CGC Comments Regarding the JIM 83

[comix4fun]

The only true outstanding issue is will these that keep doing this with this JIM 83 not press their luck anymore.

 

At some point, you can modify the procedure, but if there is any hint of "unscrupulous" activity (as set out in the OP,) then you have to think CGC just washes their hands of it and turns it over to law enforcement for fraud.

And what law governs the undisclosed re-trimming of a factory-trimmed comic book?

 

Would it be the same law that governs undisclosed re-pressing of factory-pressed paper, undisclosed re-assembly, or undisclosed re-folding of a factory-folded spines? Those laws?

 

 

There actually is one. It's boring to explain though.

wow could they get real jail time for this or fined?

 

 

Depends on scope, aggravating and mitigating factors, prior acts. Usually the result is to make the defrauded party whole, but the larger the scope or damage the more likely for penalties to increase in kind. Really boring though. I've been giving legal advice all day...me brain's burnt right now.

[kav]

The only true outstanding issue is will these that keep doing this with this JIM 83 not press their luck anymore.

 

At some point, you can modify the procedure, but if there is any hint of "unscrupulous" activity (as set out in the OP,) then you have to think CGC just washes their hands of it and turns it over to law enforcement for fraud.

And what law governs the undisclosed re-trimming of a factory-trimmed comic book?

 

Would it be the same law that governs undisclosed re-pressing of factory-pressed paper, undisclosed re-assembly, or undisclosed re-folding of a factory-folded spines? Those laws?

 

 

There actually is one. It's boring to explain though.

wow could they get real jail time for this or fined?

Yep they'd be breakin rocks in the-hot sun

[bluehorseshoe]

The only true outstanding issue is will these that keep doing this with this JIM 83 not press their luck anymore.

 

At some point, you can modify the procedure, but if there is any hint of "unscrupulous" activity (as set out in the OP,) then you have to think CGC just washes their hands of it and turns it over to law enforcement for fraud.

And what law governs the undisclosed re-trimming of a factory-trimmed comic book?

 

Would it be the same law that governs undisclosed re-pressing of factory-pressed paper, undisclosed re-assembly, or undisclosed re-folding of factory-folded spines? Those laws?

 

I was thinking more along the line of real laws, but hey, there's always room for...whatever your point is.

 

Obtaining goods and services by fraud. Uttering. Both garden variety felonies. How about that be the starting line for this race to justice?

[bluehorseshoe]

 

 

 

 

I've been giving legal advice all day...me brain's burnt right now.

 

Our Judge just left for 10 days this afternoon. What's that mean? Yep, wearing shorts to the office, again.

[kav]

I thought uttering involved 'publishing' false documents

[mob_medina7]

The only true outstanding issue is will these that keep doing this with this JIM 83 not press their luck anymore.

 

At some point, you can modify the procedure, but if there is any hint of "unscrupulous" activity (as set out in the OP,) then you have to think CGC just washes their hands of it and turns it over to law enforcement for fraud.

And what law governs the undisclosed re-trimming of a factory-trimmed comic book?

 

Would it be the same law that governs undisclosed re-pressing of factory-pressed paper, undisclosed re-assembly, or undisclosed re-folding of a factory-folded spines? Those laws?

 

 

There actually is one. It's boring to explain though.

wow could they get real jail time for this or fined?

Yep they'd be breakin rocks in the-hot sun

and they'd deserve every minute the crooks!

[jaybuck43]

The only true outstanding issue is will these that keep doing this with this JIM 83 not press their luck anymore.

 

At some point, you can modify the procedure, but if there is any hint of "unscrupulous" activity (as set out in the OP,) then you have to think CGC just washes their hands of it and turns it over to law enforcement for fraud.

And what law governs the undisclosed re-trimming of a factory-trimmed comic book?

 

Would it be the same law that governs undisclosed re-pressing of factory-pressed paper, undisclosed re-assembly, or undisclosed re-folding of factory-folded spines? Those laws?

Depending on the state, it would be the consumer fraud laws. For instance in NJ the consumer fraud law part 58:6-2 states "the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of

any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise"

[bluehorseshoe]

I thought uttering involved 'publishing' false documents

 

Yeah I can see how you would think that.

[kav]

I thought uttering involved 'publishing' false documents

 

Yeah I can see how you would think that.

In the law of countries whose legal systems derive from English common law, uttering is a crime similar to forgery. Uttering and forgery were originally common law offences, both misdemeanours. Forgery was the creation of a forged document, with the intent to defraud; whereas uttering was merely use — the passing — of a forged document, that someone else had made, with the intent to defraud. In law, uttering is synonymous with publication, and the distinction made between the common law offences was that forgery was the fabrication of a forged instrument (with the intent to defraud) and uttering was the publication of that instrument (with the intent to defraud). Statute law offences of forgery replace the common law offences nowadays, often subsuming the offence of uttering, and forgery is usually a felony rather than a misdemeanour.[1]

[bluehorseshoe]

I thought uttering involved 'publishing' false documents

 

Yeah I can see how you would think that.

In the law of countries whose legal systems derive from English common law, uttering is a crime similar to forgery. Uttering and forgery were originally common law offences, both misdemeanours. Forgery was the creation of a forged document, with the intent to defraud; whereas uttering was merely use — the passing — of a forged document, that someone else had made, with the intent to defraud. In law, uttering is synonymous with publication, and the distinction made between the common law offences was that forgery was the fabrication of a forged instrument (with the intent to defraud) and uttering was the publication of that instrument (with the intent to defraud). Statute law offences of forgery replace the common law offences nowadays, often subsuming the offence of uttering, and forgery is usually a felony rather than a misdemeanour.[1]

 

My god you and google are a dangerous mix.

[kav]

I thought uttering involved 'publishing' false documents

 

Yeah I can see how you would think that.

In the law of countries whose legal systems derive from English common law, uttering is a crime similar to forgery. Uttering and forgery were originally common law offences, both misdemeanours. Forgery was the creation of a forged document, with the intent to defraud; whereas uttering was merely use — the passing — of a forged document, that someone else had made, with the intent to defraud. In law, uttering is synonymous with publication, and the distinction made between the common law offences was that forgery was the fabrication of a forged instrument (with the intent to defraud) and uttering was the publication of that instrument (with the intent to defraud). Statute law offences of forgery replace the common law offences nowadays, often subsuming the offence of uttering, and forgery is usually a felony rather than a misdemeanour.[1]

 

My god you and google are a dangerous mix.

yup

[jaybuck43]

New Rule, Board Attorney's have to either actually possess a J.D. or at least dear god not be citing Wikipedia.

[kav]

I was just asking a question. Don't get your kickers twisted. I said "I thought-' then someone said no then I said 'but what about-'

 

[mob_medina7]

[comix4fun]

I thought uttering involved 'publishing' false documents

 

Yeah I can see how you would think that.

In the law of countries whose legal systems derive from English common law, uttering is a crime similar to forgery. Uttering and forgery were originally common law offences, both misdemeanours. Forgery was the creation of a forged document, with the intent to defraud; whereas uttering was merely use — the passing — of a forged document, that someone else had made, with the intent to defraud. In law, uttering is synonymous with publication, and the distinction made between the common law offences was that forgery was the fabrication of a forged instrument (with the intent to defraud) and uttering was the publication of that instrument (with the intent to defraud). Statute law offences of forgery replace the common law offences nowadays, often subsuming the offence of uttering, and forgery is usually a felony rather than a misdemeanour.[1]

 

 

At least remove the [1] if you are gonna do that so people think it's yours.

 

Otherwise, just post the LINK

[kav]

WHY would I want people to think it's mine? That would be uttering.

[Buzzetta]

New Rule, Board Attorney's have to either actually possess a J.D. or at least dear god not be citing Wikipedia.

 

If this rule were to be followed the post counts of people across the internet would dramatically fall.

 

[CKB]

My guess is natural wear over time since the covers stick out a little highe than the pages.

 

Even more so than the top edge of the front cover, it is very hard to reconcile that the ink did not bleed down the front cover like it did the back. Even a micro trim of the front cover only would not have removed it all.

 

I think I have to conclude that the top of the front cover, was, against all odds, missed by the ink completely.

 

There is nothing about the top edge of that book that even whispers "trimmed" to me. I think all the subtle manipulation that goes on has CGC chasing shadows. Shouldn't the standard be near-certainty about restoration before giving a book a restored grade? If there is reasonable doubt that the book is clean maybe it should result in the book returned to the owner ungraded, with a note that the resto check was "inconclusive".

 

 

But the odds of an overhanging front cover not getting any spray whereas the inner pages and overhanging back cover does. Moreover, there is none of the equivalent wear on the back cover - confused

 

I agree, thus the "against all odds". This book does not looks sprayed, by the way, sometimes a brush was used.

 

But come at it the other way - what possibly could have been going on with the top of the front cover that you would micro-trim it (and not the back cover) so slightly that you could not detect the height difference between front and back covers? Any defect that you could think of at that level probably does not detract from the grade of this book. Micro overhang bends? Micro-tears? This book is not a 9.4 to begin with!

 

 

[kav]

New Rule, Board Attorney's have to either actually possess a J.D. or at least dear god not be citing Wikipedia.

 

If this rule were to be followed the post counts of people across the internet would dramatically fall.

I'm still waiting for the proper definition of uttering. I'm betting it's exactly what the Wiki article stated.

[comix4fun]

New Rule, Board Attorney's have to either actually possess a J.D. or at least dear god not be citing Wikipedia.

 

If this rule were to be followed the post counts of people across the internet would dramatically fall.

I'm still waiting for the proper definition of uttering.

 

 

 

It doesn't have anything to do with dairy farming?