Say it aint so, Eli

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,092
I haven't done this in awhile, but if you're committing fraud I'd think you'd technically need to preserve all related documents because of a reasonable anticipation of litigation.
Has it really been that long since you last committed fraud?
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,759
Pittsburgh, PA
Has it really been that long since you last committed fraud?
He told a girl the other night that he'd "show her a good time".

Evidence of the conspiracy has already surfaced.

Edit: I know the context is actually a litigation hold, but the point stands. Lit holds obviously relate back to documents that predate the hold directive.
It'd be pretty cool if you could put a hold on specific documents that didn't exist yet. Fire up the precogs.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,280
AZ
Oh, if it predates litigation then it's worthless. Evidence only matters if it is created after files are charged.
The quote from the Giants about pre-litigation is, I think, a response to the plaintiffs' lawyer's statement implying they destroyed evidence. It's generally ok to delete e-mail. It's not ok to delete evidence, which it can become once suit is filed. Doesn't change the content of the e-mail, just whether the Giants did a bad thing in addition to whatever they may have done with memorabilia fraud.

Usually you're not going to get in trouble with a court or get a bad instruction for destroying or deleting documents before litigation (or threat of litigation), if done pursuant to a regular deletion system. Court of public opinion is different, of course. Also, if you have a bunch of e-mail that you have preserved from around the same time, but just the bad ones are deleted, that's relevant for sure.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
As much as I love the idea of hating Eli for this, I imagine from his perspective that he was just trying to swat away an annoying mosquito without really bothering to think about the downstream implications. That said, I'm amused.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Hey hey hey, everybody: cut DDB some slack. His thetan level is just a little high. Don't worry, though; if he gives me most of his wealth I can tell him how get better.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,280
AZ
Hey hey hey, everybody: cut DDB some slack. His thetan level is just a little high. Don't worry, though; if he gives me most of his wealth I can tell him how get better.
I googled thetan. Can we have a thread on that? Holy shit.
 

Pandemonium67

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
5,575
Lesterland
I'm not investing much hope in the possibility of Eli getting nailed. In the end he'll follow his big bro's lead and find a way to pin it on his wife.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
As much as I love the idea of hating Eli for this, I imagine from his perspective that he was just trying to swat away an annoying mosquito without really bothering to think about the downstream implications. That said, I'm amused.
No sympathy here. I'm sure he was being compensated handsomely for the memorabilia. Maybe relative to his salary, the compensation is so small that he considered it an annoyance. But then, maybe he shouldn't enter into contracts like this if the inconvenience leads him to commit fraud.
 
Last edited:

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
No sympathy here. I'm sure he was being compensated handsomely for the memorabilia. Maybe relative to his salary, the compensation is so small that he considered it an annoyance. But then, maybe he shouldn't enter into contracts like this if the inconvenience leads him to commit fraud.
No argument. I just doubt he gave it enough thought to qualify as something I personally would consider intentional fraud.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
There's also a fair amount of stupidity on display here. When I read that fans/customers [thought they] were buying game-used items for specific games, I immediately thought of markings. HD TVs have been ubiquitous for just about the entirety of Manning's pro career.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
No argument. I just doubt he gave it enough thought to qualify as something I personally would consider intentional fraud.
I'm kind of with you here; Manning's going to deserve the doggie-do he gets but he wasn't conducting a conspiracy. Plus the kind of fraud we're talking about here (while I don't mean to minimize the negative effects discussed) is widespread far beyond the Giants and basically an open industry secret. Manning's real crime is giving an accidental peek at how the sausage gets made, and in writing.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,092
I'm trying to reconcile my Manning schadenfreude with the pure joy of seeing Giants fans getting ripped off. This is kind of the best of both worlds.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Do we have any idea how recent this went on for? Since 2013 the NFL has had a one helmet rule where a player keeps one helmet all season, hence the lack of throwback helmets on throwback uniform day.

I'm really not upset or outraged by this. He did a shitty thing and is getting caught. Good.
Kind of. Lots of players still where multiple helmets, whether by choice (comfort) or role (one with green dot, one without). It's a bullshit rule that isn't enforced . . . except about the throwback thing, which makes no sense since throwback games move merchandise, other than the Steelers bumblebee outfits.
 

OnWisc

Microcosmic
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2006
6,844
Chicago, IL
According to the article Eli was under contract to Steiner Sports, and he apparently wanted to keep the authentic stuff, so he pawned off phonies.

He sold stuff that had nominal value for presumably thousands.

Sound like a crime to me.

And it explains why the Giants signed Geno Smith.
So selling something of nominal value for thousands mandated acquiring something of nominal value for millions.

On the one hand, this is a shitty move by Eli. I mean, why even sign the deal for such a small incremental sum if you didn't want to give up the gear. On the other hand, I have limited sympathies for the buyers who weren't smart enough to immediately notice that their "game used" helmets were made of suspiciously thin plastic, contained nacho remnants, and were adorned with a Mets logo.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
. Plus the kind of fraud we're talking about here (while I don't mean to minimize the negative effects discussed) is widespread far beyond the Giants and basically an open industry secret. Manning's real crime is giving an accidental peek at how the sausage gets made, and in writing.
This line of defense seems familiar, but I don't recall it working out well...
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Given his family's wealth there was no need to enter a memorabilia contract unless it was a simple cash grab. He apparently wants the 'real' stuff for himself. He didn't break the agreement and pay a few bucks in contractual penalties for changing his mind, he decided to commit fraud.

There was a criminal case where the now plaintiff was accused (in addition to but separate from 5 others) of fraud with the assistance of the Giants organization. Giants employee(s) were involved with this fraud and should have faced criminal penalties. Statute of limitations may be up on the criminal side - but damn straight there should be civil accountability.

This stinks and the NFL should definitely be looking at this as a brand issue. This is no different than the people they sue for selling unlicensed NFL products. It is misrepresentation of NFL merchandise plain and simple. Every "game worn" Eli Manning collectible on the market is now in question - and I'd be suspect of any other Giant players stuff as well since the equipment manager was involved. I'd expect to see civil suits from a bunch of individuals who own "game worn" collectibles for devaluing the product after the sale.

Nail his backside to the wall (both via the civil system and via a large fine by the NFL). And reserve a few nails for the organization for not being in control of its employees (only a fine though).

Then send a damn memo around to every team to make sure that the practice stops because it sure as hell isn't just Eli. It's sure as hell is a bad look to be insulting and defrauding your customers after all the other ways the industry takes in money.

Note: I've never bought a single "game worn" collectible in my life (any sport). No dog in this fight. Just disgusted by what I perceive as unmitigated greed.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I'm kind of with you here; Manning's going to deserve the doggie-do he gets but he wasn't conducting a conspiracy. Plus the kind of fraud we're talking about here (while I don't mean to minimize the negative effects discussed) is widespread far beyond the Giants and basically an open industry secret. Manning's real crime is giving an accidental peek at how the sausage gets made, and in writing.
Which was one of Steiner's selling points after the horrible 90's problems. Hey guys we get it right from the source. You can trust us!

Oops
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Deadspin posted copies of the emails in question, and also correspondence between Eli and Zucker in which Zucker asks Eli for two game used helmets.

Shockingly, the timeline of the emails seems to discredit the "out of context" argument, because taken in context, the Eli emails seem a hell of a lot worse.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Unless discovery shows he did it more recently. Which it might, if this goes to civil trial, because NY State statute of limitations for civil fraud actions is the greater of 6 years or 2 years from discovery.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I had heard on the radio he was looking at a civil racketeering charge. Is that complete nonsense (provided the statute of limitations doesn't eliminate the possibility) or does it seem like a suitable charge?
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Unless discovery shows he did it more recently. Which it might, if this goes to civil trial, because NY State statute of limitations for civil fraud actions is the greater of 6 years or 2 years from discovery.
Thanks, I was wondering about any exception to the statute of limitations.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
Why would the statute of limitations of criminality start in '07-'08 or whenever the fraud was initiated, when knowledge of the fraud was not discovered much later ('13 or '14?) That would seem to reward cover-ups and other delaying tactics.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I had heard on the radio he was looking at a civil racketeering charge. Is that complete nonsense (provided the statute of limitations doesn't eliminate the possibility) or does it seem like a suitable charge?
RICO is pretty easy to make out. I'm assuming the hook is mail fraud as they shipped the merchandise. There'd be an association between Manning and the Giants or Steiner and that's about all you really need.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,280
AZ
Statute of limitations is rarely a hurdle for the government if it's truly motivated and if there is any hook whatsoever to argue some kind of continuation of the scheme. It's riddled with exceptions.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
When you combine this story (Eli working with Giants equipment managers to produce fake game-used items that were then sold to collectors) with the Brandon Jacobs story (where a Giants equipment manager stole and sold Jacobs Super Bowl items to collectors and then gave Jacobs fakes), there is definitely something smelly going on in East Rutherford.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
When you combine this story (Eli working with Giants equipment managers to produce fake game-used items that were then sold to collectors) with the Brandon Jacobs story (where a Giants equipment manager stole and sold Jacobs Super Bowl items to collectors and then gave Jacobs fakes), there is definitely something smelly going on in East Rutherford.
Well.. it is in the middle of a swamp for the most part.

I'll see myself out.
..
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
This line of defense seems familiar, but I don't recall it working out well...
It's a plain statement of the reality of the situation, not a defense, and if used as the latter I'd agree that no, it's not a winner in either of the public opinion or legal courtrooms.

My take is more about events which can be summarized as getting a brief clear look behind a translucent curtain; they're rarely worth more then mild outrage because learned folk like us ought to have known better in the first place.

Anything beyond some light-hearted public shaming of the fresh fool(s) who fucked up enough to let their ass hang out into the zeitgeist starts veering into hypocritical and/or mob mentality territory for me.