CGC et al To Aggressively Defend Against Lawsuit Filed In Pennsylvania 11 11

[Dan82]

A trial by combat should be the only way to AGGRESSIVELY sort out a mess like this. Employ The Mountain as your champion and these clowns might think twice before trying to sue!

Spoiler

Americans have probably only heard of "trial by combat," if at all, from watching HBO's popular fantasy series, "Game Of Thrones."
Some have argued, however, that based on an obscure loophole, the U.S. might actually permit this archaic form of justice.

The supposed right dates back to Middle Ages common law, which followed Germanic tradition in allowing two parties to settle a dispute through combat in cases lacking sufficient evidence for a conviction.

Trial by combat was still part of the law in 1773, when British Parliament unsuccessfully tried to ban it in response to the Boston Tea Party.

Indeed, it was still allowed in a murder case in 1818, when a British court ruled a defendant could invoke his right to trial by battle even though no one had used the practice for centuries. That man, Abraham Thornton, got off scot-free when his opponent never showed up for the fight. A year later, British Parliament finally pulled trial by combat from the books.

British common law matters because the 13 original colonies inherited it, according to Lawrence Friedman's comprehensive "History of American Law."

Although the U.S. Constitution, which took many cues from British common law, did not mention trial by combat, some scholars argue citizens should possess rights until the government specifically limits them.

"The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that the people don't have other rights too," Adam Winkler, a specialist in American Constitutional law, told Business Insider.

Thus a defendant in the U.S. could at least make an argument for trial by combat — but the burden of proof would be on the claimant.

"They'd have to prove that it was lawful in Britain when the Founders created the Constitution and that they didn't intend to outlaw it," Winkler said.

Indeed, trial by combat could be seen as violating other parts of the Constitution, such as due process and cruel and unusual punishment.

"Trial by combat might fail to satisfy due process because the outcome of the case would clearly be determined by force instead of careful weighing of the facts," Winkler said. "But then again, the Framers did have duels. It's arguable that they intended trial by combat to be a part of due process."

Unfortunately for legal theory, no U.S. citizens have tried to sword-fight for their freedom.

Another British guy tried it in 2002, however, as Leon Humphreys, a 60-year-old, unemployed mechanic, claimed he could answer to his $40 traffic ticket by fighting a clerk at the Driver And Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) with Samurai swords. In his mind, European human rights legislation would still allow it, but the British court obviously rejected his proposal.

How would a U.S. court respond?

"I think it would be a very short case," Winkler said. "No court is going to take that claim seriously. It's a completely inappropriate remedy for modern society."

 

[kav]

1 minute ago, Mark Zaid said:

On 1/24/2019 at 7:13 AM, the blob said:

 

Can you elaborate?

[Mark Zaid]

Just now, kav said:

Can you elaborate?

Honestly, I so dislike the revamped boards. I find it much more difficult to deal with and that post wasn't supposed exist!

[Mark Zaid]

FYI, the Meyers have filed a Notice of Appeal. 

[kav]

1 minute ago, Mark Zaid said:

FYI, the Meyers have filed a Notice of Appeal. 

GLWT

[lou_fine]

9 hours ago, Mark Zaid said:

FYI, the Meyers have filed a Notice of Appeal. 

Wow, rather surprised they would have the money to do that considering the much bigger money that CCG, CGC, CCS, etc, have behind them.  

Especially since the restored recreated books which they are trying to sell always seem to draw only bottom of the barrel bids.  

[herc2000]

Don't know why the other company were a witness, the grading in all the slabs of all companies are subjective and sometimes differ when even sending it back to the same company.

I agree with Heritage, saying that the books should have their own unique label, so that buyers know that it is not just restoration and pretty much a recreation when there's so much being done.

They should have just accepted their own special label for their books that had this much done to them.

[Stevemmg]

Having read the entire document, I’m surprised that I’ve seen people here and elsewhere comment how great it is that CGC refused to grade the books. It clearly states that they decided to stop submitting to CGC as they weren’t pleased with the grades. At no point did CGC refuse service. What isn’t surprising is that Matt offered expert advice on how they might improve their restoration work and was honest throughout. Heritage looked out for the interest of their customers. Everyone involved in the comic book community acted just as you would hope they would, at least in my opinion. 

Rare to have such a peak into a situation like this, good stuff. 

[the blob]

3 hours ago, Stevemmg said:

Having read the entire document, I’m surprised that I’ve seen people here and elsewhere comment how great it is that CGC refused to grade the books. It clearly states that they decided to stop submitting to CGC as they weren’t pleased with the grades. At no point did CGC refuse service. What isn’t surprising is that Matt offered expert advice on how they might improve their restoration work and was honest throughout. Heritage looked out for the interest of their customers. Everyone involved in the comic book community acted just as you would hope they would, at least in my opinion. 

Rare to have such a peak into a situation like this, good stuff. 

It does seem that CGC was getting to the point where they felt like maybe they couldn't grade these books because they couldn't tell how much (if any) of the covers were real. It was a process. I guess they could say, "Fine, we'll grade it, but say "Potential Cover Recreation"

[the blob]

18 hours ago, Mark Zaid said:

Honestly, I so dislike the revamped boards. I find it much more difficult to deal with and that post wasn't supposed exist!

BTW, I was joking about the submissions, that would be unethical (and illegal for me given my position)...

[Mark Zaid]

On 1/26/2019 at 12:01 PM, the blob said:

BTW, I was joking about the submissions, that would be unethical (and illegal for me given my position)...

I didn't think you were being serious! 

[Get Marwood & I]

On 1/25/2019 at 10:49 PM, Mark Zaid said:

Honestly, I so dislike the revamped boards. I find it much more difficult to deal with and that post wasn't supposed exist!

Welcome to our world!

At least you can post 'just now' even though you last visited last Friday 

[kav]

13 minutes ago, Get Marwood & I said:

Welcome to our world!

At least you can post 'just now' even though you last visited last Friday 

Time traveller/ghost

[Get Marwood & I]

4 minutes ago, kav said:

Time traveller/ghost

[comicwiz]

On 1/23/2019 at 10:06 PM, Mark Zaid said:

Please note that at no time did CGC, or anyone to my knowledge, ever catch a "fake cover" on of the Meyers' books.

How is Classics leafcasting work reversible, and please don't tell me add water.

[Mark Zaid]

15 hours ago, comicwiz said:

How is Classics leafcasting work reversible, and please don't tell me add water.

If you want to ask me a legal question, by all means. For restoration expertise, ask Matt.

[comicwiz]

9 hours ago, Mark Zaid said:

If you want to ask me a legal question, by all means. For restoration expertise, ask Matt.

There is an assertion in the "court opinion" that restoration work is generally reversible. The opinion is indoctrinated in the belief of the "expert" who leads this into a direction to prove IGB is, as someone else here described it, "another level." To clarify my question, one of the main arguments for "reversible" work is to allow anyone during the ownership chain to decide whether they want to return the work to an unrestored state. If we are to believe everything we've been told about how IGB's work makes it impossible to know where the work starts and ends, I would like to apply this to actual methods that reflect this concern. More specifically, how is some of the work Classics does, including leafcasting, reversible?

[comicwiz]

One follow-up, who did the courts use to form an opinion on "standard/accepted" and "rogue" restoration? How were they able to maintain impartiality?

Edited January 31, 2019 by comicwiz

[Domo Arigato]

3 hours ago, comicwiz said:

There is an assertion in the "court opinion" that restoration work is generally reversible. The opinion is indoctrinated in the belief of the "expert" who leads this into a direction to prove IGB is, as someone else here described it, "another level." To clarify my question, one of the main arguments for "reversible" work is to allow anyone during the ownership chain to decide whether they want to return the work to an unrestored state. If we are to believe everything we've been told about how IGB's work makes it impossible to know where the work starts and ends, I would like to apply this to actual methods that reflect this concern. More specifically, how is some of the work Classics does, including leafcasting, reversible?

It's really not that hard to understand.  Under section 37B of the contract signed by them, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if - and you can read it for yourself in the photostatic copy - "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera..."Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera..."Memo bis punitor delicatum!" It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal!  They stole fizzy lifting drinks!  They bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so they get nothing! They lose! Good day, sir!

[Get Marwood & I]

5 minutes ago, Domo Arigato said:

It's really not that hard to understand.  Under section 37B of the contract signed by them, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if - and you can read it for yourself in the photostatic copy - "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera..."Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera..."Memo bis punitor delicatum!" It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal!  They stole fizzy lifting drinks!  They bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so they get nothing! They lose! Good day, sir!

What if they give the other sweet back just before they leave?