The Berkbridge Foundation - Questions Regarding Legitimacy 8 8

[lizards2]

My @zz is feeling sued-ish…., 

[batman_fan]

22 minutes ago, lizards2 said:

My @zz is feeling sued-ish…., 

Usually that will cost about $40

[lizards2]

14 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

Usually that will cost about $40

yeah.  Colorado.  Try a real state.  

[batman_fan]

2 minutes ago, lizards2 said:

yeah.  Colorado.  Try a real state.  

I never promised they would have all their teeth 

[lizards2]

Just now, batman_fan said:

3 minutes ago, lizards2 said:

yeah.  Colorado.  Try a real state.  

I never promised they would have all their teeth 

You promised four.  

[batman_fan]

Just now, lizards2 said:

You promised four.  

No way you are going to get a four toother for only $40 unless smell doesn't matter to you.

 

[lizards2]

6 minutes ago, batman_fan said:

No way you are going to get a four toother for only $40 unless smell doesn't matter to you.

 

Berkbridge appreciates your optimism.  

[batman_fan]

3 minutes ago, lizards2 said:

Berkbridge appreciates your optimism.  

Are we ever going to find out the truth about them or will we all just be sued into oblivion?

[comicwiz]

On 10/8/2019 at 8:05 PM, James J Johnson said:

The threats were a serious tactical error. I wonder about the writer of that message. My guess is that the writer is the same one who went to see a forum member's collection and somehow swapped out books. A 62 year old Robert Jalali that appears to be as accomplished a businessman and educator couldn't be foolish enough to make rank amateurish tactical mistakes like that, could he?

The threats in response to requesting info about the foundation, info that the forum member was entitled to, was the tell. He might as well have sent up a flare along with those threats That's a far cry from how any legitimate foundation pursuant to furthering their cause would have reacted, without exception. That's how someone with something to hide would have reacted. And just the fact that a 62 year old consummate businessman should have known that and reacted differently than "he" did, indicates to me that at least some, if not more or all of forum members' assumptions about the nature of the foundation are likely more probable than possible.

Edited October 11, 2019 by comicwiz

[Sweet Lou 14]

1 hour ago, comicwiz said:

The one thing I thought about is that one of the members of the organization (presumably the person who runs the eBay listings, manages emails, and responded here on the forums) has gone rogue. Someone who might have access to use a tax exempt status in an opportunistic manner to avoid costs/fees in selling their collection. In order for this to make any sense, the other two named parties would not have known any of this was going on. Wouldn't be the first time anything like this has happened.

If this were the case, where is the evidence of any legitimate activity by the rest of the leadership?

If some actual charity with a verifiable presence online suddenly had a side business selling comics on eBay, and in running that business demonstrated the industry knowledge of a professional comic book dealer, you might say "Wow, somebody over there randomly knows their stuff about comics" or even "Wow, somebody over there went rogue."

But the preponderance of evidence suggests that this enterprise is only about the comic books, and always has been.  The "charity" appears to be nothing but a front for the purpose of income tax evasion and market manipulation.  Anyone who can prove otherwise is welcome to do so, we are all listening.

[comicwiz]

1 hour ago, Sweet Lou 14 said:

If this were the case, where is the evidence of any legitimate activity by the rest of the leadership?

If some actual charity with a verifiable presence online suddenly had a side business selling comics on eBay, and in running that business demonstrated the industry knowledge of a professional comic book dealer, you might say "Wow, somebody over there randomly knows their stuff about comics" or even "Wow, somebody over there went rogue."

But the preponderance of evidence suggests that this enterprise is only about the comic books, and always has been.  The "charity" appears to be nothing but a front for the purpose of income tax evasion and market manipulation.  Anyone who can prove otherwise is welcome to do so, we are all listening.

There are a number of things in this thread that do not make sense, which include why anyone would try to operate a seemingly legitimate charity in an allegedly opportunistic and abusive manner. Ultimately it is the responsibility of named individuals for this charity to manage/upkeep the way their charity operates, as their name association and credibility is inextricably linked to people's perceptions of the charity with which they are involved. Nothing about what I'm saying absolves them of this responsibility, nor am I insinuating this. Rather, in light of the last email Mecha received, and the indignant/unprofessional manner they used to respond to a legitimate inquiry, if this is a situation where a rogue member within the organization may be unknowingly speaking/operating as a representative of the charity without the other members being fully aware.

Edited October 9, 2019 by comicwiz

[icefires]

Maybe one of them got divorced and needs charitable help with child support.....

[Gaard]

I'm assuming just asking if they are a legit charity is OOTQ? They could be crooks, but if they are, they might be honest crooks. (Is there such a thing?)

[Sweet Lou 14]

6 minutes ago, Gaard said:

I'm assuming just asking if they are a legit charity is OOTQ? They could be crooks, but if they are, they might be honest crooks. (Is there such a thing?)

See earlier in the thread for correspondence that shows they aren't interested in answering questions with honesty and transparency.

[James J Johnson]

2 hours ago, comicwiz said:

There are a number of things in this thread that do not make sense, which include why anyone would try to operate a seemingly legitimate charity in an allegedly opportunistic and abusive manner. Ultimately it is the responsibility of named individuals for this charity to manage/upkeep the way their charity operates, as their name association and credibility is inextricably linked to people's perceptions of the charity with which they are involved. Nothing about what I'm saying absolves them of this responsibility, nor am I insinuating this. Rather, in light of the last email Mecha received, and the indignant/unprofessional manner they used to respond to a legitimate inquiry, if this is a situation where a rogue member within the organization may be unknowingly speaking/operating as a representative of the charity without the other members being fully aware.

This appears to me to be a dealer, buying and reselling books. Let's not forget, Berkbridge was on ebay for 16 years, buying and selling books, before changing the user name to Berkbridge. I've asked before. Does anyone know who Berkbridge was prior to changing names? 16 years of selling major pieces, someone must know what the seller name was prior to the change to Berkbridge.

I've started studying the books themselves and thusfar, the few I started with I've been able to find online as previous internet sales. For instance:

The Silver Surfer #4 CGC 9.8 Rocky Mountain was purchansed from Comiclink. Berk removed the "Rocky Mountain Pedigree" sitcker from the right side of the slab, those things don't fall off, they must be removed. There are still past images of a lot of the books Berk offers available online from when owned by the dealer that it would seem Berk purchased it from.

So in my estimation, I still have a lot to go over, but this does not seem to be the case of someone's "collection" being sold. I don't want to go into more yet, Berk is obviously refreshing this thread every waking 15 minutes and why reveal more now, right?

For now, I'm leaning towards these books in general, being already slabbed, already in the hands of dealers/auctioneers, etc, and bought then resold on ebay at a profit. Let's remember, typically, even if you can buy a book from say Link and resell it on ebay for 5% or 10% more, the ebay fees kill any profits for doing that. Without having to pay 10 to 14% for each sale to ebay and paypal, and no slabbing fees (already slabbed!), you just keep recycling the BIN until it sells for a profit, even a nominal one, and it's all gravy, rinse and repeat. And you don't pay taxes either!!

If this is the case, it's a good scheme! Charity, People bid more, thinking it's going towards a good cause. Psychedelic blue 1% tint curtesy of Photoshop, that makes every book look better than it is by washing out defects and jazzing up the colors, blurbs about how "this 8.5 looks like a 9.0 or 9.2", and using all those aforementioned tools, it's probably very profitable.

[Jaylam]

3 hours ago, comicwiz said:

There are a number of things in this thread that do not make sense, which include why anyone would try to operate a seemingly legitimate charity in an allegedly opportunistic and abusive manner. Ultimately it is the responsibility of named individuals for this charity to manage/upkeep the way their charity operates, as their name association and credibility is inextricably linked to people's perceptions of the charity with which they are involved. Nothing about what I'm saying absolves them of this responsibility, nor am I insinuating this. Rather, in light of the last email Mecha received, and the indignant/unprofessional manner they used to respond to a legitimate inquiry, if this is a situation where a rogue member within the organization may be unknowingly speaking/operating as a representative of the charity without the other members being fully aware.

I think we can safely say the time for that to come to light has come and gone a long time ago.

[James J Johnson]

1 hour ago, Jaylam said:

I think we can safely say the time for that to come to light has come and gone a long time ago.

Not to say there's anything illegal in taking advantageous pictures, puffing, and using the tax shade of a charity to bypass paying sales tax, buying or selling, or/and seller fees. The system is in place to be used and a smart businessman, Berk has set up to take full advantage of it.

The sales strategy of buying off-ebay to sell on ebay is a very good one. We all know that aside from outliers, books bought off ebay tend to auction for more on ebay. The impediments are the taxes and the seller's fees. And of course, an ebay seller can use shill accounts to yield even more profits. Can't do that selling on Link or Heritage!

Say you win a book on Heritage for $1000. No buyer's premium! Charity. Bring it to Ebay, get $1200, no seller's fees, no taxes later on, $200 pure profit. With this advantage, almost every book can yield a profit. Without it, you've got to resell on ebay for $1300 or more to break even!!

He's taking advantage of a system Not illegal unless his charity status is/was revoked/suspended.

Edited October 9, 2019 by James J Johnson

[Sweet Lou 14]

19 minutes ago, James J Johnson said:

He's taking advantage of a system Not illegal unless his charity status is/was revoked/suspended.

It's not illegal to fraudulently misrepresent yourself as a charity?

[Montezuma]

Looking through the feedback on e-bay

Joined 1999 username unknown?

First feedback was from 2002 as a buyer, then most of the feedback was for selling cars, motorcycles, jet ski's. Including Hummers, Vipers, Ferrari's.  Seller was called Robert, and Rob in some of the feedback so that fits.

A hundred or so feedback's in the account switched to buying comic books big time from a lot of familiar names. This went on for  500-600 transactions. At that point they started selling comics and the charity was first mentioned in the feedback.

 

 

[James J Johnson]

3 minutes ago, Sweet Lou 14 said:

It's not illegal to fraudulently misrepresent yourself as a charity?

Yes. That would be illegal, hence I wrote, "He's taking advantage of a system. Not illegal >>UNLESS<< his charity status is/was revoked/suspended".

Edited October 9, 2019 by James J Johnson