[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Assuming you are talking broadly about altering cards and not just cleaning which some don't view as alteration at all, are you suggesting I don't know this area of the law and you do? Are you suggesting Brent's elite criminal defense lawyer who along with me explained this at length in the day and later advised Brent to cooperate doesn't know the law but you do? Are you suggesting SA Brusokas has spent years investigating activity that was perfectly legal? Come on Travis, stop it.

As to your question, which is fair and you should have stopped there, you need to understand the nature of mail and wire fraud. just altering the card hasn't yet defrauded anyone through the wires or mail. It only becomes a crime when those elements are met, in other words when there's been a scheme carried out through the wires or mail by means of a material misrepresentation or non-disclosure. In other words, it's not the sale per se of the altered card that's the problem, it's the non -disclosure of the fact that it's altered. If I trim a card, get it past the graders, and sell it with full disclosure, there's no fraud. So your logic -- if it isn't illegal to alter it, it can't be illegal to sell it -- misunderstands the nature of mail and wire fraud. Oh, and in your free time read the Mastro indictment and the part about the Wagner. The part that allegedly was mail fraud was not the trimming but the concealment.

Now if your REAL point is not that it couldn't be a crime, but that it isn't something that SHOULD be prosecuted, that would be a different point and discussion.

I'm not making claims about anyone's knowledge of the law or lack thereof. I think my primary concern with your argument is that you seem to just declare that restoring a baseball card for the purpose of profiting from it is tantamount to fraud. That may be a majority opinion among serious collectors, but I don't think the rest of the world sees it that way. I don't even think most people would view it as slimy behavior, let alone criminal. I think they would just roll their eyes at us. The fact that someone profits from something that a niche group of people dislike doesn't make it a crime. Can you point to something specific that clearly makes this behavior a crime?

The fact that Brent sought legal counsel is not evidence of criminal activity. He has not been charged with any crimes related to this scandal, to our knowledge, despite the FBI being all up in his business. Nor has anyone else for that matter. Ever in fact (to my knowledge). And it's not due to a shortage of evidence. The feds were handed mountains of irrefutable evidence of multiple card doctors having bought, altered, regraded, and then resold cards for a profit. They know the names behind every account those doctors used on every online platform and who all was involved. In my observation, they clearly decided this was a nothing burger. I'm open to being wrong with my read of the situation, but the clock sure is ticking on that being the case if so.

I do not read support for the argument that Mastro's mail fraud charge had something to do with trimming the Wagner. To me, it reads as though it's merely a footnote that gets mentioned, but no where is he actually charged for it. Also, I believe Mastro himself references this fact in one of his interviews. I'd have to find it, but I believe he expressly states that the Wagner had nothing to do with why he was charged. Also, multiple associates of his were charged with mail fraud in the same case, yet they had nothing to do with that card. Also, I believe he said he sold it to the next owner in person in a cash deal, so how could mail fraud even come into play if so? My understanding is that the mail fraud charge was for auctioning off (and shipping) a baseball that he and his associates knew was a counterfeit.

Another disconnect that we're having though is with respect to the legal obligations (or lack thereof) that someone would have to disclose what they've done to a card prior to selling it. Obviously, it's the "right" thing to do in most cases, but that doesn't make it an obligation. I realize this may seem outlandish on the face of it for something like trimming a card, but if you continue along this path, you eventually find yourself having to defend the position that wiping off a fingerprint or a smudge from a modern chrome card is an act of "card molestation" that "must be disclosed" (I'm quoting this from Sports Card Radio's recent YouTube video where he hilariously, and quite literally, states precisely this - and he wasn't joking).

The real problem from my viewpoint is that people foolishly place PSA on a pedestal and fail to educate themselves on what they're actually buying. I have zero sympathy for those "collectors" (or "investors"). I collect raw sets. I don't need PSA's remarkably inconsistent opinion on the condition of the vast majority of my collection. I probably wouldn't even care if I found out that a few of the cards in my sets had been trimmed (so long as they still measure and look accurate). With the cards I do submit for grading, I only do so because the market dictates that it's necessary. And in those cases, I stick to low and mid grade cards, so alterations aren't much of a concern. And if I get a BS grade, I crack it out and resubmit until I get an accurate grade.