• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

ASM #252 CGC 9.8 Record Sale - something fishy going on? - Holder Tampering Incident confirmed by CGC
50 50

9,031 posts in this topic

On 1/12/2024 at 1:14 PM, EastEnd1 said:

You may be thinking of "invasion of privacy" instead of defamation.  I don't think businesses that hold themselves out to the public have very strict privacy rights though.  Again, I'm not a lawyer so I defer to them.  As far as defamation goes...

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject ...

 

Interestingly here though, it says nothing about intent or knowing that the speech is false... it speaks to saying things in a "negligent" way, which I don't believe requires intent.

Oh that might be it :shy:

I'm not looking to give legal advise either, nor am I in any kind of way to advise either. Just I didn't need these videos "to prove what the scammer did" ???

It was already obvious, and IMO which I stated in my 1st post of this, ahem, they only exacerbate the problem. I've tried to move on several times, no one will care what I think, but even that is meant as lighthearted.

I've heard justice is passionate and I don't want to interrupt that train of thought nor get in the way. The videos do nothing to help only hurt. IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 2:14 PM, EastEnd1 said:

You may be thinking of "invasion of privacy" instead of defamation.  I don't think businesses that hold themselves out to the public have very strict privacy rights though.  Again, I'm not a lawyer so I defer to them.  As far as defamation goes...

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject ...

 

Interestingly here though, it says nothing about intent or knowing that the speech is false... it speaks to saying things in a "negligent" way, which I don't believe requires intent.

You're right, defamation does not require intent. That was a big discussion point in the many recent Dominion defamation cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 1:19 PM, William-James88 said:

You're right, defamation does not require intent. That was a big discussion point in the many recent Dominion defamation cases.

It was the no intent that got me thinking about it, but if a religious entity was the boss and an employee was somehow outed then terminated due to "facts" or in otherwise involving termination of employment due to "facts" (struggled for an example) I thought a certain party could be sued.

Though I also struggle if that would be by the (former) employee against the employer or informant, or both.

I'm just spitballing anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 1:24 PM, Yorick said:

I may be slow, and that may be why the video helped me.  I could not understand how to "break" into the case (not that I really put much thought into it).

I now know what I should look for if I'm buying an ASM300 Tattooz Insert with Canadian Price in CGC 9.9.

Ok then it was instrctional or teaching? So I'm not just out of my gourd?

Do you feel that you needed to know? (i didn't and is where I'm coming from) Did you think "oh that is how to extract a raw copy or how to scam cgc swap a book reseal a case?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 1:26 PM, pdags said:

I found them highly informative.  Helped me defend myself against being scammed and to assess the products and am better informed about services I may use in the future.

It won't be you who gets their back up though :makepoint: I'm just curious how "CGC views them"

You know since THEY'RE the ones that hired investigative services :makepoint: 

Just another post in the wind :sorry: 

Edited by ADAMANTIUM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 11:27 AM, ADAMANTIUM said:

Ok then it was instrctional or teaching? So I'm not just out of my gourd?

Do you feel that you needed to know? (i didn't and is where I'm coming from) Did you think "oh that is how to extract a raw copy or how to scam cgc swap a book reseal a case?"

It will always be a double edge sword.  Knowing how scammers operate can help non-scammers avoid the scam.  On the flipside, maybe other scammers get better at scamming.

(shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 2:29 PM, Yorick said:

It will always be a double edge sword.

Personally, I always want to be informed.

Imagine if some people know about it and can protect themselves while others don't get the same opportunity.  It's not unlike insider trading.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 1:29 PM, Yorick said:

It will always be a double edge sword.  Knowing how scammers operate can help non-scammers avoid the scam.  On the flipside, maybe other scammers get better at scamming.

(shrug)

Well I at least thank you for being cordial 

Rather than telling me my arse is dislocated by a country mile with no alternative facts suggested, only that I'm a :censored::censored::censored:

The people "in the know" have continued to say "I know a secret" and post random instructional entertainment videos of how a current scam is being pulled off. 

Somehow I'm the bad guy :shy: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 1:31 PM, pdags said:

Personally, I always want to be informed.

Imagine if some people know about it and can protect themselves while others don't get the same opportunity.  It's not unlike insider trading.  

That's all well and good 

(shrug) I never had a problem with that ???

If CGC doesn't have legal repercussions then it DOES make me look to be spitting down wind, although I'm not hoping anyone gets it stuck to them. Never said that, but it ain't up to me doh! it IS up to CGC

and it is just something that "I wouldn't do" that I stated was imo in the 1st post I posted :cheers: 

Edited by ADAMANTIUM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 1:38 PM, Yorick said:

Are you a scammer?

 

:devil:

ya lol

 

The pitchforks :drool: I've heard of keeping your wicks trimmed, I guess people have their own more important views :) 

:whatev:

Edited by ADAMANTIUM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2024 at 12:58 PM, agamoto said:

The video's intent is to demonstrate the security, or lack thereof, of a case. He didn't limit his examination to just CGC cases, you realize that, right? You have a juvenile understanding of civil law if you think CGC has any right to try and silence him if he wants to record himself blasting their case with a heatgun and posting that on Youtube. 

You also don't understand how defamation works. It's not defamation if the problems with the case are true.

Thank you for the clarity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
50 50