April Fools: LINKS & Phil Young Help Con Artist Peddle Sketchy Augusta Drawings.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - you should go back to using your old tag line, i.e. "it never happened". More and more I'm starting to think that it explains about 90% of what did happen....all except at the Old Course

[Mike_Young]

Mike - you should go back to using your old tag line, i.e. "it never happened". More and more I'm starting to think that it explains about 90% of what did happen....all except at the Old Course

 

[Mark Pearce]

Sean, Peter,


If you are concerned by the use of the word criminal then you haven't been following the debate or you are rather more precious than I ever thought Sean, at least, was on my several meetings with him.  The allegation here is that IST has made public, with a view to a sale, documents that he claims to be historic artefacts when, in fact they are more recent.  He has also, it is said, deliberately misled people as to the provenance of these documents.  If it is true then someone must have created those documents, intending to pass them off as something they are not and someone has lied about their creation, chain of custody and provenance.  If any of those allegations are true then it is without doubt that a criminal act has occurred.  Hiding from that word does not change the fact.


I do agree with Peter about David's approach here.  It seems to me that he has, by asking very specific questions, given Phil a chance to explain his involvement and clarify what has gone on here.  Since Phil did choose to bring this matter back to GCA it seems sad in many ways that he has chosen not to respond to those questions.

[Sean_A]

Mark

Look at my past posts....I always want to see evidence when someone is accussed of something serious.  I have no business (nor should anybody else) discussing LINKS complicity when zero evidence is supplied...and that was given as the main reason for the latest David attack.  As I say, even at the best of times this is not the forum for casual criminal discussions or accusations. 

All the other stuff is history.  Throwing other names into the blame pot doesn't get to the heart of the issue...and for me it is are any of the materials valid?  Why are we so stuck into the blame game when we know there was a scam...we had a public admission!  If David wants more blood (and I don't know why he would to be honest) he needs far more evidence before tossing accusations around.  I guess this comes down to who wants to know if the materials are valid and who wants to seek to blame more people for the scam. 

If as you say this is possibly a criminal issue...report it to the correct authorities instead of encouraging what at this point amounts to conjecture and gossip about LINKS, its staff and connection to Phil.  David asks a series of questions and then as a summary feels these unanswered questioned are solid ground to "discuss" (read a thinly veiled accusation) possible complicity on the part of LINKS on a golf website.  That sounds loopy to me even while summarising.

Pietro

I am questioning David's statements, not his motives. I don't know David (nor Phil) in the least, but my impression is that he wants to get at the truth of this subject. 

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

To one of the title subjects, what LINKS is doing doesn't even qualify as shoddy journalism. It's shilling.

I don't understand their approach this at all.

[Tony_Muldoon]

 
I am not sure if any sale has yet taken place(?) so I'll leave it to legal experts to inform me if it is a crime to offer for sale goods where you know the authentication to be false.
I feel that, at the least, the exposure of the 'inconsistencies' on this board helped prevent one criminal act. It maybe that a sale wouldn't have gone forward for other reasons but it certainly didn't after IST was forced to admit his falsification.
And now they have been put back on sale and people on here are asking for the full disclosure. If, as said above you don't like watching this, then don't.
As the original perpetrator will not provide answers it is inevitable that the attention switches to the more public shills. If they had any sense they would walk a million miles in the opposite direction, the papers could gather dust under somebody's bed and there would be nothing to discuss.
 

[Ulrich Mayring]

I would also caution against using the term "criminal offense", as that is for the courts to decide. Certainly no crime has happened, until a court says so. And a court will demand evidence, for example records of a sale via misrepresentation of the goods sold. No one here has any evidence of a sale or a prospectus for a sale, it is all just hearsay reported by Phil Young, who does not have an unassailable reporting record.

I do support criticism of the entire proceedings, but not judgment. I also do not support weaseling around the issue by wordings like "possible criminal offenses" and "suspected felons", because everyone on here has "possibly committed criminal offenses" and can easily be "suspected of a felony".

Ulrich

[DMoriarty]

I see this has gotten well off track. I did not accuse LINKS of criminal behavior, nor do I think that LINKS is engaging in criminal behavior. As for Ian Scott-Taylor . . . to quote Mark Pierce, many of you are "more precious than I ever thought."  Forgery is a crime, as is fraud in the inducement.  To pretend that there is little evidence of serious wrongdoing is to ignore the facts and to distort the reality of the situation.

It is a different question entirely as to whether law enforcement and/or a prosecutor would pursue it, but perhaps its worth looking into. I'm out of the country at the moment so I'll table that question it until I return.

[Mark Pearce]

Let's be entirely clear, nobody has accused Links of criminal behaviour, or Phil Young, for that matter.  IST, on the other hand......

[Duncan Cheslett]

What this "crime" is conspicuously  lacking, for the moment at least,  is a victim.

The problem is that as soon as someone does buy the artifacts in question all evidence will disappear from the public domain into the collection of some rich guy who will never voice concerns  about the provenance of his purchase for fear of embarrassment.

I for one will not lose any sleep over a rich bloke being fleeced in this way.

Caveat Emptor.

If I was IST however, I'd find sleep elusive for worry over a possible knock on the door.

[Sean_A]

Hang on...if there is a criminal accusation in the fraud perpetuated by IST, how is that the alleged complicity by LINKS in the fraud isn't a criminal accusation?  It can't go both ways. 


In any case, I said my peace.  You lot carry on with the witch hunt even though the witch has already been burned.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

Sean,

Fraud is a notoriously difficult crime to prosecute. Intent has to be proven, and I don't think that anyone is suggesting that Links or Phil has demonstrated intent to defraud anyone.

[DMoriarty]

Hang on...if there is a criminal accusation in the fraud perpetuated by IST, how is that the alleged complicity by LINKS in the fraud isn't a criminal accusation?  It can't go both ways.

Most complicity is not criminal.

In any case, I said my peace.  You lot carry on with the witch hunt even though the witch has already been burned.

Witch hunt? Review your posts and mine. Only one of us is lobbing insults and making unfounded accusations.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Hang on...if there is a criminal accusation in the fraud perpetuated by IST, how is that the alleged complicity by LINKS in the fraud isn't a criminal accusation?  It can't go both ways. 

Why are you alleging complicity by LINKS? I just see a crap infomercial.

Anyway, does anyone know when an image of the Oct 12 1931 letter will ready for the public to see? When can we see all the materials referenced in the piece?