February 5, 2017
Dear Mr. Lifson,
My attorneys have made a financial settlement and mutual release agreement with me. This covers some of my losses and expenses. In exchange I have removed all possible negative postings and reviews of their firm and individual lawyers. In addition, I have updated the reviews, marking them as “resolved.”
If you wish to negotiate a similar settlement with me, I will offer you the same opportunity to help clear your reputation on the internet. After such settlement, my retraction shall state that you have resolved all issues between us to my complete satisfaction.
This offer shall remain in effect for ten days, after such time I will be updating my reviews.
I invite anyone to contact me for additional information.
BEWARE OF ROBERT LIFSON/ROBERT EDWARD AUCTIONS
I consigned vintage high-grade baseball, football and non-sports cards to Robert Edward Auctions/Robert Lifson. He damaged some valuable cards. He said he would reimburse me. Instead he kept my cards, and sued me for my own cards!
I had to get a New Jersey Attorney. I was charged $57,000 to get a $7,500 judgment vacated. The attorneys failed to include bailment in the counterclaim so I could not collect damages. I lost over $100,000 in property in addition to $57,000 in legal fees.
Robert Edward Auctions has since been sued by others for fraudulent activities.
I invite anyone to contact me for additional information.
I don't recommend them
BEWARE OF ROBERT EDWARD AUCTIONS/ROBERT LIFSON
I consigned vintage high-grade baseball, football and non-sports cards to Robert Edward Auctions/Robert Lifson. He damaged some valuable cards. He said he would reimburse me. Instead he kept my cards, and sued me for my own cards! I had to get a New Jersey Attorney. I was charged $57,000 to get a $7,500 judgment vacated. The attorneys failed to include bailment in the counterclaim so I could not collect damages. I lost over $100,000 in property in addition to $57,000 in legal fees. Robert Edward Auctions has since been sued by others for fraudulent activities. I invite anyone to contact me for additional information. This is a letter sent to the Attorney General of Maryland:
[Name and address omitted by ScamGuard]
October 25, 2004
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
200 Saint Paul Place
Baltimore, MD 21202
Dear Mr. Jacobson:
As you have requested I am responding to Lifson’s letter to you. Although I believe I have previously addressed most of the issues and my concerns, I will respond to his letter accordingly. I actually enjoy this opportunity, as I believe my response and supporting documentation will further prove his fabrications, falsehoods and untruthfulness to me as a consignor, and to you and your office as an investigative agency.
1) He solicited in June 2003. I reluctantly sent him my property based upon his misrepresentation of himself. Had he informed me that the auction was to hold 11 months from the date of contact, I would entrust neither he nor anyone else with my property. I assume he intentionally does not put the auction date in his advertisements, like Maestro and others in this industry do.
2) I am including as an attachment a copy of his advertisement in “Sports Collectors Digest“, Nov. 14 2003, page 79. (See #8 Below). This same ad appears in many issues of “The Wrapper”, and other periodicals. Please note his ad states, “If you have a significant high value item or collection that you are considering selling at auction, you can’t afford NOT to contact Robert Edward Auctions. His ad also states, “If you have high quality material to bring to auction...” This is the very ad and solicitation I had previously submitted to you on August 30.
3) First, I am forwarding the cover of his auction from March 2001. It clearly shows, “Robert Edward Auctions, a division of MastroNet”. In addition I am including the back page of a MastroNet auction. Again, it clearly shows his association. Finally, I am including a copy of my email to him dated June 15, 2003. I asked him about setting up with Mastro, because of the erroneous information he provided to my about his association. You will further note that he did not refute his association with Mastro in his reply of June 16.
I am submitting to you another of his ads, which appears in “Sports Market Report”, January 2004, page 34 and 35. In his own words he refers to his association with MastroNet! I am also forwarding a copy of my September 18, 2003 letter to Doug Allen, the President of Mastro. I believe that he only began to inform the public about his disassociation with Mastro because of my complaints to them about his fraudulent activity, and his use of their name and reputation.
As I mentioned previously, he only wanted high-grade, high quality material for his auction. He returned them to me because he said the cards were of such high quality that it would not warrant their inclusion and replacement of those in the set. He suggested that I have them professional graded and sold independently, or on the internet. He states my cards he damaged would not warrant a grade of “8” or higher. Common sense would indicate that if after damage he states they would be a “7”, then before his negligence they would warrant a higher grade, either an “8” near mint/mint, or a “9” mint. It doesn’t matter what holders he returned my cards to me. What matters are how securely they were packaged. In none of my communication from him does he ever state any of my cards I sent to him were damaged or trimmed, until months later. Please see as an attachment his email to me admitting that there was damage!
I am including as attachments a “How to Use Condition Guide”, from a Beckett Baseball Guide. Beckett’s is recognized as one the foremost publications for grading and prices. You will note the difference between a Near Mint-Mint and Near Mint can be very minor. I also forward a copy from “Sports Collectors Digest” that shows for example the value of card 123, Sandy Koufax in NM is $685. Yet this same card is valued at $1800 in NM/M and $10,000 in Mint! I am including Card Valuations based on some of the most popular collector periodicals and price guides. He states, “Even if there had been any where to the corners in transit, it would have had to have been an issue involving tens of dollars, as opposed to hundreds or thousands of dollars.” He says he has been in business for many years. Even beginning collectors quickly learn the value of the grade of the card.
Again, he has provided misleading and blatantly untrue information to your office.
After my complaints to Mastro, and after I demanded what I thought at the time was fair replacement value, months later he indicated my Koufax was now mysteriously trimmed, as were “some”, “many”, and “about a dozen” of my 1952 football cards. Actually, he says “they are very obviously trimmed”. As the expert he portrays himself, wouldn’t he have noticed this damage to my cards particularly the Koufax card, upon reception or shortly thereafter?
I told him I offered the Three Stooges set, and that set alone to Mastro. They declined only because the #1 card and two others were not NM/M and Mint condition like all the other 93 cards in the set. This was still a very high-grade Nm/M set.
4) On October 6, I revoked my permission for Lifson to include any of my property in his auction. Another copy is forwarded for your convenience. His response stated that he “would demand shipping fees...related expenses(?). We will incur no shipping expenses”.
Later that month he again begun sending emails saying he wanted to return my property. I responded by sending him the same letter of October 6. He later reneged on his proposal and said he would not return them to me. I wonder a consignor lives in Hawaii or elsewhere, they are obligated to fly or drive at their expense to retrieve whatever property Lifson decides to return? In his response of Nov. 2, 2003 he also indicates that he will reimburse me for some of the shipping expense if I drive to New Jersey! In essence, he knows that it will be more expensive in gas and tolls that his reimbursement is worth.
5) Again, I submit that if my Koufax card were trimmed, he would have brought it to my attention either before returning it to me, or after I returned it to him. It was not trimmed when I owned it. It mysteriously became trimmed on October 3, 2003! I never gave him permission to grade any of the three cards he damaged.
He is correct when he says that “these doctored cards have little monetary value.” They only became “doctored” while in his possession.
6) He tells you I am a non-professional with respect...He has had no prior experience with me, and knows nothing about either my professional background, or my years of collecting. I submit that I have been grading cards for over 15 years. In addition I have been a contributor to Krause Publications for over 30 years. I have been an active collector for 45 years!
7) He repeats himself. My response to #2 above easily addresses this issue, and this misleading and untrue statement!
8) I have contacted “Sports Collectors Digest”. (See #2 above). I was never informed that this complaint was dismissed. It was agreed that since I would pursue legal action that it would be more appropriate to wait until a final resolution. I pursued this complaint at an early date to insure that there would be a record of contact.
9) See #3 above regarding his association with Mastro. Obviously, if I knew he had been associated with Mastro, I had no reason to believe otherwise. However, he still confirmed his association with Mastro in June 2003.
During my telephone conversation with Lifson, I inquired specifically about two non-sports sets from the 1940’s and 1950’s. He called me back the following day, and said that although he had no Victoria Cross Heroes, Lowney Co., Crackerjacks, he had some Plane Cards by them. He further stated that although he had over 1,000,000 cards in his inventory there were mostly sport cards.
As your office has suggested, I have also forwarding my copy of my complaint to the United States Postal Inspector, and another copy of my letter to you of October 6, 2004.
This letter included most of the same attachments Lifson sent to you. This includes his letter of September 10, where he apparently feels it is perfectly legal to now dispose of my property. He portrays himself as a victim, seeks recovery of “any costs incurred”.
In his letter to you (#8) he has the audacity to inform you he is preparing legal action against me! I’m also forwarding a copy of the letter written to me by George Golumb, his attorney. He states, “If you (I) sign a release I can retrieve my property in New Jersey.” He says his clients haven’t damaged me.
If I even would agree to this, I would lose the value of the cards he damaged, and lose value of “some”, “many”, “about a dozen” cards he admitted were now trimmed. I wonder how many, if any of my original cards would be returned, particularly after I would waive damages?
I believe the following to be true:
• He is guilty of a breach of contract.
• Active concealment and misrepresentation. The transferer was intentionally deceived as to the identity of the purchaser.
• Good faith and fairness.
• Bailment issues. He was under law duty bound to return my cards to me in October, 2003. Furthermore, he is obligated to return my identical property.
• Care of property. If the property is damaged or destroyed, the bailee is liable for the loss.
• Acceptance of goods. He had a reasonable opportunity to inspect my property for any damages.
A complete refund