Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lois Lane on September 3, 2024 at 10:34pm

He's been selling as @forgetthegouge since 2004. on eBay and 3rd party sites ie: Bonanza 

uses Something Special LLC, Something Special 8192 LLC, 

fake corporations "Don Sparks Investments Inc" "Jo Jocz Inc"

selling bootlegs on Amazon FBA seller

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve P. on September 4, 2024 at 5:35am

Once a crook I guess always a crook.  He should be banned from the autograph industry for life. Thanks for the info!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by New York Collector on August 13, 2026 at 6:34am

When did Steve Cyrkin allow Autograph Magazine and its forum to become a venue for political disputes that appear to have little or nothing to do with the autograph and collectibles hobby?

 

Many of the Twitter/X accounts being discussed are political commentary accounts, and several of the companies referenced do not appear to be involved in selling collectibles. If serious accusations are going to be published, readers should be provided with reliable source material and sufficient context to independently evaluate those claims.

 

For example, the “Lois Lane” account is specifically referred to in the record of Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 502023CA015235XXXXMB. That case was dismissed with prejudice. Anyone discussing the Lois Lane account or repeating allegations connected to that litigation should therefore direct readers to the actual court record and disclose the disposition of the case, rather than presenting disputed allegations or political commentary as established fact. Any pending request for sanctions should likewise be characterized according to the actual court record and its current procedural status.

 

In my view, an autograph forum should focus on verifiable matters relevant to the autograph and collectibles hobby—not become a platform for political attacks against individuals, commentators, or businesses based on perceived political affiliations. Allegations should not be treated as proven facts simply because they appeared in litigation, on social media, or in political commentary. If accusations are going to be published, they should be supported by identifiable sources and presented with the complete material context—including that the Lois Lane account is referenced in the court record and that the underlying case was dismissed with prejudice—so readers can examine the record and reach their own conclusions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yony Mark on September 5, 2024 at 12:45am

I'm surprised this isn't talked about more in our forum. This guy was the main mastermind of the biggest threat to our hobby. Who knows what's he up to as of these days... especially since he's denying the fact that he was the mastermind, and is instead claiming to be "the victim of a wrongful conviction".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lois Lane on September 13, 2024 at 12:53am

I'm glad someone is surprised!

Fitzgerald changed his eBay handle to @forgetthegouge in 2004, before entered the plea and served I think 18 months 

Moved his base to Acworth GA and began selling bootleg DVDs BlueRay etc world wide on Amazon ( FBA) Etsy and every 3rd party vendor around (uses Something Special LLC, Something Special 8192 LLC and 2,fake GA corps specifically for Amazon JoJocz Inc and Don Sparks investments / Sparks DVD Sales  go to Twitter @Agent_411 @ECandella @NY_3 @FullerRath 

Note: Very little was paid in retribution. Marino’s mother and others estimate Stan walked away with $10 million  

Investigations into his multiple grifts ie:?Political donations, PAC’’s, candidates etc, via posing as a Veterans for America First/Veterans for Trump affiliate is used to wash and scam more tax free cash

Go to those twitter accounts and threads. He makes George Santos look like an amateur 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lois Lane on September 13, 2024 at 1:23am

Stan uses fake for proving fo "Autograph Memorabilia Inc" providing fraudulent COA’s

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by New York Collector on August 11, 2026 at 2:59pm

The irony here is worth noting.

In 2015, Steve Cyrkin and Momentica, LLC were named as defendants in federal litigation arising from disputes in the autograph industry. The allegations described below are allegations contained in court proceedings; I am not representing that they were proven true or that any court found Cyrkin or Momentica liable for fraud, conspiracy, defamation, or trade libel.

In Nelson Deedle and Iconographs, Inc. v. Collectors Universe, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05288 (C.D. Cal.), filed July 14, 2015, the complaint named Steve Cyrkin and Momentica, LLC among the defendants. The litigation included allegations that defendants participated in conduct intended to damage Deedle/Iconographs in the autograph business through disputed authenticity opinions and related conduct.

A related action, Todd Mueller and Todd Mueller Autographs, LLC v. Collectors Universe, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05291 (C.D. Cal.), likewise named Steven Cyrkin and Momentica, LLC among the defendants and arose from similar disputes concerning the autograph-authentication business.

Related California state-court litigation subsequently produced appellate proceedings involving anti-SLAPP motions. On December 14, 2017, the California Court of Appeal affirmed orders denying anti-SLAPP motions in the Deedle and Mueller matters. The appellate rulings addressed whether the challenged autograph-authentication opinions involved a qualifying public issue for purposes of California's anti-SLAPP statute. Those decisions should not be confused with findings that every allegation in the underlying complaints was true or that every named defendant was ultimately liable.

Against that documented litigation history, I find the present situation ironic. In my opinion, the current publication raises some of the same general concerns that make reputational publications worth scrutinizing—particularly when historical material and statements attributed to anonymous accounts are being used to shape a narrative about identifiable people.

That is my comparison and opinion based on the material I have reviewed. I am not asserting that the current publication constitutes defamation, fraud, trade libel, or any other unlawful conduct, nor am I asserting that the historical allegations against Cyrkin or Momentica were adjudicated as true.

Readers can review the court records and the current publication and reach their own conclusions.

• ▶ Reply