PWCC Huigens Now Has a Criminal Defense Attorney

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Same question to you that I asked Jason. Where were you when Jeff was making personal attacks on Brent?

But, again, it's not a personal attack. It's to show that Jeff doesn't give a shit about anybody but Jeff. Many of you have had the wool pulled over your eyes and you're too blind to see it but, like I said, Jeff has you guys so fooled. You actually think he gives a shit about this hobby. What a bunch a puppets.

[bobfreedman]

Jeff will take his ball and take it home if we don't stop picking on him? If we dont stop picking on him, he wont give us updates. I am sorry but, he brought this upon himself. He was the one who made claims against Brent and PSA and now if we behave, we will be allowed to read his posts? BLECH!!!! I am sure I will be ok without them as most of what will come out will be public record anyway.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

Jeff will take his ball and take it home if we don't stop picking on him? If we dont stop picking on him, he wont give us updates. I am sorry but, he brought this upon himself. He was the one who made claims against Brent and PSA and now if we behave, we will be allowed to read his posts? BLECH!!!! I am sure I will be ok without them as most of what will come out will be public record anyway.

Agreed. I could care less if he comes on again and gives "inside " information on the case or anything for that matter. He chose his side on this one.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Jeff was attacking Brent concerning his actions in the hobby. I don't think you are using personal the way the rest of us are.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Jeff was attacking Brent concerning his actions in the hobby. I don't think you are using personal the way the rest of us are.

Yup, Jeff was attacking Brent concerning his actions in the hobby - in other words Brent's career, right? So what's the problem with me "attacking" Jeff about his career?

You certainly fell for Jeff's bullshit hook, line and sinker.

And I don't give a shit if Jeff doesn't update the board. You think he's really going to tell us anything that we can read somewhere else? Like he's going to give us some secret shit? Get real!

Do yourself a favor next time you're in the grocery store check out line. Grab you a National Enquirer and read it. It has more credibility than Jeff ever had.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Same question to you that I asked Jason. Where were you when Jeff was making personal attacks on Brent?

But, again, it's not a personal attack. It's to show that Jeff doesn't give a shit about anybody but Jeff. Many of you have had the wool pulled over your eyes and you're too blind to see it but, like I said, Jeff has you guys so fooled. You actually think he gives a shit about this hobby. What a bunch a puppets.

Oh, so lawyers really tend to "spin" things just to suit their needs and sway public opinion. I'm shocked!

[kateighty]

Paging Leon! Personal jabs here seem to be getting out of control! I might not agree with Jeff but even I'm wondering why these comments are being permitted.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by Leon

I think if you go back and look you will see I wasn't as much fooled as I took a wait and see approach. For the record, Mastro was never an advertiser on this forum. And lastly, if you go back and look, I can guarantee I never said either Mastro or Doug weren't guilty. I just wouldn't do that. It gets said so much it is believed but is far from the truth. Go spend some time and find it, you won't. Mostly it's little internet anonymous trolls that spread the lies and then folks like yourself believe them. It's ok, you aren't alone. I usually just let these kind of statements go but figure I might as well correct the incorrect record of some things. Now, that all said, of course both of those guys are charismatic. A lot of people committing fraud are. I should also say, at one time I admit I was friendly with Doug and Mastro but only in a few hobby scenarios.....and never knew they committed fraud until it came out they did. And in the end, except for restitution, got mostly what it seemed they deserved.

As far as Jeff defending Brent, while leading the charge against fraud in the hobby, I will let others discuss it.

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

Yes he is my younger brother which only makes me even more infuriated that he would represent such a lying, slimy piece of garbage, who intentionally tried to f*ck me and did so to many of you. But all I can say now is grab of box of popcorn and watch this play out. Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war.

Originally Posted by kateighty

Paging Leon! Personal jabs here seem to be getting out of control! I might not agree with Jeff but even I'm wondering why these comments are being permitted.

Because everyone is putting their names on their comments.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree, these personal attacks are way out of line, and have nothing to do with cards.

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Come on. You're smarter than that. If I have a lawyer representing me and instead of focusing on my case he's sexting his girlfriend, I'd be pretty pissed about it. I'm no lawyer, Peter, but isn't that grounds for a retrial if he's doing that in a courtroom? You say no ethics violations occurred, but I strongly disagree.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Come on. You're smarter than that. If I have a lawyer representing me and instead of focusing on my case he's sexting his girlfriend, I'd be pretty pissed about it. I'm no lawyer, Peter, but isn't that grounds for a retrial if he's doing that in a courtroom? You say no ethics violations occurred, but I strongly disagree.

Now you're an expert on legal ethics. That is truly hysterical.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now you're an expert on legal ethics. That is truly hysterical.

Do you not see the "?"

In the English language, that represents a question.

I don't profess to be an expert on legal ethics. That's why I asked YOU the question. I'll ask it again. If I have a lawyer representing me, but instead he's sexting his girlfriend in court during the trial, would I have grounds for a retrial?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Come on. You're smarter than that. If I have a lawyer representing me and instead of focusing on my case he's sexting his girlfriend, I'd be pretty pissed about it. I'm no lawyer, Peter, but isn't that grounds for a retrial if he's doing that in a courtroom? You say no ethics violations occurred, but I strongly disagree.

The retrial is the part that I find genius. I am no lawyer so I could be seeing this wrong. Now if Brent doesn't get the result he wants cant he use Jeffreys posts on here to claim his lawyer didn't represent him to the best of his ability?

Also IF Jeffrey is doing this for the good of the hobby and not the cash. Couldn't he have donated his services to the FBI to put Brent away?

To me his recent posts said, hire me or I will bury you with all the evidence I have against you.

I could be wrong but this is my take on the situation.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bnorth

The retrial is the part that I find genius. I am no lawyer so I could be seeing this wrong. Now if Brent doesn't get the result he wants cant he use Jeffreys posts on here to claim his lawyer didn't represent him to the best of his ability?

Also IF Jeffrey is doing this for the good of the hobby and not the cash. Couldn't he have donated his services to the FBI to put Brent away?

To me his recent posts said, hire me or I will bury you with all the evidence I have against you.

I could be wrong but this is my take on the situation.

This is exactly what I referred to back on the first page of the threads....Can these former posts and threads come back to haunt him? Having said that, I absolutely have issue with Jeff's decision to represent Huigens, it paints a very ugly picture on what has been a very long, angered, and disapproved situation of PWCC and Brent Huigens, a lot of which were initiated by Lichtman... I stated previously that it was hypocritical and lacked integrity.. I do believe, however, that Jeff's personal and business life (outside of the baseball card world) should not be presented in this type of forum.....

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Come on. You're smarter than that. If I have a lawyer representing me and instead of focusing on my case he's sexting his girlfriend, I'd be pretty pissed about it. I'm no lawyer, Peter, but isn't that grounds for a retrial if he's doing that in a courtroom? You say no ethics violations occurred, but I strongly disagree.

Go to law school David and get back to us.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody should be publishing someone's private text messages about personal matters.

Not even high character individuals with superior morals???

[taul166]

If any of you are members of Baseball's HOF and receive their periodic publications, you will see that Brent is in a group photo from inside the museum that shows the group cutting the ribbon that opens the new exhibit on baseball cards in Cooperstown.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by taul166

If any of you are members of Baseball's HOF and receive their periodic publications, you will see that Brent is in a group photo from inside the museum that shows the group cutting the ribbon that opens the new exhibit on baseball cards in Cooperstown.

How many of the cards are altered?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How many of the cards are altered?

If history has shown us anything it would be ALL the ones with the cool little PWCC stickers on them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by taul166

If any of you are members of Baseball's HOF and receive their periodic publications, you will see that Brent is in a group photo from inside the museum that shows the group cutting the ribbon that opens the new exhibit on baseball cards in Cooperstown.

Desecrating a sacred site.

[BeanTown]

What was the ribbon cutting party for? Were they opening up the Steroid (cheating) section at the Hall?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by taul166

If any of you are members of Baseball's HOF and receive their periodic publications, you will see that Brent is in a group photo from inside the museum that shows the group cutting the ribbon that opens the new exhibit on baseball cards in Cooperstown.

I wonder... are they the same scissors that... Nah, couldn't be!

[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?

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by steve B

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?

Queens or the Bronx?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

Queens or the Bronx?

You're kidding?

20 years ago the company I worked for hosted a hydraulics convention. No decent hotel was available anywhere in the Boston area then for under about 125/night.
We needed a bit of room, so the motel 6 or the more local "Caswell motel" were out.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by steve B

You're kidding?

20 years ago the company I worked for hosted a hydraulics convention. No decent hotel was available anywhere in the Boston area then for under about 125/night.
We needed a bit of room, so the motel 6 or the more local "Caswell motel" were out.

Not places where you would want to stay ever...