert null and voided any contract by trying to slide manipulated books through the system. If Ewert was going to sue he would have done it when CGC asked him to get out of the industry.

 

In the end they would not be disseminating any vital personal info they could just release a group of numbers and since the guy who submitted it voided his rights and is no longer in the industry there is little harm it could do. In fact I think releasing this data to the public would be more beneficial than harmful.

 

Anyway ... all I am saying is that they are simply not dealing with this situation very well. They should be doing better. Especially in light of the fact that Haspel's, I believe, criticism of the NOD's attempt to get the information out in the open. If they want to keep handling each situation like this they are going to do more harm to themselves than any critic could.

 

 

CGC isn't going to do any harm to themselves either way. Submissions are up -- they had an extremely strong show in NYC. They handled the Ewert situation and guess what -- I would wager that the overwhelming majority either a) didn't care or b) approved of it or c) didn't approve but still want to submit.

 

Translation -- the criticism falls on mostly deaf ears.

Did you say something?

[arexcrooke]

even when given an answer that you guys have been seeking you still complain.

 

It is simply not a reasonable explanation. I doubt there is anything legally binding to prevent them from releasing this information since Ewert null and voided any contract by trying to slide manipulated books through the system. If Ewert was going to sue he would have done it when CGC asked him to get out of the industry.

 

In the end they would not be disseminating any vital personal info they could just release a group of numbers and since the guy who submitted it voided his rights and is no longer in the industry there is little harm it could do. In fact I think releasing this data to the public would be more beneficial than harmful.

 

Anyway ... all I am saying is that they are simply not dealing with this situation very well. They should be doing better. Especially in light of the fact that Haspel's, I believe, criticism of the NOD's attempt to get the information out in the open. If they want to keep handling each situation like this they are going to do more harm to themselves than any critic could.

 

 

CGC isn't going to do any harm to themselves either way. Submissions are up -- they had an extremely strong show in NYC. They handled the Ewert situation and guess what -- I would wager that the overwhelming majority either a) didn't care or b) approved of it or c) didn't approve but still want to submit.

 

Translation -- the criticism falls on mostly deaf ears.

Did you say something?

Huh? I must have missed what you said