If so, let's hope all of those get copied and pasted.

Ceiling bids
 

How do they know what the ceiling bids were? I thought they were confidential.

I don't think Bill ever claimed that. I think more recently, it has been claimed that as a result of changes to the software, the AH can't -- or can opt not to be able to -- see ceiling bids.

Yup. Very appropriate here, wouldn't you say?

Indeed!

As best I can tell, the bidding records are not accessible to the public.

To borrow a line from another thread - sports collectors are the most forgiving bunch of people in existence especially if the perp helped them expand their collection - even with shilled, altered and phony items.

But he has made his name himself among some other notable characters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud#Notable_fraudsters

He knew it was illegal when he was doing it... give him the max!

I wonder who made that edit. :)

My guess would be Matt the Knife. ;)

Reading through all of the testimonials, I find this statement highlighted in bold as being more damaging than obviously intended. I love participating in nascent struggling hobbies rather than high-dollar mature industries any day of the week.

Seems to me Bill was more interested in dealing with a nescient and not nascent hobby.

I don't know what that word means, I guess that makes me nescient.:D:D

He saw an industry with un-tapped potential, which needed a few questionable jump-start techniques in order for guys like himself, Marshall and James to realize their own personal financial potential (they were all "nascent" as well).

I practice in that building and in front of that judge often.
I take a slightly different view, but I understand the ire and anger towards Mastro for what he has done to this hobby.

His lawyers are just acting as zealous advocates for their client. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, a judge can consider both the actual federal guidelines (ussc.gov), as well as something called the "3553(a)" factors, which are characteristics of the defendant that the guidelines don't consider. These factors include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the personal history of the defendant, the risk of recidivism and harm to the public.

I have countless times given character letters to judges recounting my clients good deeds and selfless acts, despite being convicted of drug and gun trafficking, human trafficking, and also wire and health care fraud. The important thing is to sentence the entire person, not just the act for which he's plead guilty.
In that sense, I understand where his attorneys' are coming from. As a collector and someone who has bid in mastro's auctions, is disappointing, to say the least.

There are just so many, good, decent human traffickers out there, this makes me puke.

Then change the system. Under ours, a criminal defendant has a right to counsel, and counsel has an ethical obligation to represent the defendant zealously within the bounds of the law. There is nothing at all wrong with what Josh does, or what Mastro's lawyers did in this case (unless they misrepresented something).

Really?
 

There may not be anything illegal about what Josh does, but yes, there are many things wrong with it.

Peter is absolutely right. Reading what Mastro's attorneys say makes me want to puke too, but that is what their job is. Every criminal defendant has the right to zealous representation, irrespective of how heinous the crime is that they are charged with. Period. End of story. That's the way it works and that's the way it was designed to work by our founders for a multitude of good and sufficient reasons.

Back to the topic at hand, those who are aggrieved by Mastro's actions have the job of writing the judge and informing him why they believe he deserves a harsher penalty than Mastro's attorneys are requesting. I haven't looked at the docket sheet recently, but based on what I've read here, it sure seems like Mastro's lawyers are performing their obligation of zealously representing their client and many of those who feel aggrieved by Mastro's actions are doing, shall I say, a less than stellar job of zealously informing the judge why they think Mastro should get more than the proverbial slap on the wrist. As Jeff has previously indicated, the judge is unlikely to read this web site, so let him know your feelings via letter or quit your bitching.

Tell that to the people who wrote the Bill of Rights.

Peter wins the interwebs today with that one.

Almost the end of the story
 

[QUOTE=Kenny Cole;1440636]Peter is absolutely right. Reading what Mastro's attorneys say makes me want to puke too, but that is what their job is. Every criminal defendant has the right to zealous representation, irrespective of how heinous the crime is that they are charged with. Period. End of story. That's the way it works and that's the way it was designed to work by our founders for a multitude of good and sufficient reasons.

Unless they are broke. Then their representation isn't quite so zealous.

Sorry, my faith in the legal system is non-existent. End of story.

[QUOTE=buymycards;1440647]Jose Baez who represented Casey Anthony never got paid, or in any event is owed a sheetload of money. Did you think he was less than zealous? J.W. Carney who represented Whitey Bulger was not paid by Bulger or his family, but was appointed by the Court and paid out of public funds. Did you think he was less than zealous? What ARE you talking about?

I guess that you feel as if you had a bad experience. Lots of people feel that way when that happens. Generally, it is deemed to work pretty well by most statistical measures. Juries are generally right is what most studies show. What if you were broke and had to represent yourself? Would that be better?

Obviously, there are some lawyers who are more adept in their area than are others. That's also true for doctors, accountants, plumbers, electricians, ditch diggers, and just about any other job you can name. You pay for what you can afford, but at least you have the opportunity to get a fair shake in front of the trier of fact if you have even a minimally competent lawyer, which most are.

What legal system, in your experience, is better than ours? The middle east? Mexico? Switzerland? If you have no experience with a better legal system, what would you propose? Please provide specifics, because I am very curious about that.

I hope Josh won't mind if I repeat his (unused) marketing line: "Reasonable Doubt For a Reasonable Fee!".

Anyone arguing that all clients shouldn't get zealous legal representation should take a quick look at The Innocence Project.

Bill

Great thread but I am surprised anyone would think that a defendant shouldn't get every ounce of defense possible.

I didn't say they can't represent them or defend them, but to put in a good word for a human trafficker and hit the highlights on how great a human being they are, i mean, c'mon.

Yes, absolutely. It's Josh's job to put the best possible face on the defendant, not to do a half-ass job because he is repulsed by him. Judges (or juries if it's a death penalty case) can sort it out.

Hopefully they can and will sort it out, i never said it shouldnt be illegal to give a glowing testimony to a lowlife, but lying and calling them saints isnt necessarily doing the job right either. if the guy has no redeeming qualities at all and the lawyer says he is an upstanding citizen because it's his 'job' to do so, it's also a lie.

Is it a lie when people submit letters attesting to their redeeming qualities? No, it's an argument. Just as it is in this case, where various priests, heads of charities, and other community leaders wrote letters attesting to Bill's good deeds and personal attributes. We may see it as all self-serving and bs, but it's fair argument.

exactly, great lawyer talk. i agree, if you think this way, you got what it takes to be a lawyer.

And if you ever get charged with a crime and get convicted, rightly or wrongly, you better hope that lawyer is doing his/her job.

I think what judges need to do, especially in this case before Guzman, is to ask themselves the following question.

"if the defendant didn't get caught, would he still be participating in the illegal behavior to this day" i.e. not remorseful at all until caught?

if answer is yes, then full sentence.

LOL, that is one, among many others that a judge will ask themselves. Here in Oklahoma where I live, they answer that yes on just about every drug offense, which is one of the things that is draining the state dry. Sometimes a little common sense is also important.

thanks to the defense...
 

In some corner of my soul, I would love to see Bill Mastro get the maximum for his offenses, but yeah, I have to admit a zealous defense is pretty da*n important if we want to maintain the (reasonably) free society we have enjoyed in our lifetimes.

Tim

I don't think any attorney would call these clients "saints." My only point is that everyone has a mother.
you can find at least one redeemable quality in just about everyone.

The judge will also consider risk of recidivism, and the need to protect the public from further harm. The truth of the matter is that Mastro is out of the hobby, will be barred from running, or working in auction houses, and will forever be branded a convicted felon. The risk of him doing this again is significantly diminished.

Mastro is not out of the hobby -- he tried to buy a baseball card from me that I had listed on eBay -- and he is not barred from any industry, including the sportscard and memorabilia auction field. And being a convicted felon is almost a prerequisite to owning a sports auction house.

Lawyers
 

I had a good friend who hated lawyers and was always telling lawyer jokes. He called me one morning at 2am because his son had been arrested after an accident in which his girlfriend was killed and he was suspected of DUI. I was strictly a corporate lawyer but put him I touch with a guy like Josh. Guilty or not, it was his son and he wanted to do the best he could for him. I know a lot of good folks who don't think much of lawyers until they or someone they love needs one.

Do not know about anyone else, but in my 65 years I can not say I have never done anything that did not run afoul of some law and, that but for good luck or devine providence.. ..

I believe in his sentencing memorandum Mastro represents that he will not return to the field. Could the judge hold him to it and make that a condition of his sentence? I know in the securities industry it's fairly common to bar convicted defendants from further participation.

From my post 16 above. "Bill voluntarily left the industry he
loved, and will never work in it again."

To compare the securities industry and its layers of governmental oversight to the sports auction industry is like comparing the gross national product of Micronesia to that of the United States.

Claiming that he has "voluntarily" left the industry has no legal import. It means nothing. Has he requested an order from the Court which will prevent him from re-entering the industry? Has he asked that it be a condition of his supervised release or probation? No and no.

I was not making a comparison simply offering an example. I take it that a bar order is not likely to happen. So perhaps we will see him again down the road.

I agree that a vigorous defense of even the most deplorable criminal is necessary to maintain the integrity of our system. I have been consistently amazed by the amount of lawyers on this board, both real and pretend!

We have a diverse representation here of many occupations, but the lawyering field is likely the most entertaining: everything from the elite in their field to at least one who couldn't catch a rickshaw ambulance.

i got Diverse...

I have my own chocolate factory and cacao farm in the Dominican Republic.... ( in the Baseball Capitol of the world i might add)

Pretty sweet! :)

in terms of considering the need to protect the public from further harm, i would gather that the risk of not simply mastro doing it again, but anyone else doing it again, has some weight in the judge's evaluation.

Please tell us you've got a chocolate lake with a tube that could suck up a chubby visitor - Please.......Maybe that you've hired singing little people too :D

Steve B

Ok, that made my day. :D

Steve B

The government filed its response today. Here is the introduction.

In this submission, the government asks the Court to sentence defendant
WILLIAM MASTRO to a term of 20 months’ imprisonment because it is the
appropriate sentence in light of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§3553(a). In his private life, defendant demonstrated, through his charitable work,
that he is a person that knew right from wrong. Yet for seven years (from about
2002 to 2009) of his professional life - he opted to advance his own interests through
a series of lies and using his power as CEO of the auction house to serve himself
and defraud others.

While defendant was CEO of Mastro Auctions, shill bidding was pervasive
and the exact extent of the shill bidding will never be fully known – because, in
2003, when defendant became concerned that his shill bidding would be discovered,
he instructed an employee – and now co-defendant – to destroy the under bidder
records (which records are the primary evidence of the shill bidding) and kept right
on shill bidding for years.

However, in his sentencing memorandum, defendant offers a statistical
analysis in an effort to quantify the volume of shill bidding at Mastro Auctions
during the seven years of the scheme – which he calculates, as quite small.
Defendant’s statistical analysis is flawed and of limited value, however, because
defendant caused the under bidder records to be destroyed for auctions prior to 2007
(this includes records dating back to the 1990s when the auction house started
operating). Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 12, 15. So, under bidder records (or
records documenting the bids placed before the ultimate winning bid), which are the
key records law enforcement used to identify and investigate shill bidding at Mastro
Auctions are not available to law enforcement for approximately five of the seven
year scheme (and for any year prior to 2007). Notably, in calculating the guidelines
in his case, given the absence of records, the government has not held defendant
accountable as part of its loss calculations for shill bidding in auctions prior to 2007
(even though defendant admitted in his plea that it occurred between 2002 and
2007). Id. ¶ 15.

Thus, in calculating its loss and investigating the shill bidding – the
government has been handicapped by being limited to records from auctions dating
from April 2007 to February 2009 - which amounts to approximately 12 of 36
auctions conducted during the scheme period. But, even in that limited time frame,
there was shill bidding on over 1300 lots. And, as explained below, this shill
bidding took place largely after defendant learned in 2007 of an the FBI
investigation– which would suggest that the volume of shill bidding was greater
prior to 2007. While each shill bid did not result in an immediate significant
financial benefit to defendant - at its core, it was done to advance defendant’s own
business interests at the expense of others. Whether he was cheating a bidder out
of a certain sum or keeping a consigner happy with a protective bid – it was done to
advance his own interest and as a fraudulent tool to grow Mastro Auctions into the
largest auction house.

Defendant’s undisputed Guidelines range is 57 to 60 months’ imprisonment.
See PSR ¶¶26-46, 113. The government seeks a below guidelines sentence here
because: (1) the defendant continues to provide substantial assistance with the
government’s investigation and prosecution of the charged co-defendants in this
case and for that reason, pursuant to Section §5K1.1(a), the government moves the
Court to depart from the Guidelines and impose a sentence of 20 months’
imprisonment; (2) mitigating information regarding defendant’s history and
characteristics, including his charitable activities and his family history; (3) the
deterrent value in the memorabilia auction industry of having defendant—a longtime
leader in the industry—take criminal responsibility for his role in shill bidding
and the sale of certain altered sports memorabilia; and (4) given uncertainties in
reaching the appropriate loss calculation under the guidelines in this particular
case.

Accordingly, in light of the offense conduct and the § 3553 sentencing factors,
including defendant’s cooperation with law enforcement and the mitigation of
defendant’s family history and charitable works – a below guideline sentence of 20
months is warranted. Conversely, a sentence of probation, as requested by
defendant, is not appropriate and will serve to send the wrong message that
defendant’s crime is not a serious one and that he was able to avoid taking full
responsibility for his years of lies through unrelated good works.

seriousness of the offense -- government position
 

The defendant’s involvement in shill bidding, his concealment of the shill
bidding, and selling altered memorabilia is a serious offense. The long-running and
systematic nature of the scheme undermines confidence in the auction house and
sports memorabilia industries, and calls into question the true value of merchandise.
As defendant correctly notes, the actual financial harm to any individual victim was
limited, they received the items they won, and at times, through the use of ceiling
bids, victims expressed a willingness to spend the additional money for an item they
wanted at auction. However, in this case, the intended loss was much greater. The
parties agree that through shill bidding the defendant’s intended loss was hundreds
of thousands of dollars and between $400,000 and $1,000,000. PSR ¶ 15; See
Government’s Version at 15-24. In other words, this is the amount that the
defendant intended to drive up the auction prices through shill bidding.

While defendant is correct that bidders were not cheated out of huge sums by
being duped by defendant and his co-defendants at auction to pay more for an item
than necessary and ultimately received the item they bid on at the auction – it was
still driven by fraud and cheated (or attempted to cheat) some bidders out of money.
And, regardless of the amount, using his position and power as CEO to steal money
from bidders and fraudulently drive up auction prices is still a serious offense.
Defendant notes that many of the victims of his scheme were sophisticated and
financially well off – however, that is with the benefit of hindsight. At the time he
cheated these victims - it is unlikely defendant knew their financial means.
Additionally, the offense is serious because it causes the true value of certain
auctioned merchandise to be called into questioned. The auctions were falsely
advertised as fair with items going to the highest bidder. And, when concluded –
auction results were shared and falsely showed that 99 percent of items were sold.
Certainly, these auction results, which were at times false, would be consulted as a
tool in the industry to determine prices for future transactions on the same or
related merchandise – much like a person using prior comparable home sales to
determine the value of a home. However, given defendant’s seven year scheme,
which often inflated the ultimate sale price of items or made it falsely appear that
items were sold for a certain value when in reality they just went back to the
consignor– these results, have to be called into question going forward by collectors
and investors. Moreover, the auction results prior to 2007 must be particularly
scrutinized because the exact scope of the shill bidding cannot be fully known – as
those records were destroyed.

As defendant points out, the motive for the offense cannot be chalked up to
simple greed because the immediate financial incentive of cheating a bidder was not
a windfall to defendant. However, through shill bidding defendant intended to drive
up prices hundreds of thousands of dollars – which is no small sum. See PSR ¶ 15.
Additionally, this offense seems to be largely driven by defendant’s desire to develop
Mastro Auctions into the biggest and the most successful auction house in the
industry. As a result, instead of letting the auction processes dictate the value of an
item, which might have been less than a consignor or defendant believed appropriate
– defendant used shill bidding to set the value he felt appropriate. This largely
meant using shill bids to falsely create bidder interest in an item, drive up the
ultimate winning bidder, or to protect a consignor from having an item go for too low
a price. In the end, defendant injected shill bidding to advance his own interest in
promoting the auction house as the premiere auction house that sold a high volume
of items at high values. In the end, defendant’s ultimate goal was to beat the
competition and garner more business for his auction house and in the end, more
money for him.

Defendant’s offense is also serious because he was the CEO of the auction
house for the entire scheme period. He had the authority and power to control how
the auction house operated. He opted to use this power to take a hands-on role to
promote shill bidding and to cover it up. For instance, around 2001, defendant
instructed co-defendant Bill Boehm, who was employed at the auction house as an
information technology employee, to get defendant an unused bidder account that he
could use to make shill bids. See Docket Entry Number 145 (Boehm Plea
Agreement) at 3. Boehm complied with defendant’s request and provided defendant
the account of Individual F.D. – an individual Boehm knew never used his account to
bid in auctions. Id. Defendant then used this account to make shill bids. Id. at 3-4.
In 2003, defendant wanted to conceal his shill bidding and instructed Boehm to
destroy under bidder records for Individual F.D. as well as historical under bidder
records. Id. at 4. Defendant further instructed Boehm to destroy under bidder
records in future auctions. Id. Defendant continued to shill bid in auctions - he just
wanted to make sure that the evidence was destroyed. PSR ¶¶8,9, 12, 15, 33.
Defendant’s efforts to get a lower-level employee involved in the shill bidding and
instructing that same employee to destroy the evidence – further add to the severity
of defendant’s offense.2