Woman Tries To Sell LeBron Bling, Is Accused Of Theft

It seems like every story associated with LeBron James these days is just bound to end in misery and despair. Such was the case for Vaneisha Robinson, 19, of Akron, Ohio. She claims she bought a LeBron jersey pendant five years ago at a flea market, found out recently it was worth a boatload, and put it up for sale on eBay. But now she’s been accused of stealing the $10,000 bit of bling.

According to Robinson, she had the pendant appraised and was shocked by its worth. Meanwhile, Maverick O. Carter, CEO of LeBron’s marketing company, says the necklace was stolen from him three years ago, reports the Associated Press.

After Robinson put the diamond pendant on eBay, she says she was contacted by people willing to make an offer for the necklace, and that LeBron himself would be present at the sale. Instead, she says, when she showed up Carter’s home, she was forced to surrender the bobble.

“I was scared for my life,” Robinson told WEWS-TV.

“They pretty much accused me, they threatened me,” Robinson said. “They told us that we weren’t going anywhere until they got that pendant.”

Police have determined the piece was stolen and belongs to Carter. Meanwhile, LeBron is still the guy who abandoned his home town to move to the beach.


Edit Your Comment

  1. Kishi says:

    Scared or scarred?

  2. Big Mama Pain says:

    It’s kind of suspicious that she had something that cost her $5 at a flea market appraised.

    • EdnaLegume says:

      not suspicious at all. plenty of people sell stuff and have no clue the value of it. old family heirlooms, glassware, etc. they just think it’s junk and sell if for a quarter. a lot of crap on ebay probably came from someone’s yard sale.

      • Big Mama Pain says:

        Yeah, and I don’t think a 19 year old would know this. I’m with Jules, though; she might have wanted to see if it was collectible now or something. She is lying about when she bought it, though; she says she bought it five years ago, and Maverick Carter says it was stolen 3 years ago. Why would she say that?

        • Kay Bee says:

          exaggeration and shes young…

        • Nyall says:

          Why would she say that? um… please itemize everything you ever bought at a yard sale (or flea market, whatever it is) and tell me how many years ago you bought it. I can’t do it.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      She doesn’t strike me as the antique dealer type, but she may have just been curious to see if his move meant her pendant was worth anything and found someone who was honest enough to tell her that she had something worthy of a professional appraisal.

    • trentblase says:

      And this, folks, is why Ebay is always warning you not to complete your transactions outside of Ebay. It has nothing to do with fees, and everything to do with keeping you safe. Ebay Cares(TM)

    • chefguru says:

      If you read the FULL story, and don’t go off the summary of it that’s been posted here, you’ll see that she didn’t buy it for $5 and decide to have it appraised for no reason.

      The story goes that it was worn for years, through high school, and one day, while cleaning it, noticed that the “fake” diamonds appeared to be set the same way that real diamonds are, and not like fake ones usually are. It was taken to a jeweler to ask more about it, and the jeweler said that they were real diamonds, not fake, and suggested that the owner have it appraised.

      That’s the story that’s been in the news so far.

      • BridgetPentheus says:

        It would help if the summary came anywhere close to the article, she got it 4 years ago (not 5) at a yard sale (not flea market) if you know people aren’t going to read the linked article at least summarize it right

  3. Cyniconvention says:

    I wonder how the (yard) seller got a hold of it?

  4. hills says:

    bobble? bauble?

    anyway, doesn’t sound like she stole it, but someone did, so she can’t sell it….

    • Hoss says:

      You’re believing Carter, the alleged criminal that stole it back from the girl. It’s more likely Carter lost it and was embarrassed by that. I can believe that someone finding that ugly piece on the ground would think $5 was plenty. Even knowing that the diamonds are real, they seem greatly irregular in size and shape

  5. breny says:

    Bauble, not “bobble.”

  6. 4Real says:

    That is stupid.. Finders Keepers.. Losers Weepers.

    • common_sense84 says:

      It’s not finders keepers. Someone originally stole it.

      Second hand buyers of stolen goods have no right to keep the stolen goods. Even if they paid full price. The item goes back to the owner and they have to pursue the guy they bought it off of for their money back.

    • DoktorGoku says:

      I haven’t heard that since the third grade.

    • Difdi says:

      Theft does not confer ownership. Without ownership, all sales are invalid. So going by the laws, it’s more of a losers keepers, finders weepers sort of situation.

    • pot_roast says:

      Wow. You really believe that?

  7. bigTrue says:

    I watch very little sports, and even less basketball (though the last, say, five minutes of a really close game are kind of exciting), but I don’t get the LeBron hate. I get why people in Cleveland hate him, but they feel screwed.

    Everyone else, not from Cleveland, what gives? This isn’t Farve going to play for the arch rival at the sunset of his career just to squeeze a couple more seasons out of his used body. I get the hate there. This is, arguably, the best athlete to ever grace a professional sport. Like him or hate him, he was in CLEVELAND. I live in Detroit, and we make fun of Cleveland. It’s so bad, the riverfront bar scene dried up and went to crap. They couldn’t even build a predesigned adult playground of bars and fun that would last.

    If you were of the caliber of Lebron, and you gave years of sweat and amazing work to a city like Cleveland, with no result, wouldn’t you go somewhere else? Even without the whole comparison to the Showtime Lakers and the probability they will either crash and burn or be the new found gods of the roundball, you gotta admit you would not be at that level and still be living in Cleveland once your contract was up. Anyone who says they would is lying. You’d go to Miami, or New York or LA or somewhere else you could actually live like a pro star should.

    I dunno….this has nothing to do with this story, and again, I’m barely following this whole thing through sports talk radio that a coworker leaves on, but I just don’t get the country wide hate on a guy who just wants to live the whole life that comes from being an amazing athlete in our society which turns those types into living gods. Maybe somebody who understands the whole thing more could explain it to me.

    • sth9669 says:

      Well, for me personally, the issue isn’t really that he left, it’s HOW he left. He’s been hyping that he’s going to be a free agent and that the media might as well take a nap until July 1st 2010 for two or three years now. Then he didn’t go on any visits to the prospective teams he was interested in (including visiting their facilities and meeting with all their coaches and/or players) like the rest of the free agents do. No, he had them all fly in and make a proposal to him at his home compound in Cleveland (including the team he already played for the Cavs). Then he flip flopped in the media to fuel speculation on where he’d go, and toyed with public rumors that he wanted to play with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. Then, worst of all, he set up a moratorium on speaking to the media over the holiday weekend and set up a 1 hour special on ESPN to announce his decision, and completely broke the hearts of all his fans in cleveland on national tv meanwhile acting like it was such a tough decision for him.

      No one has any problems with him wanting to leave (well, except cleveland fans) but he’s straight up acting like a spoiled dickhead. Kevin Durant signed a contract and announced it on Twitter by saying “Signed a contract extension, time to hit the weight room and get ready for next season”. Jordan announced he was coming back from retirement with a fax that said “I’m Back”. Lebron lavished himself with the spotlight, and he doesn’t even deserve it.

      He may be the most physically gifted player in the NBA, but the fact is he hasn’t won anything yet, and now that he’s on Wade’s team, he’s proven himself to be a really good role player and not the Alpha dog his hype says he is. With the past couple weeks he’s made Kobe look great, and probably become the single most hated professional athlete in all of american sports. I mean I hated him before, but now, it’s not even a question, I’d rather root for the NY Yankees or the Duke Blue Devils than see Lebron with anything. . .

      • bhr says:

        Exactly. It wasn’t what he did, but how. It was a combination of a bunch of factors.

        1. He left town. Obviously that hurts his image a little, since this was his “hometown” team and everyone loves those stories

        2. He “gave up” at the end of the season. He had a couple horrid playoff games to end this year, and appeared to give less then 100% effort. He claimed the fans were spoiled by his performance in the past, which made it only appear like he gave up.

        3. The media attention and special. The media attention was already pissing people off, but most of that anger when to ESPN/SI/Deadspin or whoever. The moment he decided to do the special ALL that media anger got directed at him, as the build up became only part of his show, rather then a media generated event.

        4. Hes a media moron. He made a handful of media mistakes over the last few years that made it appear that he has no clue how things work, while being called “media savvy”. The special and rockstar intro in Miami are part of it. Wearing a Yankee hat in Cleveland to a Indians/Yankee game is another. While he has every right to do those things, a media savvy person wouldnt have.

        5. America hates teams that appear to “buy” championships. The Yankees and Red Sox are hated outside of their own fan bases. There was a lot of anger when the Celtics and Lakers got their championship pieces cheaply, but at least it was trades, and neither Gasol or Garnett/Allen are gamebreakers like Lebron/Bosh.

        6. The Miami dynamic. Barring some drastic improvement by Lebron (unlikely) or a sudden collapse by Wade the Heat will always be always be Wade’s team. And no matter how many championships they win Wade will always have more. This is a move that “the great ones” (Kobe, MJ, Bird, Magic) never would have made. They always wanted to be the man.

        7. Lebron had a choice to become a hometown legend (Cleveland), Take a good young team to multiple championship runs (Chicago). Bring an Icon Franchise back to glory (Knicks) or take a team from nowhere with a couple of popular owners (The Nets w/the move to Brooklyn), Instead he took what appears to be the easiest position by playing with two other all-pros. We dont want our heroes to take the easy way out.

        8. He didn’t handle the Cleveland thing well. If he had announced 24 hours before his special that he wasn’t coming back to Cleveland, then released a nice “thank you for your support” letter in the local papers most fans would have wished him well. Instead it came off like he was announcing on national tv that he was dumping his wife for a hot model. Plus Gilbert would have had time to come up with a statement to the fans, and probably would have wished him well.

        Its odd, I know a LOT of sports fans who have suddenly become Magic/Lakers/Celtics fans just to spite the Heat.

        The biggest difference w/ Favre (and believe me, his rep has gone way down to) is that Green Bay was done with him. He didn’t have the option to go back and start there.

        • Erich says:

          My favorite comparison is Hulk Hogan’s heel turn. The ability to go from beloved hero to hated bastard in a matter of minutes is something special.

          The fact that so many honest-to-god sports reporters use the comparison makes me, a wrestling nerd, hugely happy.

        • RvLeshrac says:

          Anyone who thinks sports stars have some feeling that they “owe” you needs to get a life, and possibly a psychiatrist.

        • bigTrue says:

          Thank you. That explains it.

  8. kcvaliant says:

    I would like to know who coined King James.. If it was someone from Cleveland or the Cavs franchise, I would say be a dick about it and make him forfeit using it..

  9. TPK says:

    How many 14 year olds do you know who go to flea markets?

    • GrantRyan says:

      My grandmother, aunt, and mom used to go a lot. My brother and I would sometimes tag along. I bought things almost every time I went.

    • ellemdee says:

      Lots of parents take their children to flea markets. We used to go all the time when I was a kid.

    • oloranya says:

      My dad took me and my siblings to a big indoor flea market every other weekend in the summer growing up. It’s not unusual.

    • tsukiotoshi says:

      I used to when I was 14. I still love flea markets. I went to thrift stores, too.

    • blueneon says:

      I used to have to, in the late 80’s. Where I lived they were called swap meets though.

    • Villnius says:

      Are you kidding? When I was 14, my friends and I went to the Flea Market like every month or so. Back then, and even now, they had booths that sold incredible stuff there. Sure, there’s the crap booths where they sell crafts, used junk and religious/UFO nut videos/books. I guess someone was buying that junk, but it wasn’t us.

      There’s also a lot of clothing booths where you can get all sorts of T-shirts and jeans really cheap. I’m sure a good chunk of it is unauthorized knockoffs, but it’s cheap, and a lot of it is of decent quality.

      Then you’ve got the hobby booths. RC vehicles, model rockets, airguns, archery equipment, paintball… Some of the stuff (especially the models) were a bit out of my price range, but I bought my first swiss army knife and BB gun from a flea market booth.

      Talk about kid in a candy store (you could get your cured meat and candy fix there too).

  10. erinpac says:

    Is it this person?

    Why would she go on TV about it and then a year later ebay it and THEN this comes up? She says she wore it to high school and then saved $200 for the appraisal. :-/

    Are there multiple of this pendant? It just all seems off… the guy cornered her for it back first too, rather than having police contact ebay.

    • awer25 says:

      Yeah that’s what I find weird – the kind of person that has to save up to get $200 doesn’t usually blow it on an appraisal if she honestly didn’t know what it was worth – she would just sell it for what she thought it might be worth and be done.

  11. almightytora says:

    This is what I don’t understand. She got it at a flea market FIVE years ago, yet the CEO says it was stolen from him THREE years ago.

    Does anyone else not get this?

    • blueneon says:

      maybe one of them are lying .. which one?

    • Jerkface says:

      It’s possible he didn’t realize it was stolen for two years. It’s also possible she doesn’t remember exactly when she bought what was at once presumably a $5 trinket. Or yeah, someone’s lying.

    • chefguru says:

      If I stole something worth $10,000 from someone 3 years ago, I’d claim that I’ve owned it for 5 years also. That way, they’d have to prove that I’m lying, otherwise, they just seem like opportunists.

  12. XTREME TOW says:

    If there really is a police report from 3 years ago, Miss Robinson has some explaining to do.
    If there is not a police report, Mr Carter has some explaining to do.
    The timeline has me curious. Could Mr. Carter have disposed of it over 5 years ago, and forgot about it when he made a police report 2 years later? The behaviour of Mr carter’s associates has me puzzled that the police were not present at the time Miss Robinson showed up at Mr. Carter’s home. Inquiring minds want to know…

    • erinpac says:

      Sounds like Carter is saying he didn’t report it because there was no serial number so he thought it was untraceable?

      If it was stolen, I doubt it was by her.

      The whole thing is really screwy.

      • mrstu says:

        I’m not saying I do/don’t believe either one of them… but even if it was stolen from him, by her… the proper way to get it back upon seeing that listing is to inform the police, not set up a ‘sting’ yourself and intimidate her into giving it up.

      • JulesNoctambule says:

        I wouldn’t think that’s the kind of item that would require a serial number to be traceable.

  13. Hoss says:

    Here’s more video and towards the middle of the page is a 911 call audio http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/lebron-pendant-now-center-of-police-investigation

    • Slave For Turtles says:

      According to that article,

      “Ms. Powers showed me the pendant in question and I was able to determine that it was a one-of-a-kind item and it did actually belong to Mr. Carter,” said Sgt. James Elchlinger.

      Exactly how did the officer figure that it belonged to Mr. Carter?? Because his mommy (Ms. Powers) said so?

  14. Mr. Elearn says:

    Why do people care so much about Lebron? He not event that good.

    Go Lakers! =)

  15. Hoss says:

    I’m wondering if this was really stolen or if it was lost by Maverick Carter. But it really makes no difference if stolen or lost, this Maverick Carter is one sleazy dude. Is $10,000 that important to steal back?

    Here’s Carter’s website: http://www.lrmrmarketing.com

    • Thespian says:

      Because he was being “dissed.” He had to “represent.” He “wasn’t going out like that.”

  16. LostTurntable says:

    Unless she was the person who stole it she did nothing wrong and is actually entitled to keep it. If it was illegal to buy second hand stolen goods that someone else bought first then pawn shops and used CD stores would be illegal.

    This Carter guy is a punk asshole who is taking advantage of a scared woman. I wouldn’t expect anyone associated with LeBron to have anything resembling class though, so I’m not surprised.

    • Hayden1028 says:

      That’s not how it works.

      If someone stole your car, then sold it to someone, who sold it to someone, it’s still a stolen car and it still belongs to you. Just because its been sold to someone else doesn’t mean it was theirs in the first place. Stolen property is stolen property is stolen property.

      I had a friend who was arrested for trying to sell stolen wheels on Craigslist. He also bought them on Craigslist. That doesn’t mean they were his to sell. The case was dropped for insufficient evidence, the property was returned to the original owner, and that was all. This girl still possessed stolen property, even if she didn’t know it. It’s still not hers even if she paid $5 for it.

      • LostTurntable says:

        Here’s the incident I’m talking about:


        The responsibility in these situations lies solely on the thief, not the store who bought it or the person who bought it from the store.

        • Difdi says:

          The police in that case are refusing to do their sworn duty because they have an illegal deal going with a pawn shop. The police refusing to enforce a law does not negate the law, it just means the police are douches.

          From a legal standpoint, Eide could still theoretically sell the goods stolen from him. If someone were to buy one of the stolen items from Eide, then go to the pawn shop, pick up the item at the pawn shop and walk out without paying the pawn shop, then under the law, they would not have committed shoplifting, since the pawn shop has no legal ownership of the stolen items, since that customer would then be the rightful owner. I imagine the police would be called, and an arrest made, but I doubt any charges would stick.

    • koalabare says:

      That’s hillarious. If a TV is stolen from me, it never becomes the property of the person who stole it. It is still *MY* TV that is *MY* property. The thief can’t legally sell my property, so any sale that happens is considered void.

      It is against the law to buy stolen goods if you know (“receiving stolen property.”) Even if you don’t know, the sale is STILL void and the property will be returned to the rightful owner.

      • LostTurntable says:

        If that TV is sold to a pawn shop, who did a background check on the person and in good faith bought it from them, and then they go and sell it, they have ZERO liability to you and neither does the person who bought it.

        A retailer in Pittsburgh found out that their employee was stealing stuff from then and selling it at a used CD store. He got arrested and is in prison, but the store he sold the stuff to didn’t have to compensate them, it’s not their problem.

        • koalabare says:

          I understand why you think that, but the key in that situation is:

          According to the complaint, pawn division Detective Rebecca Cyr told Eide that police have an understanding with The Exchange that the store would be allowed to recoup whatever it spends on stolen merchandise from the rightful owner.

          It is because of the “understanding”, not the law.

          Here is a relevant decision, especially the first and last sentences:

          The rationale underlying the separate limitations periods for receiving, concealing, withholding, and selling stolen property is that the law imposes a continuing affirmative duty to restore stolen property to its rightful owner. (Williams v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal. App.3d 330, 344 [146 Cal. Rptr. 311]; People v. Johnson (1963) 223 Cal. App.2d 511, 513 [35 Cal. Rptr. 883]; Pen. Code, § 496.) Stolen property remains stolen property, no matter how many years have transpired from the date of the theft. Moreover, a thief cannot convey valid title to an innocent purchaser of stolen property, and an innocent purchaser cannot withhold or sell the stolen property after learning of the theft without risk of violating Penal Code section 496.


          • LostTurntable says:

            Well, if you still think that, then you’ve obviously never had anything stolen and then sold at a pawn shop. It’s nearly impossible to get it back once the shop sells it. And the shop has the right to ask for the money they paid for it. They can’t afford not to.

            And regardless, this woman in the original story most likely did nothing wrong, she bought something from a flea market, end of story. If Douche Carter there thinks its his, then he needs to file a police report, not steal it back from someone who didn’t even steal it in the first place.

            If it was even his to begin with, which I doubt.

            • koalabare says:

              I posted relevant cases for you. Multiple people have told you that you are mistaken. I grew up in a family of lawyers. You are basing your interpretation off of one article. A followup to your story says Eide got the goods back without paying. Good day sir.

            • Gaz says:

              You’re mistaken Lost.

              Any store that buys used merchandise is required to turn that over to the rightful owners if they can demonstrate it is stolen. They’re even required to turn over any records they have of who purchased stolen merchandise if they’ve since sold it.

              I’ve no doubt the law is frequently misapplied or ignored for practical reasons, that doesn’t change the law though.

        • koalabare says:

          Here is some more information on the case that you posted:

          Eide got some lawyers who said “We were concerned that the secondhand dealers law was not being correctly enforced by the City of Pittsburgh police department,” Barber said.

          “What the police had been doing was saying, ‘We’re not going to help you get your property back unless you pay the secondhand dealer.’ That just isn’t what the law provides.”

          Barber theorized that perhaps police fear retailers would stop cooperating in investigations to protect themselves financially if they ceased getting reimbursed for the stolen property they purchase.”

          they then sued for the property back, and the company that bought it ended up giving it to them instead of going to court.

      • Griking says:

        It’s illegal to sell stolen property regardless of what it yes. Yes, it is illegal for pawn shops to sell stolen property. Yes, it is illegal for CD shops to sell stolen CDs. The problem is that many of them don’t know that they items that they’re buying ans reselling are stolen. But you can be sure that if a person walked into a pawn shop with a police report showing that his TV was stolen and had the serial number and it matched a TV set the pawn show was selling the person would get it back.

  17. TriplerSDMB says:

    It’s bauble, not bobble.

  18. erratapage says:

    I suspect 3 years is like 5 years to a teen, and 5 years is like 3 years to a crook. And yeah… that’s what the guy is. I mean, there needed to be police present for it to have been a legitimate sting. It feels like the same kind of operation that O.J. was sent to jail for.

  19. El-Brucio says:

    If Ms. Robinson would like some petty revenge, she should contact Carter’s insurance company. If he claimed the full price of the jewelry from his insurance company after the theft three years ago, they are going to be wanting their money back now that he’s recovered the piece.

  20. pantheonoutcast says:

    Seriously? The guy’s name is “Maverick O. Carter?” And the other people involved are named “Vaneisha” and “LeBron”? Is this a Dave Chappelle skit?

    • Paladingo says:

      Gasp, not everyone has a white name! The horror!

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        Dude, *and* they’re fighting over a diamond-encrusted necklace shaped like a basketball jersey. It couldn’t get more stereotypical unless Oprah intervened and gave them both some KFC.

        • yusefyk says:

          Why do Americans joke that blacks like fried chicken. I never met an American who does not like fried chicken, white black or other.

          • RogerX says:

            …and we’re RIGHT BACK to Dave Chappelle! :)

          • TheGreySpectre says:

            I hate fried chicken, it just smells gross and its all greasy and nasty I don’t see why people would want fried chicken instead of any of the numerous healthier, better tasting ways you can cook it.

            The stereotype gets perpetuated in part because of how things work with fried chicken sales. In college I worked in the deli at a local super market. The clientele of the supermarket was mostly white people (upscale neighborhood in a town that wasn’t very diverse in the first place), yet well over half the fried chicken customers were colored. Do all colored people like fried chicken, no that would be ridiculous; however, they do seem to enjoy and purchase in large quantities then other demographics, at least in my personal experiance.

  21. Exek says:

    Isn’t this the same thing OJ tried to do a few years back?

  22. Michaela says:

    Did Carter report it stolen 3 years ago, or did he just claim it was stolen now?

  23. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    I thought she got it at a yard sale?

    The whole thing sounds mighty suspicious to me.

  24. joejr says:

    “Police have determined the piece was stolen and belongs to Carter”

    how did they determine this??? that’s a bunch of crap, she should of been able to keep this item and sell it….

  25. Damocles57 says:

    I am sure there will be some interesting tidbits – from both sides of this issue – that will come out during the next few weeks. Neither side’s stories seem particularly convincing or completely consistent in their details. At the very least, the local police should have taken the pendant into custody to be returned to the rightful owner following an investigation. To have left it with Ms. Carter seems odd owing to the time it was missing and the apparent lack of any police report three or five years ago reporting it stolen. I may have missed a reference to the reporting of the theft.

    However, it seems unlikely that Ms. Robinson – if she or a friend had stolen this trinket – would voluntarily drive to the home of the person from whom it was stolen thinking they would be paid a boat load of money.

    Hopefully there will be some follow-up to this story.

  26. Owl Says South says:

    so… this carter guy does it, its cool.

    OJ simpson does it… and he goes to jail.

    alright, i think i get the reason.

  27. MaxPower says:

    If she had stole it, why would she be willing to go sell it to someone who was going to have LeBron present at the sale? I’m assuming she would know where it came from if she stole it so it would be really stupid to walk back into a situation that may involve the people you stole it from.

  28. drburk says:

    This story makes little sense, if he cannot prove it is his (which was his original stance) means there are multiples walking around which makes it hard to say it is his pendant. The timelines make no sense on either part. Not to mention selling expensive jewelry on ebay .

  29. aleck says:

    When dealing with potential buyers, meet in public places and deal in cash.