Latest Scandal! Comic Book Dealer Disbarred As Lawyer!!!!

[Red Hook]

All I wanted was for you guys to slow up until more facts of the story regarding the JIM92 incident surfaced. I haven't back-flipped for anyone. I am extremely disappointed that you three lawyers would conduct yourselves in such an unprofessional manner. I think you've gotten carried away with yourselves. Your righteous indignation went to mega-levels that even had me stunned.

 

I will one more time, clarify for you my position. I never defended Doug's actions regarding his disbarment. You guys and I obviously disagreed on whether or not this had a direct relation to his dealings in comics. I did not think so, since I had not known Doug as a lawyer, and I have had good dealings with him as a customer. I don't get discounts from Doug, he doesn't make any money from me, and because I have dealt with him face to face, and I felt he was as upfront as any dealer I've worked with, he deserved some support. I don't regret that decision at all.

 

You decided to out him. You decided to take him to task. And announce his disbarment on a comic book chat board. And to lecture us about it. And to rip him to shreds. I've never seen a single more cold-blooded act on these boards since I've been here.

 

I made the decision to voice dissent on these actions. I don't believe there is a single person on these boards who has been harmed by any of Doug's actions personally. If you were, I'd love to hear about it. I'm apparently the only guy that had the sense of fairness to actually call Doug to query him about both issues.

 

I understand that as lawyers, you may be personally affronted by someone who gets disbarred. I'm not arguing that everyone should ignore that. I've been trying to say that the piling on was absolutely unmerciful. I hope you guys are going after Ewert with as much bloodlust, because for my money I've seen squat so far.

 

You guys, and Awe4one, and Shad and Beyonder and Capt of Industry were so busy trying to make me your stand-in for Doug, that you missed some pretty obvious facts. All you hotshots missed the importance of the date that book on Heritage was submitted. You were too busy pounding your chests.

 

I retract not a word of any of my posts today. Strike me from your list of friends if you want. I am ashamed of you guys today. Tomorrow, if I'm not convinced of Doug's facts regarding the JIM92 submission, I will speak to him again. I am not giving him a free pass. That's not what this was ever about. You guys were too worked up to figure that out.

 

There was no back flip. When Jason Ewert presented his side of the story, I posted it, without editorial comment. When we were giving CGG a tought time, I was the one who e-mailed Daniel Patterson and posted his reply, with his permission...without editorial comment. I took these actions in both cases because I felt it was important AND FAIR to at least hear these guys out. Thats' what you're supposed to do.

 

Doug has finally gotten around to posting his version of the JIM92 facts. So use your analytical skills and go decipher that. Or find a legal action chatboard and continue the disembowelment there.

 

Can I remain friends with a lawyer who has been disbarred? Yes. I've been friends with people that had histories of doing far worse. As far as I'm concerned, Doug was judged and is paying the penalty for that. I believe in the system, I'm sure he got what he deserved and that's fine with me. If either Mark or Brian or Scott (who I have yet to meet face to face) had been attacked in a similar way on these boards, I would have been the first in to defend you guys too. It was about cooling off, and taking a little time to figure out what was what. You never gave us non-lawyers a chance to decide for ourselves what to think.

 

If, after the work I've contributed to these boards to promote the rights of the buying public you guys couldn't give me a little more credit than you gave me today, then I'd have to say you just don't get it. And you probably won't ever get it. I have never been about destroying careers. I've said over and over I don't want to see CGC implode. I don't want to see Heritage torn down, I don't want to see any particular dealer run out of town.

 

I want change.

 

Doug did enough damage to himself and to his clients and to his own family. He'll have to live with that. As far as I can tell he hasn't personally harmed anyone on these boards. After you're finished with him this week, and totally gutted him, you'll just move on to the next entertainment. Sorry, I thought these were comic book chatboards. Not the Roman Coliseum.

 

I'm interested in convincing CGC and dealers to be more open. Am I perfect? Well, as long as I hang around here, I won't be in danger of ever falling under that illusion.

 

I'm not leaving. If you guys want to put me on ignore, go ahead. I responded personally to those who questioned my integrity. They got what they deserved. And I took what baloney they threw, and I'm telling you...I stand 100% about what I said about both the disbarment and the questioning of Doug's actions regarding the JIM92.

 

This isn't over. There are still questions to be answered. I will keep asking the questions and trying to get answers. And nothing any of you do will make me stop posting what I believe is right.

 

Brad Hamann

[The Black Hand ®]

I do admire redhook for standing up for his friend, we could all use friends like that. I think the point has been made concerning Pedigree comics et al, any further comments would just be gratuitous bashing. I think Redhook is an honorable man and a passionate defender of his friend.

[Red Hook]

And if it turned out he knowingly tried to sell a trimmed book, I'd gut him like a fish. And he knows that.

 

I'm done.

[esquirecomics]

All I wanted was for you guys to slow up until more facts of the story regarding the JIM92 incident surfaced. I haven't back-flipped for anyone. I am extremely disappointed that you three lawyers would conduct yourselves in such an unprofessional manner. I think you've gotten carried away with yourselves. Your righteous indignation went to mega-levels that even had me stunned.

 

I will one more time, clarify for you my position. I never defended Doug's actions regarding his disbarment. You guys and I obviously disagreed on whether or not this had a direct relation to his dealings in comics. I did not think so, since I had not known Doug as a lawyer, and I have had good dealings with him as a customer. I don't get discounts from Doug, he doesn't make any money from me, and because I have dealt with him face to face, and I felt he was as upfront as any dealer I've worked with, he deserved some support. I don't regret that decision at all.

 

You decided to out him. You decided to take him to task. And announce his disbarment on a comic book chat board. And to lecture us about it. And to rip him to shreds. I've never seen a single more cold-blooded act on these boards since I've been here.

 

I made the decision to voice dissent on these actions. I don't believe there is a single person on these boards who has been harmed by any of Doug's actions personally. If you were, I'd love to hear about it. I'm apparently the only guy that had the sense of fairness to actually call Doug to query him about both issues.

 

I understand that as lawyers, you may be personally affronted by someone who gets disbarred. I'm not arguing that everyone should ignore that. I've been trying to say that the piling on was absolutely unmerciful. I hope you guys are going after Ewert with as much bloodlust, because for my money I've seen squat so far.

 

You guys, and Awe4one, and Shad and Beyonder and Capt of Industry were so busy trying to make me your stand-in for Doug, that you missed some pretty obvious facts. All you hotshots missed the importance of the date that book on Heritage was submitted. You were too busy pounding your chests.

 

I retract not a word of any of my posts today. Strike me from your list of friends if you want. I am ashamed of you guys today. Tomorrow, if I'm not convinced of Doug's facts regarding the JIM92 submission, I will speak to him again. I am not giving him a free pass. That's not what this was ever about. You guys were too worked up to figure that out.

 

There was no back flip. When Jason Ewert presented his side of the story, I posted it, without editorial comment. When we were giving CGG a tought time, I was the one who e-mailed Daniel Patterson and posted his reply, with his permission...without editorial comment. I took these actions in both cases because I felt it was important AND FAIR to at least hear these guys out. Thats' what you're supposed to do.

 

Doug has finally gotten around to posting his version of the JIM92 facts. So use your analytical skills and go decipher that. Or find a legal action chatboard and continue the disembowelment there.

 

Can I remain friends with a lawyer who has been disbarred? Yes. I've been friends with people that had histories of doing far worse. As far as I'm concerned, Doug was judged and is paying the penalty for that. I believe in the system, I'm sure he got what he deserved and that's fine with me. If either Mark or Brian or Scott (who I have yet to meet face to face) had been attacked in a similar way on these boards, I would have been the first in to defend you guys too. It was about cooling off, and taking a little time to figure out what was what. You never gave us non-lawyers a chance to decide for ourselves what to think.

 

If, after the work I've contributed to these boards to promote the rights of the buying public you guys couldn't give me a little more credit than you gave me today, then I'd have to say you just don't get it. And you probably won't ever get it. I have never been about destroying careers. I've said over and over I don't want to see CGC implode. I don't want to see Heritage torn down, I don't want to see any particular dealer run out of town.

 

I want change.

 

Doug did enough damage to himself and to his clients and to his own family. He'll have to live with that. As far as I can tell he hasn't personally harmed anyone on these boards. After you're finished with him this week, and totally gutted him, you'll just move on to the next entertainment. Sorry, I thought these were comic book chatboards. Not the Roman Coliseum.

 

I'm interested in convincing CGC and dealers to be more open. Am I perfect? Well, as long as I hang around here, I won't be in danger of ever falling under that illusion.

 

I'm not leaving. If you guys want to put me on ignore, go ahead. I responded personally to those who questioned my integrity. They got what they deserved. And I took what baloney they threw, and I'm telling you...I stand 100% about what I said about both the disbarment and the questioning of Doug's actions regarding the JIM92.

 

This isn't over. There are still questions to be answered. I will keep asking the questions and trying to get answers. And nothing any of you do will make me stop posting what I believe is right.

 

Brad Hamann

 

Brad, I am going to be quite relaxed in my response because I know this has been a stressful situation for you. Many people have attacked you for your support of Doug.

 

Though I have been dissapointed by your logic, I have not. Indeed, I have indicated my respect and admiration for your position. Doug is lucky to have a friend like you.

 

Clearly, this post above is generically aimed at Scott, Brian and myself. I will let them individually respond if they feel it necessary.

 

I will keep my response short.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to my posts.

 

I have barely, if ever, mentioned the JIM #92 matter in any comment I have addressed with respect to Doug's disbarrment. My answers to your specific question in the JIM thread should have illustrated clearly that I merely used that incident as a factor to consider in the big picture rather than anything determinative.

 

I invite you, no, I demand, that you identify specifically anything I have said or written that is "unprofessional". I cannot fathom that even one word that I have uttered can be characterized as such. Perhaps you or others disagree with my assessment, but that is complately distinct from being "unprofessional".

 

"Righteous indignation"? With all due respect, you are letting your friendship with Doug cloud your better judgment. Given our friendship, I will refrain from saying anything further.

 

Why you are picking a fight with any of the three of us is beyond me, especially on this issue, and ESPECIALLY given the commonality that exists between us in fighting the good fight.

 

This has nothing to do with CGC. This has nothing to do with Heritage. This has everything to do with trust and integrity of those of us who play within this hobby. I won't repeat my mantra on why I believe Doug's actions in the legal profession very clearly carry over into the comic community, but it disturbs me that were we to take the name "Doug Schmell" out of the equation I don't think this post would ever have been written by you.

 

This post was off base my friend. Plain and simple.

[Aman619]

Hey - - Doug has shown up and posted this in the JIM TRIM thread.

 

Enough is Enough. I can not stand idly by and continue to see my name dragged through the mud. The timing of the re-posting of this thread is curious as it coincides with the news of my disbarment. It's just not right for you board members to slam on a guy when he's down so I'm going to set the record straight right now:

 

The book in question was initially on ComicLink. Tom Brulato had mentioned it to me and I told him I had a buyer for it. It was then taken off ComicLink and I put it up on my site on February 9th or so of last year. After listing it at $4,000 (and paying Brulato $3,500 for it as he did not want to consign it), the customer I had for it agreed to pay $3,800 for it and I asked him to put in the bid, which he did. The book was listed as sale pending on my site for a while but the buyer never came through. He wound up paying off the remaining balance of a JIM 85 he bought off my site (which I paid the consignor for him so he wouldn't lost the book), but never paid anything toward the JIM 92. It was then just sitting on my site as sale pending for a while. I never heard back from the buyer after we finalized the JIM 85 deal.

 

I subsequently received an email from Brent Moeshlin telling me the book was trimmed. This was only a couple of months or so after the book had been just sitting there unsold. I do not even remember the exact timeframe, but it was pretty much soon after the whole Jason Ewert thing hit the boards if I remember correctly. I have looked tirelessly for this email but I do not stil have it in my inbox. Brent said it was a book that Tom and Jason had bought from him as a 9.2 and had upgraded to a 9.4. I'm pretty positive that he did not send me a scan or anything at that time. It might have been a phone call but I'm almost positive it was an email. Anyway, I immediately called Tom Brulato and asked him for my $3,500 back. He asked me how I knew the book was trimmed and I told him that Brent Moeshlin said it was. He asked me how Brent knew but I didn't have an answer at that point. He told me he did not think it was, that he remembered getting it from Moeshlin and that it had been upgraded to a 9.4, but absent any proof was committed to believing it was not trimmed.

 

I never spoke to Brent again and subsequently resubmitted the book in either September or early October as part of a group of books I was sending in to CGC. I had 2 JIM 92's in 9.4 at this point and after comparing the two, I felt the book that now has been identified as trimmed had a shot at being a 9.6. I did not even think about the Moeshlin prior email or phone call from months before that the book might have been trimmed. The JIM 92 9.4 I had in my own collection was from the "Canadian Original Owner Collection" I had purchased a few years before but felt the Brulato copy was nicer and had a decent shot at an upgrade. I never would have resubmitted it for an upgrade if I thought it could come back as trimmed or if I had remembered the prior Moeshlin email/phone call.

 

The book came back as a 9.4 with white pages. I don't remember if the pages got upgraded from off-white to white but it came back the same grade, blue universal label. I did not even think about the possibility the book was trimmed as it had been months since the Moeshlin email, I had forgotten that it was a "potential Ewert flagged book" and it came back from the CGC in an unrestored label. I decided to keep the Canadian Original Owner copy, even though I felt it wasn't as nice, because I basically had the whole Canadian run and wanted it as intact as possible. The JIM 92 I consigned to Heritage with about 85 other books that I had (mostly Spideys) sometime in November. The books were for the upcoming January auction.

 

Brent contacted me again (I assume after seeing the JIM 92 on the Heritage site or in the catalog) and again mentioned the fact he thought it was trimmed or that it was indeed trimmed. I told him that the book was mine, it had never sold to the $3,800 buyer I had and that I had resubmitted it to the CGC in an upgrade attempt. I also told him that I had previously spoken to Tom who did not believe it was and who would not refund the $3,500 without some proof. I asked Brent to call Tom to provide the proof to Tom as Tom had made every indication that he would refund $$ on any proven Ewert trimmed book (I believe he made a post to that effect). I explained to him that I would be stuck with a $3,500 waste of $$ if we couldn't prove to Tom the book was trimmed. Brent told me he would call Brulato to clear the JIM 92 situation up.

 

A day or two later, I received a call from a board member about the new JIM 92 thread that Brent had either re-started or started anew (I don't remember). There, for the very first time, was the JIM 92 scan that Brent had on file and indeed it was clear the book now in the Heritage auction was trimmed. ( I mistakenly told Brian Ketterer in an email last nite that Brent had emailed me the scan but now i'm positive I saw it on the thread). I also saw a post by him mentioning my unwillingness to pull the book, etc. I called Brent and I asked him why he didn't call Brulato as we had just discussed and why he was stating that I refused to pull the book or something to that effect. We had a very good talk and understanding and we cleared the air regarding the JIM 92 situation. I told him I was going to call Heritage the next day (I believe the conversation took place on a Sunday or late at nite when we both knew they weren't going to be there) and he said he was going to as well. That was the last time I had spoken to Brent.

 

I spoke to Ed Jaster the very next day and he told me that they had already pulled the book based on the thread. I also called Tom Brulato and advised him that the book was indeed trimmed. I told him about the thread, about the scans comparing the 2 books and he agreed to look at it and to refund my $$ after he was reimbursed by Jason. I got the book back from Heritage within 4 days of my talk with Ed and sent it to Tom.

 

That is the absolute truth. I never tried to "launder" a trimmed book on the Heritage site as has been suggested. It was all along in my best interest if the book was indeed proven trimmed as I knew I could get the $$ back from Tom. Plus, if I was dishonest or trying to hide something, I could have simply told Brent the book had sold off my site and it must've been the purchaser who submitted it, etc. I told Bent from the very beginning it was my book and that I had consigned it to Heritage and had forgotten his prior email regarding the possibility it was trimmed. I'm dealing with thousands of books now on my site and can't remember the history of all of them. Plus, I regulary pick books out of my boxes to look for resubmit candidates and sometimes don't even pay attention to the book itself (title, iisue #, etc) as i'm solely lookning for flaws, etc.

 

That is the truth and I hope Brent will confirm this. I don't know why he would say anything other than what I have just described as I don't believe he would have any ulterior motive, etc. When we last spoke (perhaps 2 weeks or so ago) it was cordial and we left on the best of terms, etc.

 

Anyway, that is the exact chronology of events regarding this JIM 92. I know my credibility has been put into issue on the other post and I will be dealing with that other post separately (it's not even a comics issue in my mind), but these are the true facts. You can check with Brent, Heritage, CGC, Tom Brulato, etc, etc, to confirm this. I have never trimmed a book and would never sell or consign a known trimmed book.

 

Doug

[Ze-man]

I will post a reply to this once I have read it..... oh let's say.... about 500 times, and then another 100 times to be sure I did not miss anything the first time thru.

 

And for the record, thnx for coming here Doug. It is a start, towards what.Only time will tell. But it IS a start.

 

 

Ze-

 

Edit..

And for a brief a moment of levity.....I wanted to say..

"I now see Doug was NOT avoiding the boards..hiding,ducking from the isues. He was just writing that darn post.. it musta taken him all day to layout, build, and edit that puppy!"

 

That was what I wanted to say.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I just read Doug's post again....and I think it really just comes down to one's interpretation of his closing sentence:

 

I have never trimmed a book and would never sell or consign a known trimmed book.

 

Before I can take his word, I need to understand exactly what he's giving his word on.

 

We all remember the infamous "I have never pressed a book" loophole that Ewert used, and "a known trimmed book" isn't quite the same as "a book I know is trimmed".

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Wishing no harm,

B

[Ze-man]

I just read Doug's post again....and I think it really just comes down to one's interpretation of his closing sentence:

 

I have never trimmed a book and would never sell or consign a known trimmed book.

 

Before I can take his word, I need to understand exactly what he's giving his word on.

 

We all remember the infamous "I have never pressed a book" loophole that Ewert used, and "a known trimmed book" isn't quite the same as "a book I know is trimmed".

 

Just some thoughts.

 

Wishing no harm,

B

 

 

If ever there was a time for clarity..this would be it B.

 

Your question might be splitting hairs. But in a matter such as this, clarification is not to much to ask for.

 

Ze-

[Scheradon]

It seems to me upon reading Doug's statement that he's disagreeing with qualitycomix timeline. Am I reading this right?

[Harvey Dude]

It seems to me upon reading Doug's statement that he's disagreeing with qualitycomix timeline. Am I reading this right?

 

There also seems to be disagreement over whether the book was part of a group of books submitted or if it was a single submission book that was slabbed circa 13 October. Doug states, "I never spoke to Brent again and subsequently resubmitted the book in either September or early October as part of a group of books I was sending in to CGC." Doug has the submission paperwork so he can easily clear up whose version of events is accurate.

 

[BronzeBruce13]

I've been very, very conflicted the last few days as more information, opinions and debate over Doug continue. I spoke to Doug early on concerning the "disbarrment news" only and let him know I was quite shocked and upset over the news and his reported conduct. I lost sleep over the matter. Since I consider him a friend, I needed to give him the opportunity to elaborate and offer further clarification on some "sticking points" that made a significant difference in my mind on whether or not I could stand by him and "truly" remain a friend and supporter. Continued business with Pedigreecomics.com was another matter entirely and was a secondary consideration to explore later based on my feelings and personal conclusions regarding the moral/ethics issue. Although my opinion of him and his ethics have been diminished I'm sorry to say, I came away from the conversation still disappointed, but feeling in time, should he continue to move forward positively, I may be able to forgive his past conduct and look forward.

 

I "try" hard to be honest with myself and thus I can say that I probably would not make that same effort, nor even consider forgiving/overlooking the same behavior in someone else I didn't consider a friend. So, I realize that's hypocritical on some level and I have to accept that how I feel about a person may affect how harshly or not I may judge their behavior. Whatever that makes me (a hypocrite if you like)… I'm guilty of it. No denials.

 

After the JIM 92 matter surfaced, I continued to absorb all the conversation in stunned silence. My initial reaction was like everyone else's (save Brad). The cumulative affect of all the negative (true and/or not) information had me forming the conclusion that Doug was in fact "still" dishonest. I did not even want to call him again and discuss it. I could not chime in on it either as I knew whatever I would say would be "emotionally driven" and perhaps premature. I've learned after the first and only time (IMHO) I put my foot in my mouth prematurely on the forum... that I had to give myself more time to consider everything and also wait for more information before I opened my mouth again. I also took the time to discuss the matter with several others that I respect since I know I'm very close (too close) to maintain a reasonable perspective otherwise.

 

I decided to call Doug tonight (almost 1AM EST) after reading his explanation on the JIM 92 issue. Truth be told, I was not optimistic but had to at least satisfy myself about the JIM 92 before I distanced myself from him personally speaking… which is how I was leaning. I honestly hadn't considered whether or not I would conduct business with him if so.

 

Anyway, I called and put many tough questions to him regarding points that made no sense to me and received answers and new information that now leaves me with serious doubt that he intentionally tried to launder the trimmed book. I'm not saying I've formed a conclusion… I'm not saying I believe everything I heard without further skepticism… I'm not even saying that it could turn out that the doubt I currently have is disproved BUT there IS doubt that needs to be explored and considered.

 

Firstly, it made no sense to me that (even if Doug was capable of it) that he would dare risk having a suspected trimmed Ewert book "re-Serialized" or upgraded. With all the eagle eye's around here, how could he think that it would get past anyone, especially in this razor sharp "fraud-heightened" awareness we are currently in? Add Ewert's fall as a potential lesson and the scrutiny a rare, high profile book like a JIM 92 9.4/9.6 would garner (even on Heritage) and it didn't add up to me. I asked him to explain the conflicting timelines regarding his initial email from Brent, the grading date on the book, why it was on a separate invoice and other related points.

 

He provided the following counterpoints and intends to post as proof his CGC Invoices and AMEX bills proving his trips and submission dates to CGC, particularly regarding the JIM 92. According to Doug, his documentation proves he was at CGC on September 12th when he submitted the JIM 92 along with others. It was on a separate invoice because of its value, hopefully he or CGC can elaborate on that. He maintains has not been back to CGC until the day after the hurricane on October 26. If true, and corroborated by CGC, this would dismiss the theory that he drove to CGC on October 12th/13th to have the book Express Graded or whatever. That is if the documentation and whomever's word from CGC is offered is accepted as truth.

 

He also maintains that he did not receive or does not recall receiving an email from Brent (that included scans). His actions, IMO, support that he at least did not read/see them. To attempt to launder the book when a respected dealer (Brent) felt the book was trimmed and is also clearly a catalyst for truth, honesty & disclosure within our hobby would be deterrent enough. When you consider that there was visual evidence (the before after scans) in his hands that proved it, how could even a Dupcak roll those dice? I mean the scans were instantly conclusive. Explain how Doug (or anyone with an IQ over 5) could think that no matter what slab the book ended up in, it would not be compared to Brent's original(s) (whether on Heritage or not). Firstly, Brent would not stand for it before you go anywhere else. How could anyone conclude that the JIM 92 would not be identified as trimmed even if Brent was kidnapped and silenced somehow? Would one have to be a total insufficiently_thoughtful_person to do that for any amount of possible reward or am I missing something?

 

(on an aside)… I believe Brent when he says he sent the scans though. In my limited dealings with Brent I was impressed with his directness and the amount of information and honest opinion he offered against the possibility of a $2K deal that was not yet concluded. He basically told be in his opinion a 9.6 Ghost Rider 1 was a 9.4 IHO and had subtle defects on the book that I could not see in the scans. He wanted to sell the book, but would not compromise his true view of the book for an easier, quicker sale. That impressed the hell out of me and I said so in my Kudos to him.

 

Getting back to the JIM 92, with all that's going on, If Doug had the conclusive scans, why would he not just get his $ back from Brulato since this was a co-owned Ewert/Brulato book? Why risk the above for a possible 9.6 that was a sure-fire trip to Fraudland and shame? And, why would Brulato deny the refund (if the conclusive proof similar to what toppled his former partner was present) while doing his very best to re-establish his own tarnished reputation (by association mostly) within the hobby? The LAST thing Brulato wants is more controversy… he's probably eating Rolaids for his 3squares.

 

Does anyone think Brulato would deny a refund having been provided with the visual proof of another trim by "You-Wart"?... could he even drink enough to momentarilly consider ignoring it over $3,500 knowing it would come back to bite him in the arse twice as bad later???… I just don't think so. In my mind, this supports the position that Doug had/received/only reacted to… "conversational information" prior/around the time of the books submission and that he explored the matter with Brulato who denied the possibility without proof.

 

As to other questions, I have more that I could say, but I've given enough above for us all to debate and consider for now. I will say one last thing, that I personally find it hard to accept that he lost track of the book all things considered. I told him so and he swore on his son's life that he did and there was no BS going on. That does not make it fact… I'm not saying it means "accept this!!"… but that does mean something to me anyway. You would have to be the lowest of the low to make a declaration on your child's life while lying. I'm not trying to be dramatic, just convey my take on this. I'm still troubled but will maintain an open mind. In this case, because of my friendship with Doug, I have to see with my own eyes every last piece of meat boiled off the bone before I make a conclusion.

 

Lets see what the day brings in terms of documentation/proof and a potential CGC corroboration. In the mean time, please provide some reasonable explanations to the doubts that have been raised.

 

Good Night/Morning.

 

 

 

edit: (all JIM 112 for correct JIM 92)

[Scheradon]

Good and honest post Bruce

 

I'll be glad to see how the timeline works out.

[Foolkiller]

Brad,

 

I'll say it again. When you say "you guys" and the JIM 92 thread, I'd just like you to clarify where I've been attacking Doug in that thread... My point is I've made the same posts again and again regarding it being a question of analogous character. And I maintain that point.

 

If you want to tell me I've been speaking about his role in JIM 92 -- please go and find that. If I mentioned it at all, it's certainly been in passing and has not been a main theme. So drop the disappointment issues.

 

All I wanted was for you guys to slow up until more facts of the story regarding the JIM92 incident surfaced. I haven't back-flipped for anyone. I am extremely disappointed that you three lawyers would conduct yourselves in such an unprofessional manner. I think you've gotten carried away with yourselves. Your righteous indignation went to mega-levels that even had me stunned.

 

I will one more time, clarify for you my position. I never defended Doug's actions regarding his disbarment. You guys and I obviously disagreed on whether or not this had a direct relation to his dealings in comics. I did not think so, since I had not known Doug as a lawyer, and I have had good dealings with him as a customer. I don't get discounts from Doug, he doesn't make any money from me, and because I have dealt with him face to face, and I felt he was as upfront as any dealer I've worked with, he deserved some support. I don't regret that decision at all.

 

You decided to out him. You decided to take him to task. And announce his disbarment on a comic book chat board. And to lecture us about it. And to rip him to shreds. I've never seen a single more cold-blooded act on these boards since I've been here.

 

I made the decision to voice dissent on these actions. I don't believe there is a single person on these boards who has been harmed by any of Doug's actions personally. If you were, I'd love to hear about it. I'm apparently the only guy that had the sense of fairness to actually call Doug to query him about both issues.

 

I understand that as lawyers, you may be personally affronted by someone who gets disbarred. I'm not arguing that everyone should ignore that. I've been trying to say that the piling on was absolutely unmerciful. I hope you guys are going after Ewert with as much bloodlust, because for my money I've seen squat so far.

 

You guys, and Awe4one, and Shad and Beyonder and Capt of Industry were so busy trying to make me your stand-in for Doug, that you missed some pretty obvious facts. All you hotshots missed the importance of the date that book on Heritage was submitted. You were too busy pounding your chests.

 

I retract not a word of any of my posts today. Strike me from your list of friends if you want. I am ashamed of you guys today. Tomorrow, if I'm not convinced of Doug's facts regarding the JIM92 submission, I will speak to him again. I am not giving him a free pass. That's not what this was ever about. You guys were too worked up to figure that out.

 

There was no back flip. When Jason Ewert presented his side of the story, I posted it, without editorial comment. When we were giving CGG a tought time, I was the one who e-mailed Daniel Patterson and posted his reply, with his permission...without editorial comment. I took these actions in both cases because I felt it was important AND FAIR to at least hear these guys out. Thats' what you're supposed to do.

 

Doug has finally gotten around to posting his version of the JIM92 facts. So use your analytical skills and go decipher that. Or find a legal action chatboard and continue the disembowelment there.

 

Can I remain friends with a lawyer who has been disbarred? Yes. I've been friends with people that had histories of doing far worse. As far as I'm concerned, Doug was judged and is paying the penalty for that. I believe in the system, I'm sure he got what he deserved and that's fine with me. If either Mark or Brian or Scott (who I have yet to meet face to face) had been attacked in a similar way on these boards, I would have been the first in to defend you guys too. It was about cooling off, and taking a little time to figure out what was what. You never gave us non-lawyers a chance to decide for ourselves what to think.

 

If, after the work I've contributed to these boards to promote the rights of the buying public you guys couldn't give me a little more credit than you gave me today, then I'd have to say you just don't get it. And you probably won't ever get it. I have never been about destroying careers. I've said over and over I don't want to see CGC implode. I don't want to see Heritage torn down, I don't want to see any particular dealer run out of town.

 

I want change.

 

Doug did enough damage to himself and to his clients and to his own family. He'll have to live with that. As far as I can tell he hasn't personally harmed anyone on these boards. After you're finished with him this week, and totally gutted him, you'll just move on to the next entertainment. Sorry, I thought these were comic book chatboards. Not the Roman Coliseum.

 

I'm interested in convincing CGC and dealers to be more open. Am I perfect? Well, as long as I hang around here, I won't be in danger of ever falling under that illusion.

 

I'm not leaving. If you guys want to put me on ignore, go ahead. I responded personally to those who questioned my integrity. They got what they deserved. And I took what baloney they threw, and I'm telling you...I stand 100% about what I said about both the disbarment and the questioning of Doug's actions regarding the JIM92.

 

This isn't over. There are still questions to be answered. I will keep asking the questions and trying to get answers. And nothing any of you do will make me stop posting what I believe is right.

 

Brad Hamann

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

My point is I've made the same posts again and again regarding it being a question of analogous character. And I maintain that point.

Link

[Flaming_Telepath]

My point is I've made the same posts again and again regarding it being a question of analogous character. And I maintain that point.

Link

 

Am I detecting a theme here?

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

My point is I've made the same posts again and again regarding it being a question of analogous character. And I maintain that point.

Link

 

Am I detecting a theme here?

 

Yes. I would like some answers in that thread (thanks for yours, by the way).

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

My point is I've made the same posts again and again regarding it being a question of analogous character. And I maintain that point.

Link

 

Am I detecting a theme here?

Yes. I would like some answers in that thread.

 

I've already answered...and I'm with you.

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

I've already answered...and I'm with you.

I edited my post right before you replied.

[Red Hook]

Brad, I am going to be quite relaxed in my response because I know this has been a stressful situation for you. Many people have attacked you for your support of Doug.

 

Though I have been dissapointed by your logic, I have not. Indeed, I have indicated my respect and admiration for your position. Doug is lucky to have a friend like you.

 

Clearly, this post above is generically aimed at Scott, Brian and myself. I will let them individually respond if they feel it necessary.

 

I will keep my response short.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to my posts.

 

I have barely, if ever, mentioned the JIM #92 matter in any comment I have addressed with respect to Doug's disbarrment. My answers to your specific question in the JIM thread should have illustrated clearly that I merely used that incident as a factor to consider in the big picture rather than anything determinative.

I invite you, no, I demand, that you identify specifically anything I have said or written that is "unprofessional". I cannot fathom that even one word that I have uttered can be characterized as such. Perhaps you or others disagree with my assessment, but that is complately distinct from being "unprofessional".

 

"Righteous indignation"? With all due respect, you are letting your friendship with Doug cloud your better judgment. Given our friendship, I will refrain from saying anything further.

 

Why you are picking a fight with any of the three of us is beyond me, especially on this issue, and ESPECIALLY given the commonality that exists between us in fighting the good fight.

 

This has nothing to do with CGC. This has nothing to do with Heritage. This has everything to do with trust and integrity of those of us who play within this hobby. I won't repeat my mantra on why I believe Doug's actions in the legal profession very clearly carry over into the comic community, but it disturbs me that were we to take the name "Doug Schmell" out of the equation I don't think this post would ever have been written by you.

 

This post was off base my friend. Plain and simple.

 

1. What exactly about my logic disappointed you?

2. How did my "friendship" with Doug cloud my judgement? About what? Show me where I gave Doug a free pass. Show me where I excused his actions as a lawyer.

3. Have you ever bought a book from Heritage?

4. Will you now be doing background checks on every person you buy or sell from?

 

If you are saying that you disagree with my stance that Doug should have a chance to make a living after his disbarrment, and that the right thing is to not automatically assume he has perpetrated fraud in his comic book business, then I guess we do disagree.

 

We may both ultimately reach the same conclusions on this matter. What we disagree on is the methodology and the fairness of how it was handled. The kind of grandstanding I saw this week may work in the federal court system. On a comic book chat board it comes across as heavy handed overkill.

 

Another point. As I referred to earlier this week, at one point I actually got a file in my hands that cast an extremely bad light on one of the most notorious baddies in the biz. I know Scott saw it too, and was familiar with it's content. Because it had absolutely nothing to do with comic books, I felt it to would be unfair to share this publicly. Even this person, who I despise in the area of collecting had a right to privacy and a separation of the issues. I know Scott was uncomfortable about it and he agreed with me that it shouldn't be publicized. I know because I called him about it. The issues revolved around.....avoidance of child support among other things. This person was accorded more courtesy than Doug. I would like that explained to me.

 

think you and I simply disagree on how this was handled. I think before you advised Brent to share the info on the JIM92, you should have spoken to Doug, only out of a sense of fairness. Get off your high horse. Did you not realize what a shheeetstorm this would unleash? This is only about fairness. Doug will get what he deserves, one way or another. We all do in the end.

 

 

Brad

[tth2]

Can someone tell me if it's true that Doug cracked, improved , resubmitted and sold without disclosure? Anyone who does that in my opinion is ethically challenged. Anyone!

 

If you're going to take Doug down for being involved with pressing and resubbing, then you have to take down every dealer out there who does the same.

Thank you, this is what I've been saying for months now! Why has there been such a double standard on these boards?

 

Even before Ewert was found to be guilty of trimming, he was already the board's favorite punching bag for pressing and resubbing books. Similarly, Steve Lauterbach couldn't post here without people getting all over his case for pressing and resubbing. And let's not even get into everybody's favorite new target, Heritage, despite no irrefutable evidence that they actually own any of the books that have been pressed and resubbed.

 

Meanwhile, Doug said he cracks and resubs, and presses, and we know that he doesn't disclose any of this unless specifically asked. Yet, it took the trimmed JIM AND his disbarment (a completely unconnected event in my mind) for people to give him the same treatment. Similarly, Matt Nelson has said he cracks, presses and resubs, and it's been rumored that he has submitted restored books for the purpose of testing CGC's resto detection capabilities, and yet he's never evoked the same kind of hostility as Ewert (pre-trimming), Lauterbach or Heritage.