Question for Heritage and comiclink reps wrt Burkey admission 2 2

[Doc Joe]

This is not the first thing I thought Christ would be doing when he came back but I guess you know best,,,sorry about all the masturbating

[jaybuck43]

As a lawyer, I'll weigh in a bit. We know basically the tip of the iceberg here. Mike said he had friends buy pieces for him. Is that legal/illegal? Depends on a multitude of information, none of which any of us are aware of. So I would say everyone wanting to talk about the legal ramifications and legal obligations of Mike and heritage etc should calm down, because again a ton of information is missing here.

 

None of this is to defend what Mike has admitted to doing. It's unacceptable to me as a collector, and I'm sure to most others.. Most people are pissed off (and have a right to be). All I'm suggesting is we cool it off with talks of law suits and contacting the FBI etc.

[Peter G]

This is not the first thing I thought Christ would be doing when he came back but I guess you know best,,,sorry about all the masturbating

 

[Peter G]

As a lawyer, I'll weigh in a bit. We know basically the tip of the iceberg here. Mike said he had friends buy pieces for him. Is that legal/illegal? Depends on a multitude of information, none of which any of us are aware of. So I would say everyone wanting to talk about the legal ramifications and legal obligations of Mike and heritage etc should calm down, because again a ton of information is missing here.

 

None of this is to defend what Mike has admitted to doing. It's unacceptable to me as a collector, and I'm sure to most others.. Most people are pissed off (and have a right to be). All I'm suggesting is we cool it off with talks of law suits and contacting the FBI etc.

 

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.

 

 

[kav]

Didn't he have friends buy pieces for him/from him?

[AnWARtheart-migration]

Due to the fact that the class of victims are probably not aware they have in fact been possibly defrauded, the best way I see a considered action moving forward is probably as a class. That's not to say an individual cannot file a claim. Just makes more sense as a class action. I think I am done with this thread but will monitor to see what happens. Definitely smells really really really bad and I am truly surprised at the lack of legal focus, as usually all the boards lawyers come out of the woodwork to do the heavy lifting. Here, I hear crickets in terms of legal analysis.

 

Good luck all !!

[Bronty]

As a lawyer, I'll weigh in a bit. We know basically the tip of the iceberg here. Mike said he had friends buy pieces for him. Is that legal/illegal? Depends on a multitude of information, none of which any of us are aware of. So I would say everyone wanting to talk about the legal ramifications and legal obligations of Mike and heritage etc should calm down, because again a ton of information is missing here.

 

None of this is to defend what Mike has admitted to doing. It's unacceptable to me as a collector, and I'm sure to most others.. Most people are pissed off (and have a right to be). All I'm suggesting is we cool it off with talks of law suits and contacting the FBI etc.

 

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.

 

That said, my own "wild conjecture" is that the more we find out the widespread this is gonna look.

 

If I recall correctly Mike said he won 100 pieces "back." How many additional bids did he have placed that didn't even win? Hundreds? A thousand?

 

If he had a friend bid did he return the favor for that friend?

 

What about other acquaintances?

 

Look I'm sure this happens in comics too it's just harder to track... get a new serial number and you're golden for the most part.

 

But it's still unacceptable IMO.

 

[Peter G]

As a lawyer, I'll weigh in a bit. We know basically the tip of the iceberg here. Mike said he had friends buy pieces for him. Is that legal/illegal? Depends on a multitude of information, none of which any of us are aware of. So I would say everyone wanting to talk about the legal ramifications and legal obligations of Mike and heritage etc should calm down, because again a ton of information is missing here.

 

None of this is to defend what Mike has admitted to doing. It's unacceptable to me as a collector, and I'm sure to most others.. Most people are pissed off (and have a right to be). All I'm suggesting is we cool it off with talks of law suits and contacting the FBI etc.

 

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.

[Peter G]

Darn autocorrect. Sorry Bronty

[batman_fan]

As a lawyer, I'll weigh in a bit. We know basically the tip of the iceberg here. Mike said he had friends buy pieces for him. Is that legal/illegal? Depends on a multitude of information, none of which any of us are aware of. So I would say everyone wanting to talk about the legal ramifications and legal obligations of Mike and heritage etc should calm down, because again a ton of information is missing here.

 

None of this is to defend what Mike has admitted to doing. It's unacceptable to me as a collector, and I'm sure to most others.. Most people are pissed off (and have a right to be). All I'm suggesting is we cool it off with talks of law suits and contacting the FBI etc.

 

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.

[Peter G]

As a lawyer, I'll weigh in a bit. We know basically the tip of the iceberg here. Mike said he had friends buy pieces for him. Is that legal/illegal? Depends on a multitude of information, none of which any of us are aware of. So I would say everyone wanting to talk about the legal ramifications and legal obligations of Mike and heritage etc should calm down, because again a ton of information is missing here.

 

None of this is to defend what Mike has admitted to doing. It's unacceptable to me as a collector, and I'm sure to most others.. Most people are pissed off (and have a right to be). All I'm suggesting is we cool it off with talks of law suits and contacting the FBI etc.

 

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.

[batman_fan]

As a lawyer, I'll weigh in a bit. We know basically the tip of the iceberg here. Mike said he had friends buy pieces for him. Is that legal/illegal? Depends on a multitude of information, none of which any of us are aware of. So I would say everyone wanting to talk about the legal ramifications and legal obligations of Mike and heritage etc should calm down, because again a ton of information is missing here.

 

None of this is to defend what Mike has admitted to doing. It's unacceptable to me as a collector, and I'm sure to most others.. Most people are pissed off (and have a right to be). All I'm suggesting is we cool it off with talks of law suits and contacting the FBI etc.

 

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.

 

[Peter G]

As a lawyer, I'll weigh in a bit. We know basically the tip of the iceberg here. Mike said he had friends buy pieces for him. Is that legal/illegal? Depends on a multitude of information, none of which any of us are aware of. So I would say everyone wanting to talk about the legal ramifications and legal obligations of Mike and heritage etc should calm down, because again a ton of information is missing here.

 

None of this is to defend what Mike has admitted to doing. It's unacceptable to me as a collector, and I'm sure to most others.. Most people are pissed off (and have a right to be). All I'm suggesting is we cool it off with talks of law suits and contacting the FBI etc.

 

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.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2016 by Peter G

[BCarter27]

While we are waiting for HA, ComicLink, ComicConnect, and any of the other auction houses (Profiles? Russ Cochran? All Star?) to send out lists of lots consigned by Romitaman...

 

I looked at his ebay Store and he doesn't seem to have any auction-style listings running currently or recently.

 

Has anyone won an auction-style listing from romitaman on ebay in the past that they would consider reporting to ebay's Customer Service? If so, please send them the link to his admission of shilling on the other thread.

[Bronty]

Darn autocorrect. Sorry Bronty

 

Oops... you... did it again (to my heaaaaaaart)

[eewwnuk]

the auction houses aren't going to say a peep anymore about this

[Bronty]

the auction houses aren't going to say a peep anymore about this

 

I sincerely hope that's not true

[Mmehdy]

the auction houses aren't going to say a peep anymore about this

 

putting your head in the sand is not gonna be a good way to deal with this..its not going away, the safest way is for the auction houses to REFUND the commissions once they have learned the facts and considered the lability. If they refund, then I see no further damages from their end and given the fact that its a small amount in the big picture...no big deal. There are gonna have to make a statement about this or again Refund to protect their customers if they deem there was something improper that occurred at the auction. I think everybody should give them time to investigate what they would consider to be improper activiity, they might say there is nothing..who knows...but I trust them to do the right thing...after all the facts are in, again it shows good faith and I don't believe the auction houses would break the law or cover it up, if there was a violation and would probably refund even if it did not technically break any laws for long term customer satisfaction.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Mmehdy

[romitaman]

I haven't read many posts for the past day or 2 but I wanted to send this email out before I go to bed tonight....

 

Firstly...I want to tell everyone who has been reading these threads.....(on the now 3 ongoing online threads about me), that I take full responsibility for my actions.

 

I know many wont believe this...but I truly didn't realize I was doing anything perceived as illegal... But it will 100% be corrected going forward.

 

I am definitely not a perfect person and I do make my fair share of mistakes in life.... and I made one here according to so many and I feel terrible about it.

 

I also want to say that I apologize for this profusely as it made many art collectors i've dealt with throughout the years question my integrity, and this issue will not happen again....

 

The Heritage people and I have talked on the phone about this issue also.

 

So again.... I apologize to any and all people who this affected in a negative way, as I do appreciate and value everyone I have ever dealt with in this great hobby of ours......and to the many of you who I have become friends with over the many years.... That means a great deal to me personally as well!

 

With my saying all of that......I do have to also share 1 very negative thing that came from this CGC started thread that upsets me greatly.......

 

I found out today after I got home from church that my good friend John Romita Sr had left me a phone message.......So I call him up again to wish him a happy birthday........and he tells me that someone called him this morning (Sunday.....on his 86th birthday) to ask him if he approves of ROMITAMAN using his "ROMITA" name on his website since ROMITAMAN is an unethical person....... insinuating that I lie and cheat others.

 

John refused to give me the phone number as he knew I was more than upset after hearing this.

 

like I said earlier.....I can put up with people putting me down on the chat boards....whether they have any facts or not......... but I unequivocally do not feel its remotely OK to play games to the point of finding my very dear artist friends personal phone number to call him up to bash me.

 

Whoever you are you should really be ashamed of yourself...... and that's putting it very mildly!

 

....And I'll say again 1 last time.... in case someone has somehow read my initial statement above wrongly.......I'm truly sorry if my actions hurt anyone in any way in this great hobby of ours..... and I'll do my very best to make sure it never happens again.

 

 

Mike Burkey

[vodou]

 

....And I'll say again 1 last time.... in case someone has somehow read my initial statement above wrongly.......I'm truly sorry if my actions hurt anyone in any way in this great hobby of ours..... and I'll do my very best to make sure it never happens again.

 

Mike Burkey

Mike, it's a big start that you came back at all and better yet with an apology. There are elements of what you write that could be construed as appeasing the masses, some use of "if" and other words that give the impression you still don't think what you did is wrong (but accept could be illegal?), that you are going with the flow. I get that feeling myself, but I think most will welcome your statement. If people have a problem with that, well it is what it is. You are entitled to address this in your own manner of communication, it's not an allocution.

 

However nice your "go forward" intentions are though, there is the matter of all that has come before. 100% of the speculation is occurring because nobody knows the body of pieces your "actions" entail and the details. You don't have to reveal any of this (unless legally compelled to do so), but I think you should voluntarily and doing so would kill all the serious run-wild chatter. At least in the sense of "how many and for how much".

 

So there you go. I'm asking that you...

 

Please identify:

 

1. Original art item

2. Name of auction house, date of 'sale'

3. Your "hidden" reserve

4. Name of 'Friend/s' bidding as your proxy.*

5. Final (or top) 'friend' bid

6. Result: "Sold to a non-proxy third-party" or "sold to a proxy".

 

This should be broken down by consignment transaction, not by piece as the same piece may have received the same proxy bid "treatment" multiple times at more than one auction house over a period of time.

 

Do this Mike and most of the questions and scenario speculation will die off, but you may open yourself to being contacted by the real people on the other end seeking restitution or maybe granting blanket forgiveness. That's up to them, and between you and them.

 

As an example, I do not think I was directly harmed by what you and friends have done, but I do not know. I may never know, but if you do the above and lay it all out for everybody...I will have a much better sense of the thing and much of the trust can be restored. In my eyes, to my knowledge, this situation is the only black mark on your reputation. I was as surprised as anybody, not that this happens, but that you were involved -even ring-leading. This can be walked back, per above. Until then, I don't know for certain so the most conservative route is status quo, is to assume I have potentially been harmed and to continue pursuing the facts (to find out for sure) coming out legally. Nobody really wants or needs this, that's why a voluntary release of information is best. This is for me, my piece of mind. But I think you should do it for everyone else as well.

 

If you won't do this, please at least make a statement to that effect. I'm sure any number of people will be okay with even that. But you'll have your critics too, for sure.

.

.

.

*This a nice to have for those of us that would avoid all future interaction with those folks, the same folks that have been silent while you have publicly addressed things. But understandable that you may not share...those persons would certainly not appreciate being outed.