Comic Offenders Registry

[COI]

I just posted on the Dupcak thread about awareness, and got to thinking about this whole fraud thing in general.

 

I'm requesting that Arch seriously consider starting a seperate forum, specifically dedicated to listing in detail those who have been proven to have committed crimes in the hobby on several occasions. I personally think that pulling controversial threads because of "feelings" is ludicrous when the person being exposed is a KNOWN CONVICTED OFFENDER. Why protect them? What about the feelings of those who have lost countless amounts of money?

 

This forum could be moderated so that only facts are presented, as opposed to flaming. We could start with Mr. Dupcak, and ask the prominent and respected members of the business to come forth with others they know to be offenders. Plus we can also include info on what to look for in a potential scam.

 

If Arch is not willing to do this, perhaps a few of us can put our heads together and come up with a site that can be added to gradually?

 

What do you guys think?

[dolphinsrwj]

sounds like a good idea

[ArAich]

KNOWN CONVICTED OFFENDER.

 

If this criteria is met...I don't see a problem with it...

[ubiquiti]

I think there could be some legal issues regarding this...

Whether it is common knowledge or not, I would have to think Arch, and cgc for that matter, might be reticent to adress this idea.

I also think it is a good idea - just probably not something we could do here.

[COI]

I also think it is a good idea - just probably not something we could do here.

 

I would understand their position if they didn't want to do something like that.......but I think it should be done somewhere.

[chrisco37]

Maybe I'm speaking way out of line (and if I am, I apologize), but if Arch won't support this idea, maybe ComicWiz could provide a site. as he seems the most experienced (from what I've seen. And Wiz, I don't mean to put you on the spot, sorry!).

 

I think this would be a great idea. Although we get into many heated discussions, I think the sense of "community" is pretty strong on this forum. We could all benefit by learning about fraud and deception committed in our hobby. From what I gather, most of us are here because of a "love for the hobby". Are some more financially motivated than others? Of course! But, there are alot more profitable ventures out there than comic books for anybody who is out to make a buck.

 

We are all here because we love comic books; whether it's a character, an artist, a piece of pop culture, whatever......And, while we may disagree on many issues, we all are here to protect the integrity of our hobby.

 

Allowing pics and experiences to be displayed on the forum, not only protects us, but the hobby itself.

 

Chris

[garthgantu]

I support this in concept, but in practice there are definitely issues. First, in this particular case, do we know with absolute certainty that the pic in question is Dupcak? One person - Metropolis, I think - said that they *thought* it was probably him, as I recall the original thread, but that doesn't really constitute "proof," does it?

 

Secondly, I'd make this point: given that so much of the commerce we're talking about - buying and selling of comics - takes place online, how helpful is a photo of the alleged (or even convicte) offender really likely to be?

 

Even a registry of known offenders' email addresses, home (physical) address, online nicks, etc. will probably prove only moderately helpful - it's the ongoing disclosure on the boards of *frauds in progress* that seems most valuable to me. I suppose posting all known info about those defrauders would be valuable, after the fact, at least until the offender moves to another ISP, eBay account, etc.

[Aman619]

Im all for any effort, either here or elsewhere that helps reduce fraud in our hobby! Knowledge is power. Members of this forum have been very successful at stopping scams on eBay. Let's expand our efforts.

 

But, a danger of abuse exists...and of protecting friends. The scams that were stopped by discovery and discussions here were mostly scams by strangers! By spotting "somebody somewhere on ebay stealing scans etc. But, I donrt remember ANY REAL warnings and serious efforts when it was a member of this forum. Many of us made veiled comments about "trinmmed books", by certain members, but no more than that. So we will have to be careful.

[murph0]

I second the motion that people are by-passing the legal issues that would probably come up with basically making a mugshot site similar to the FBI's Most Wanted. Sure we can sit on here and discuss freely who's on eBay selling a fishy looking Hulk 181, but when we start getting into the realm of courts and felony fraud it's a whole different game. I understand CGC's position on this, and while it's interesting to see Danny D's picture..it really doesn't do much for me. I already know to avoid Danny and his stuff, as do most other people who are planning on dropping the kinda money books like his would warrant. And I've heard he's basically out of the con circuit due to his notoriety, so unless he starts a store (which someone would hear of). I don't think (at least I hope not) he's walking the streets selling comics

Best of luck with creating a site for this, but if I were you I'd certainly look more into the issues surrounding it before diggin in.

 

Brian

[COI]

support this in concept, but in practice there are definitely issues. First, in this particular case, do we know with absolute certainty that the pic in question is Dupcak? One person - Metropolis, I think - said that they *thought* it was probably him, as I recall the original thread, but that doesn't really constitute "proof," does it?

 

If I recall properly, Steve said something to the effect of: "It's been quite a few years, but yeah that's him".

 

I don't necessarily mean a database of Mug shots and address'. But with ebay, and e-commerce in general, there's too much incentive to attempt these con games, especially in a hobby like ours where there is serious $$$$ involved and absolutely no regulations. We need something to serve as a deterant.

[lighthouse]

KNOWN CONVICTED OFFENDER

 

One of the problems that you run into is that very few of the industry's scumbags fit this criteria...

 

And anything less than this criteria can run you into serious problems with the law. Libel is taken very seriously in some parts of the country. And without the 'proof' of a conviction, things get dicey. While it is true that in most cases 'truth' is a legitimate defense against such a suit, the simple process of being taken to court would bankrupt most casual websites.

 

Another problem you run into is that people change. There are dealers out there with questionable pasts who are now considered honest and reputable. Just look at the range of opinions about Chuck Rozanski on this forum. If you accept any criteria less than "known convicted offender" he would qualify for placement according to many members of these forums. But whatever his past, you'd have a hard time finding anything convictable. And placing him on your hall of shame would hinder the credibility of the website.

 

I ran into a dealer at San Diego about 8 years ago who told me a story about how he and his partner ripped off a guy for his collection back in 1982. In today's dollars it was probably a $150K collection he bought for $750. He told me as the years have gone by, he's regretted making the choice to do that, but the time to make that deal right has long passed. So instead he just makes a commitment to be as honest and fair with each seller from here on out. He now fits my description of someone I would trust with a bag of uncounted money. Should he be judged on his actions of 1982? Or his actions since then?

 

Is Daniel Dupcak a special case? Yes, probably so... And while I certainly don't know whether he is currently involved in comics or not, I would be wary of involvement with him. But I doubt there are many folks who would fit the "KNOWN CONVICTED OFFENDER" criteria...

[fantastic_four]

Not sure a forum or permanent thread for that specific topic is useful since I've never heard of anybody being convicted for fraud related to comic books. I've heard of people getting arrested for stealing comic books, or for something obvious like selling an X-Men 94 CGC 9.4 and sending the buyer a mid-grade copy shoved into a broken-open case, but no comics fraud. Dupcak wasn't convicted for comics-related fraud; it was bogus autographed baseball memorabilia.

 

If anybody has any Comic's Buyer's Guide back issues from the early 90s, supposedly Dupcak ran pictures of himself and his partner in advertisements for their comics store called Fantazia, so that would verify whether the picture is him.

[blowout]

I think this would be a great idea. Although we get into many heated discussions, I think the sense of "community" is pretty strong on this forum. We could all benefit by learning about fraud and deception committed in our hobby. From what I gather, most of us are here because of a "love for the hobby". Are some more financially motivated than others? Of course! But, there are alot more profitable ventures out there than comic books for anybody who is out to make a buck.

We are all here because we love comic books; whether it's a character, an artist, a piece of pop culture, whatever......And, while we may disagree on many issues, we all are here to protect the integrity of our hobby.

 

I would echo chrisco37's sentiments on this issue.

There is a serious issue though with presenting varifiable facts, which has always been a problem with the kind of threads that AK is talking about. There are lots of rumours and heresay presented on these boards, often with very little concrete evidence to back it up. The fraud forum idea would be tough for Arch to allow for these reasons, although I very much support your line of thinking Andrew that it is better to be exposed to this kind of information somehow. All the really meaty threads do unfortunately get pulled for one reason or another and lots of valuable information is lost in the process.

[Bugaboo-migration]

I would echo greggys sentiments on this issue.

Greggy hasn't posted in this thread yet, fool.

[blowout]

All these posters using the same avatars...it's too much for me.

[Bugaboo-migration]

All these posters using the same avatars...it's too much for me.

LMAO......I think he changed it when he made his post in the "Rake greggy over the coals" thread. It's fooled me a couple of times as well.

[ArAich]

All these posters using the same avatars...it's too much for me.

LMAO......I think he changed it when he made his post in the "Rake greggy over the coals" thread. It's fooled me a couple of times as well.

 

 

Well....you are a fool....

[Bugaboo-migration]

Well....you are a fool....

Shaddup '.

 

They should put you in a comic offenders registry 'cause you smell bad enough to offend everyone.

[BlackShotzy-migration]

Dupcak wasn't convicted for comics-related fraud; it was bogus autographed baseball memorabilia

 

Everyone seems to be ignoring that most important fact that is a matter of public record. Sorry to be the bearer of disappointing news but his conviction didn't have anything to do with comic books.

[comicwiz]

Maybe I'm speaking way out of line (and if I am, I apologize), but if Arch won't support this idea, maybe ComicWiz could provide a site. as he seems the most experienced (from what I've seen. And Wiz, I don't mean to put you on the spot, sorry!).

 

I recently wrote to the Federal Trade Commision about an unusual circumstance whereby a buyer tried to digitally manipulate a listing (from eBay Italy) for one of my auctions. The buyer inserted an escrow logo into a botched listing, saved the page, and then sent it to me by email and then insisted that this is how she saw my auction description. To top it all off, she proceeded to threaten to leave me negative feedback if I didn't abide to the listing policy and offer escrow to the item. I would have gladly abided, but the only problem was, I NEVER accept escrow services on any eBay auctions, so this automatically sent off alarm bells. I have to admit though, she almost fooled me -- because when I saw the listing, I thought it might have been a glitch in eBay's listing system. To avoid an embarrassing situation, I forwarded the listing to eBay and they automatically red flagged it, but I was disappointed to learn that eBay didn't do anything past the point of reimbursing my final value credit.

 

The Federal Trade Commision however viewed the matter with far more interest. I provided them the eBay handle, and from what I understand, the FTC has the power (jursidiction-wise) and resources to issue a court order to ebay to get full disclosure on the ebay user and their information. I also understand that if the user repeats any such offences, the FTC may decide to pursue legal action independently of any victims and their reported offences filed with the FTC. It was also very interesting to learn throughout my expereince that the FTC has a pile of escrow-related scams, and Howard Beales (the gentleman who I wrote to about my situation) has made an appeal to the public to report any matters to the FTC. Its also worth noting that it appears they have a bone to pick with eBay, so if its any activity outside of eBay, I don't believe they will pursue it with the same sense of urgency.

 

Having said all this, a section on this site which allows victims of fraud or scams to file a digital verison of an FTC fraud report that could be linked to a federated database of sellers who have committed repeated offences is an idea worth pursuing. It could start as a more vigilante approach to protect members of the collectors society from falling victim to known frauds in the collectable industry (and I don't see CGC having a problem with this) and may later extend into serving the broader eBay community. The only hitch would be that there would have to be some other mediatory/regulatory body involved to insure that there aren't any abuses of such a reporting system (ie. someone who has a grudge against a specific seller decides to report a haox or a falsified report) and that could make the proposition somewhat expensive from an administrative level. But this is definitely something that would deter (not completely eliminate) a seller, or scammer from committing any fraud, and one may well argue, may well empower consumers and victims of fraud with more immediate tools to deal directly with a commission which was originally set-up to defend society against scammers and frauds.