Originally Posted By: Foolkiller
I had dinner with Mark Haspel on Wednesday night, I discussed these issues:

1) Why does CGC refuse to release a list of books that it believes are suspect (by virtue of being submitted by this person)?

legal liability. They are contractually bound not to release this information from the submitter and legal action can be instituted. Even though banned, there is no conviction or any legal determination or even actual concrete evidence that Ewert trimmed the books himself. Therefore, they are still bound to protect the confidentiality.

2) Why does CGC not "proactively" contact registry set owners of the suspected books?

See answer above. Their job is to review any books to check for safety. Using information they hold is a potential violation of privacy.

3) Why did CGC limits its offer of reviewing books to the time period noted?

This is the time period that CGC has always identified as the period when they believed Ewert began submitting books that may have been trimmed.

4) Do they have any reason to believe that this person did not a) submit books through other people or b) that books sold by this person are not also suspect of having been trimmed?

a) They have no evidence to demonstrate that Ewert books were submitted (during that time period) by any one else. Absolutely zero. To their knowledge, nobody is currently submitting books for Ewert either.

b) There is no evidence, even tangential, to demonstrate that someone else is selling Ewert books. CGC would have to be going proactively after all frauds and that is not the service they provide.

Thanks, Brian, but am I the only one puzzled that the president of the company is using board members to disseminate corporate policy?
"I like to collect things." --BangZoom 2/28/11