PWCC Huigens Now Has a Criminal Defense Attorney

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I do not know Jeff personally, but have read many of his posts here. He has been a champion of the hobby. I believe if Brent was represented by a different attorney, he very well could have been advised to take different actions than refunding those who have purchased doctored cards. I presume Jeff thought about and is walking a bit of a fine line here. Facilitating both what is in his clients best legal interest while helping some people get restitution. I trust his practice and intention here.

Client's best interest? Restitution? Jeff really has you guys fooled. Y'all are so gullible.

You think Jeff gives a shit about his client's best interest? He was hooking up with his girlfriend during El Chapo's trial. Was that in his client's best interest?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/el-chapos...-client-report

If you really think Jeff gives a shit about restitution? Tell me what kind of restitution did El Chapo's victims get? Should I post some extremely graphic images as a reminder?

Please! What a crock of shit!

[jhs5120]

Can we try to refrain from personal attacks.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Truth hurts, huh?

[jhs5120]

Guess that’s a no.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Where were you when Jeff was making personal attacks on Brent? Oh, the hypocrisy!

[jhs5120]

Never mind.

[Rhotchkiss]

I have spoken with Jeff, and I personally believe his heart and motives are in the right place here - he does feel he can do best for the hobby as an active participant, rather than as a spectator on the sidelines. And I respect that. He does have an ethical and professional duty to his client (PWCC), which may mean his client experiences (or does not experience) some "result" he/it otherwise would not have experienced without the Jeff's representation - on that matter, I have been honest with Jeff that I am rooting against him and would like to see serious repercussions as well as restitution.

All that said, please stop bashing him and/or bring up matters that are unrelated to the PWCC matter. Not because I like Jeff or care about his feelings, but because he is has been gracious enough to provide some info on the PWCC matter, which he does not have to do, and his posts are leading to articles. I think the more info the better it is best for us and the hobby at large, and emails bashing Jeff are likely to make him stop posting, which again is not good.

[asphaltman]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I have spoken with Jeff, and I personally believe his heart and motives are in the right place here - he does feel he can do best for the hobby as an active participant, rather than as a spectator on the sidelines. And I respect that. He does have an ethical and professional duty to his client (PWCC), which may mean his client experiences (or does not experience) some "result" he/it otherwise would not have experienced without the Jeff's representation - on that matter, I have been honest with Jeff that I am rooting against him and would like to see serious repercussions as well as restitution.

All that said, please stop bashing him and/or bring up matters that are unrelated to the PWCC matter. Not because I like Jeff or care about his feelings, but because he is has been gracious enough to provide some info on the PWCC matter, which he does not have to do, and his posts are leading to articles. I think the more info the better it is best for us and the hobby at large, and emails bashing Jeff are likely to make him stop posting, which again is not good.

I agree. Girlfriends....or whatever else, doesn't have a thing relative to what we are talking about. And as far as I know most everyone has had a problem or done something they aren't too proud of in the past....just most of us haven't had it hit the newspaper.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am certainly in favor of restitution. I agree that it would not have happened this early if at all without Jeff's involvement. I can only hope that it ends up being more than a token or modest amount, although realistically there is no conceivable way it is going to come close to the harm inflicted by the many years of selling doctored cards.

That said, without any subpoena power and with most of the industry playing ostrich and refusing to help, the extent of card doctoring, knowing sale of doctored cards, and now (apparently) market manipulation that has been uncovered by collectors and one dealer assisting their efforts is staggering. If the federal government which of course has subpoena power nevertheless concludes that there is no prosecutable case here, or that it isn't worth it, and the culprits escape any significant punishment that in turn might deter others (or even themselves from keeping right on doing what they have been doing), there is no hope of ever cleaning up the cesspool that is this industry. Might as well just drink the Kool Aid and join the others admiring the emperor's new clothes and the trimmed, recolored, and bleached junk in slabs.

We'll see what happens. I am very much rooting against Jeff's client in that regard, and the others.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am certainly in favor of restitution. I agree that it would not have happened this early if at all without Jeff's involvement. I can only hope that it ends up being more than a token or modest amount, although realistically there is no conceivable way it is going to come close to the harm inflicted by the years of selling doctored cards.

That said, without any subpoena power and with most of the industry playing ostrich and refusing to help the effort, the extent of card doctoring, knowing sale of doctored cards, and now (apparently) market manipulation that has been uncovered by collectors is staggering. If the federal government which of course has subpoena power nevertheless concludes that there is no prosecutable case here, or that it isn't worth it, and the culprits escape any significant punishment that in turn might deter others (or even themselves from keeping right on doing what they have been doing), there is no hope of ever cleaning up the cesspool that is this industry.

We'll see what happens. I am very much rooting against Jeff's client in that regard, and the others.

White collar is always the way to go. You can take 10 million and pay 3 million back and be a hero and move on with life Market Manipulation/trimming pays... you just look bad on net54 boards..

but on a beach with 7 million net you look pretty good to all the ladies out there..


If you represent someone and you get them off with zero punishment and even exonerate them in exchange for ruining the hobby forever or #2 make your client have some type of punishment but make the hobby great.....you have to choose the zero punishment...please stop thinking anything else....a lawyer owes that to the client ...unless the client chooses the other option..

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am certainly in favor of restitution. I agree that it would not have happened this early if at all without Jeff's involvement. I can only hope that it ends up being more than a token or modest amount, although realistically there is no conceivable way it is going to come close to the harm inflicted by the many years of selling doctored cards.

.

And if it did and he had to pay everyone in the hobby...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3x24oA9sI8

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am certainly in favor of restitution. I agree that it would not have happened this early if at all without Jeff's involvement.

And you know this how?

[rhettyeakley]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I have spoken with Jeff, and I personally believe his heart and motives are in the right place here - he does feel he can do best for the hobby as an active participant, rather than as a spectator on the sidelines. And I respect that. He does have an ethical and professional duty to his client (PWCC), which may mean his client experiences (or does not experience) some "result" he/it otherwise would not have experienced without the Jeff's representation - on that matter, I have been honest with Jeff that I am rooting against him and would like to see serious repercussions as well as restitution.

All that said, please stop bashing him and/or bring up matters that are unrelated to the PWCC matter. Not because I like Jeff or care about his feelings, but because he is has been gracious enough to provide some info on the PWCC matter, which he does not have to do, and his posts are leading to articles. I think the more info the better it is best for us and the hobby at large, and emails bashing Jeff are likely to make him stop posting, which again is not good.

I agree with this.

I was surprised when Jeff took the case but once he explained it I understood (to a degree) what he is trying to do and I applaud that.

Brent, PSA, and the card doctors/shills are the bad actors here NOT Jeff! Leave the personal crap about the lawyer of one of the above out of this!

Personally I would like to see justice handed down to all those involved as it makes me sick (as it obviously did to Jeff as well as you can see from his first reactions).

At the minimum some things in this hobby will be cleaned up, at least some restitution may be forthcoming, and ultimately something good may come out of this really terrible situation. I have to be content with that. Personally I’d love all the unethical behavior and characters removed from the hobby, and that may happen over time but this is merely a step in the right direction.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I have spoken with Jeff, and I personally believe his heart and motives are in the right place here - he does feel he can do best for the hobby as an active participant, rather than as a spectator on the sidelines. And I respect that. He does have an ethical and professional duty to his client (PWCC), which may mean his client experiences (or does not experience) some "result" he/it otherwise would not have experienced without the Jeff's representation - on that matter, I have been honest with Jeff that I am rooting against him and would like to see serious repercussions as well as restitution.

All that said, please stop bashing him and/or bring up matters that are unrelated to the PWCC matter. Not because I like Jeff or care about his feelings, but because he is has been gracious enough to provide some info on the PWCC matter, which he does not have to do, and his posts are leading to articles. I think the more info the better it is best for us and the hobby at large, and emails bashing Jeff are likely to make him stop posting, which again is not good.

again, I feel the same way....just everyone stop attacking the guy. He did what he did. It's Fu**ed up, and just move on..... Like the hobby wants. To badger the guy is just stupid. It's his job. Save the vitriol for the scumbag he's representing. Brent Mastso, the King of Shill and cheater effer.

[MULLINS5]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

again, I feel the same way....just everyone stop attacking the guy. He did what he did. It's Fu**ed up, and just move on..... Like the hobby wants. To badger the guy is just stupid. It's his job. Save the vitriol for the scumbag he's representing. Brent Mastso, the King of Shill and cheater effer.

I don't care who represents any of these guys/companies. There's no need to badger the lawyers.

[celoknob]

Without getting into the muck, I find it very strange some of the naive accolades being spread here.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Client's best interest? Restitution? Jeff really has you guys fooled. Y'all are so gullible.

You think Jeff gives a shit about his client's best interest? He was hooking up with his girlfriend during El Chapo's trial. Was that in his client's best interest?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/el-chapos...-client-report

If you really think Jeff gives a shit about restitution? Tell me what kind of restitution did El Chapo's victims get? Should I post some extremely graphic images as a reminder?

Please! What a crock of shit!

Ive seen Jeff use the word scumbag multiple times on this site while attacking others. Are lawyers held to any accountibility when I read an article like the one posted? Does the Bar look into Ehtics of an attourney when something like this happens?

I wonder if other Criminal defense lawyers on this board would have taken on Brent as a client? Don't they have a choice?

[Peter_Spaeth]

There's nothing in that article that suggests any ethical violation. It's a personal matter.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There's nothing in that article that suggests any ethical violation. It's a personal matter.

Peter, that's a load of crap! I'm not an attorney and I don't know what is or is not an ethical violation, but do you think if he was in court while texting/thinking about his girlfriend that he can fully focus on the trial? How about this line from the article, "Lichtman also told his paramour that she was distracting him from the drug lord’s case. He said, according to the Post, that he was 'spending more time on your case than on the one where I got paid a million dollars.'"


And maybe that's not an ethical violation. I don't know and I don't care.
But it goes back to my original point. How do you focus on your client's best interest when the focus is on other things? I don't think you read the entire article. And this is not a personal attack on Jeff's character, it's to show that Jeff doesn't give a shit about anybody but Jeff.

Question for you though. If you were a defense attorney, would you defend Brent? And please don't give me the typical lawyer answer, "Well, but I'm not a defense attorney...blah, blah, blah." It's a hypothetical question. Would you or would you not defend Brent?

[pokerplyr80]

David the rest of us would like updates about this case from Jeff. He stated he won't be coming on to provide them if comments like yours continue. Can we keep attacks on his personal life off the board for now at least? If for no other reason than to leave a valuable line of communication open?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

David the rest of us would like updates about this case from Jeff. He stated he won't be coming on to provide them if comments like yours continue. Can we keep attacks on his personal life off the board for now at least? If for no other reason than to leave a valuable line of communication open?

Are you for real? Why would you believe anything he says?

[Snapolit1]

Personal stuff is beyond the pale. Would anyone on the board appreciate personal stuff? I don’t think so. You may not like his client but no need to engage in ad hominem attacks.

Jeff doesn’t need anyone blowing smoke up him ass. He’s obviously extraordinarily good at what he does. Some of you might not like lawyers and what they do. Entitled to your opinion. You prob won’t feel the same way when you or a family member has the government coming after them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, that's a load of crap! I'm not an attorney and I don't know what is or is not an ethical violation, but do you think if he was in court while texting/thinking about his girlfriend that he can fully focus on the trial? How about this line from the article, "Lichtman also told his paramour that she was distracting him from the drug lord’s case. He said, according to the Post, that he was 'spending more time on your case than on the one where I got paid a million dollars.'"


And maybe that's not an ethical violation. I don't know and I don't care.
But it goes back to my original point. How do you focus on your client's best interest when the focus is on other things? I don't think you read the entire article. And this is not a personal attack on Jeff's character, it's to show that Jeff doesn't give a shit about anybody but Jeff.

Question for you though. If you were a defense attorney, would you defend Brent? And please don't give me the typical lawyer answer, "Well, but I'm not a defense attorney...blah, blah, blah." It's a hypothetical question. Would you or would you not defend Brent?

I read it when it came out. It was a vicious personal attack that was not newsworthy and had no place even in a scummy tabloid. Considering the source, I doubt much of it was even accurate. And until today, even people who hate Jeff have been classy enough not to post it. It's a baseball card chatboard, not a sewer.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I read it when it came out. It was a vicious personal attack that was not newsworthy and had no place even in a scummy tabloid. Considering the source, I doubt much of it was even accurate. And until today, even people who hate Jeff have been classy enough not to post it. It's a baseball card chatboard, not a sewer.

A scummy tabloid? Ok, would you like to read it from another source?

https://www.barstoolsports.com/barst...-bernie-madoff

What exactly are you saying, Peter? That these text exchanges never took place? Read the linked article. It gives even more detail about the texts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

A scummy tabloid? Ok, would you like to read it from another source?

https://www.barstoolsports.com/barst...-bernie-madoff

What exactly are you saying, Peter? That these text exchanges never took place? Read the linked article. It gives even more detail about the texts.

I could not care less about Jeff's personal life. It's just that -- his personal life. Nobody should be publishing someone's private text messages about personal matters.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

A scummy tabloid? Ok, would you like to read it from another source?

https://www.barstoolsports.com/barst...-bernie-madoff

What exactly are you saying, Peter? That these text exchanges never took place? Read the linked article. It gives even more detail about the texts.

All that left me with are questions.

Like why is someone who swiped millions from her business staying in a $99 hotel room and ordering cheap pizza?

And just where the _ can you find a $99 hotel room?

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by BeanTown

I wonder if other Criminal defense lawyers on this board would have taken on Brent as a client? Don't they have a choice?

I've thought about this exact question since I heard/read the news. As someone who graduated from law school in the last decade, ethical training has changed A LOT compared to how things were back in the 80's and 90's. I'm not going to get into anything personal or take sides. But for those curious about ethics I think there's certainly a generational gap that needs to be factored in here. While it may seem cut and dry to most these technicalities do change with time. Jeff and Brent stand a good chance at making it into a Professional Responsibility law book in the near future.