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

[tth2]

Nice try...I made it known here, numerous times, and on my website this was the case...

 

Jim

Jim, don't feed the trolls/shills.

[The Black Hand ®]

Anyone... if my mother did it I would consider her ethically challenged. So anyone who cracks,improves, resubmits and does not disclose is in my opinion ethically challenged. Am I being too vague?

[ComicBookGuy]

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

 

Brad, I am someone who has waited several days before weighing in on this issue.

 

If there is one consensus in this entire debate, it is that you are a loyal friend that anyone would be envious to have for a friend.

 

The point of contention really seems to be whether Doug's actions as a lawyer should be brought to bear upon his comic dealings with us. I will be blunt: They should. And here is why: Doug has my credit card info and the credit card info of many on file. He is also holding comics for people and disbursing payments to sellers. He is in a position of trust, plain and simple, and he betrayed his trust knowingly even after training in ethics. This is fact.

 

That being said, maybe Doug HAS done a turnaround and has learned his lesson. I will say that my deal with Doug has all been accounted for on the up and up, to his credit, but since this scandal broke, I DID recheck all of my credit card statements to be sure there were no unauthorized charges from Pedigree. Doug's actions led me to recheck those statements and cast doubt about his character. Again, let me restate: Reading about his debarrment led me to question his honesty, but when I rechecked my accounting with him, THERE WAS NOTHING DISHONEST. This is fact. I cannot speak for anyone else's dealings but my own.

 

Should Doug be allowed to make a living after his disbarrment? Absolutely. As far as doing business with him, that is a personal decision that each of us I'm sure will make.

 

Personally, I think the input from the lawyers on the board has been absolutely essential, and I don't think any of them were being unprofessional. What are the odds of Mark, Scott, and Brian all being unprofessional on the same issue at the same time? Considering the importance of trust in the legal profession, it is absolutely essential that they speak out against fraud. Not speaking out would be far worse and lead us to think they are afraid to speak out or that somehow they think it's not that big a deal. Their interpretation about the severity of the charges and why Doug was disbarred and the ethical implications involved really are essential to the whole discussion.

 

And now here's the point: Like you, Brad, it saddened me to see the name-calling and humiliating remarks made about Doug here on these boards. The board members who continually do this and make negative posts, as far as I'm concerned, have done FAR MORE to ruin the hobby than pressing and the rest of it put together. When we talk about pressing, at the end of the day, we are talking about comic books. When we talk about reputations, we are talking about people's lives. It is typical that a comic book forum shrouded in anonymity would bring out so many people with absolutely no social skills who cannot distinguish the difference between a comic book and a person's life.

 

To Doug,

I wish you the best and that you get on with your life. If you leave the hobby disillusioned by the mean-spirited nature of the collectors in it, I wouldn't blame you a bit.

 

Joe

[Ze-man]

Brad, I am going to be the ol devils advocate here.

 

In a perfect world, how should something like this be released to the public in a manner that would have had a different result? It was what it was ..a sheetstorm...no other way to color it.

Was it just the fact that Doug was not informed about this from day 1 that got under your skin? The information that he was found guilty was, in a round about way public knowledge, and would have been brought to light at some point , by somebody. I'm sure you will agree with that.

Even if Doug was involved in this thread from the get go, the details surrounding this matter did not change, if anything, MORE details came to light as it went on

His participation might have made it less of a speculation free fo rall from the get go. But would it have really played out any differently?

So the zealousness some of our lawyer friends might have been over the top for your liking, but are admittingly pretty much par for the course around here.

 

I just want everyone to move foward with this, as it appears you guys are at an impasse. And need to bury some kind of hatchet.

Once again a hot topic has created division amongst all of us here, who for the most part are all here for the same reasons.

Comics

We should band together and embrace our differences, instead of splitting hairs constantly.(this last comment was not directed at you, but everybody)

 

Just my opinon, for whatever it is worth

 

 

 

Ze-

[FFB]

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'm not going to respond to the rest of this post, but on this point it looks like you forgot who started this thread. Aside from sharing the article (which was given to me by someone else), I showed it to a dealer to confirm it was Doug, a few other board lawyers, to you, and to Harry. If you want to be ashamed, direct it elsewhere. Personally, I don't really care whether you're ashamed of me or not because you're an unbelievable hypocrite.

[FFB]

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.

 

I did not see the file. I was told by the person who had the file that he had it, generally what was in it, and I told him I did not want to see the file and had no interest in helping him pursue the matter.

 

The allegation that was related to me had nothing to do with unpaid child support or payment of money or anything like it. This is an absolutely BS analogy and if you told people what the allegation was (which you shouldn't unless you want him to sue you, which he'd almost certainly have grounds to do), I think people would think you are off your rocker for thinking that these are the same thing or that I or anyone else should have publicized it.

[Foolkiller]

Look, here's the thing, name calling and the like are not necessary. But I just want to raise that we are all talking about "people's lives" and in this case, there were victims of Doug's actions (that he was punished for). Pressing, and the like, is not the same though as some of the other manipulation and deceit. That said, I do to some degree agree that excessive negativity is unproductive. However, there' s a difference between negative posts and speaking out about activity that you can only shake your head at and disapprove of.

 

The board members who continually do this and make negative posts, as far as I'm concerned, have done FAR MORE to ruin the hobby than pressing and the rest of it put together. When we talk about pressing, at the end of the day, we are talking about comic books. When we talk about reputations, we are talking about people's lives. It is typical that a comic book forum shrouded in anonymity would bring out so many people with absolutely no social skills who cannot distinguish the difference between a comic book and a person's life.

[esquirecomics]

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 criticized you. 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.

 

I've stated it numerous times. I never said you gave him a free pass, but I viewed many of your comments as, let's say, "varied" (I think hypocritical has a bad connotation and I am not seeking to bring it to that level) given how stern I have seen you towards other dealers/sellers whose conduct came into question. And most of my disappointment, quite frankly, as I have said numerous times before, is that you and others seem to want to distinguish conduct committed in comic book world from that committed elsewhere. And I don't get that logic.

 

3. Have you ever bought a book from Heritage?

 

This is called deflection Brad. If I say "yes", will that impact something in this debate? If I say "no", will the answer be any more significant? You know for a fact I have. So what is your point? I have CGC books too, yet I criticize CGC for its conduct, some of which I find indefensible. Are you now seeking to taint me as some hypocrite? Is that the path you want to go down? Do you feel that you are helping the debate by alienating myself, Scott and Brian for the sake of defending Doug? Is that the choice you want us to infer?

 

We are on the verge of forming a new organization in order to protect the community. My recollection is that this is an organization you want to participate in, and I for one was welcoming your contribution. I would certainly think that the ethical background of a comic dealer is relevant, even when they are friends.

 

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

 

And if I do, what of it? If I don't?

 

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.

 

Point to me any references I have written that support your comments above.

 

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.

 

Well I firmly disagree with you, and I am pleased that the fact of the matter is that at least of those who have voiced their opinion, your view is a minority one.

 

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.

 

Scott already responded. However, I am aware of what you are referring too and I echo Scott's comments that these are two separate issues. For one thing, that person is not a respected dealer in the community. For another, my recollection is that these were allegations for which further proof was being sought and, in any event, there is no court ruling on the matter, as there is here.

 

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.

 

It is not my responsibility to talk to Doug about anything. All I suggested to Brent was that he reveal that Doug was the owner of the book. He was the one with the first hand information. All other facts had been posted already, and numerous people knew, in fact, that Doug was the owner. Brent had already spoken to Doug and had publicly voiced his opinion that he thought the owner had acted improperly, unethically and had lied to him. It was Brent's final call, not mine, and I think he made the right choice.

 

I don't know what high horse you think I am on, but perhaps you should take your darn blinders off, and check your "righteous indignation" at the door b/c in defending a disbarred lawyer who committed ethical and unlawful violations you are attacking everyone else around you who are your friends. This is a real waste of time and brain energy going back and forth.

 

If Doug wants to justify/defend his actions, let him step forward. He knows my contact information also.

[Ze-man]

 

Have fun guys.

 

Ze-

[nochips]

 

Pile it on!

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

Personally, I don't really care whether you're ashamed of me or not because you're an unbelievable hypocrite.

 

Link

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

Look, here's the thing, name calling and the like are not necessary. But I just want to raise that we are all talking about "people's lives" and in this case, there were victims of Doug's actions (that he was punished for). Pressing, and the like, is not the same though as some of the other manipulation and deceit. That said, I do to some degree agree that excessive negativity is unproductive. However, there' s a difference between negative posts and speaking out about activity that you can only shake your head at and disapprove of.

 

Link-a-dink

[FFB]

Personally, I don't really care whether you're ashamed of me or not because you're an unbelievable hypocrite.

 

Link

 

Are you suggesting that I hop over there at your command and answer your questions?

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

Are you suggesting that I hop over there at your command and answer your questions?

 

Not at all. I just assumed you hadn't seen it, since you seem to be very outspoken about this situation but haven't posted in that thread. It's almost like you're avoiding it.

 

However, I do invite you to go in there and post your answers, if you wouldn't mind.

[FFB]

Are you suggesting that I hop over there at your command and answer your questions?

 

Not at all. I just assumed you hadn't seen it, since you seem to be very outspoken about this situation but haven't posted in that thread. It's almost like you're avoiding it.

 

However, I do invite you to go in there and post your answers, if you wouldn't mind.

 

Oh no! You said it! You accused me of avoiding the thread! Now I have to go right over there and answer all your questions or else people will think I am hiding something! Horrors!

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

Oh no! You said it! You accused me of avoiding the thread! Now I have to go right over there and answer all your questions or else people will think I am hiding something! Horrors!

Not at all. Take your time...or don't post at all.

 

Whether people respond is telling me just as much as how people respond in there anyway.

[FFB]

Oh no! You said it! You accused me of avoiding the thread! Now I have to go right over there and answer all your questions or else people will think I am hiding something! Horrors!

Not at all. Take your time...or don't post at all.

 

Whether people respond is telling me just as much as how people respond in there anyway.

 

See, there you go with your brilliant subtlety again, not to mention a resort to reverse psychology. (We use the same kind of tricks on my dog to make him drop a tennis ball. We pretend like we don't care one bit about the tennis ball, and he drops it every time.)

 

Anyway, faced with this intense psychological manipulation, surely I won't be able to resist for long.

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

Oh no! You said it! You accused me of avoiding the thread! Now I have to go right over there and answer all your questions or else people will think I am hiding something! Horrors!

Not at all. Take your time...or don't post at all.

 

Whether people respond is telling me just as much as how people respond in there anyway.

 

See, there you go with your brilliant subtlety again, not to mention a resort to reverse psychology. (We use the same kind of tricks on my dog to make him drop a tennis ball. We pretend like we don't care one bit about the tennis ball, and he drops it every time.)

 

Anyway, faced with this intense psychological manipulation, surely I won't be able to resist for long.

What psychology? I'm just stating what I believe. You seem to have an opinion on everything, and I noticed you posting in various threads throughout the day and yet you seemed to avoid that one. I just found it interesting. Post or not...either way will tell me what I want to know about you (I know, I know...this statement will most likely cause you to write some sarcastic comment about psychology that you feel is hilarious, and that everyone else feels is just more of you running off at the mouth).

[FFB]

What psychology? I'm just stating what I believe. You seem to have an opinion on everything, and I noticed you posting in various threads throughout the day and yet you seemed to avoid that one. I just found it interesting. Post or not...either way will tell me what I want to know about you (I know, I know...this statement will most likely cause you to write some sarcastic comment about psychology that you feel is hilarious, and that everyone else feels is just more of you running off at the mouth).

 

Yes, and you're just a little wallflower too shy to share your own thoughts, eh?

 

Anyway, I was just busting your balls. I wasn't avoiding the thread because I am afraid to answer the questions -- I was avoiding the thread because I knew it would really bug you if I didn't answer after you insisted that "the lawyers" answer your questions.

 

But having gotten your goat, the fun was over and I was typing up my answers to your questions while you typed up this scathing retort above.

 

CHECKMATE!

[BlackHeartedDwarf-migratio]

Yes, and you're just a little wallflower too shy to share your own thoughts, eh?

These aren't my thoughts. I steal them from others.

 

Anyway, I was just busting your balls. I wasn't avoiding the thread because I am afraid to answer the questions -- I was avoiding the thread because I knew it would really bug you if I didn't answer after you insisted that "the lawyers" answer your questions.

 

But having gotten your goat, the fun was over and I was typing up my answers to your questions while you typed up this scathing retort above.

 

CHECKMATE!

My reverse psychology worked.