REA catalog just arrived…. almost as fun as the old time Sears Christmas

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I seem to recall the claim made by myself and others wasn't that it had nothing to do with the case but rather that it had nothing to do with the sentencing. He wasn't charged for trimming the Wagner and he wasn't sentenced for it. It seems to have only come up because he was trying to propose a plea deal and/or as a way to demonstrate what sort of character he was.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'll go one step further. I'm tripling down on my claim. Peter's take is bullshit. And there are numerous lawyers in the hobby that disagree with his take as well. Mastro was not charged or sentenced for trimming the Wagner or for not disclosing said trimming. Period.

Originally Posted by Snowman

You guys can keep dancing around this all you want. You can argue semantics or say I'm misusing terms or "moving the goalposts" or whatever you want. I don't care. My main point has been quite clear from the beginning of this conversation (which started elsewhere, years ago and which Peter just can't seem to let go of for some strange reason). My point is and always has been that nobody, including Mastro, has ever been "tried and convicted?", "charged and convicted?", "tried by a jury?", "found guilty by a judge?" for the "crime" (or however the hell you want to word it) of altering and selling a sports card. It hasn't happened. And you pointing to the fact that it was mentioned in a lengthy indictment full of other crimes for which he could not escape in a case that didn't go to trial because he struck a plea deal doesn't mean he would have been found guilty of that charge by a judge or a jury. It just doesn't. I get that in the "logic" of lawyer-land, you guys all think a "conviction" by plea deal is equivalent to a conviction by a jury, because "Yay! I won my case!", but it doesn't make it true. HE WAS NEVER TRIED ON THE CHARGE OF ALTERING/SELLING THAT WAGNER. Not by a jury. Not by the standard that matters with respect to what I've been arguing now for years.

Why would this distinction matter? Again, not a lawyer here, but I'd wager my left nut that a plea deal does not set a precedent for jack shit with respect to future cases for precisely the reasons I'm alluding to (and likely many others).

Originally Posted by Snowman

What does the indictment have to do with this conversation? You can put whatever you want in an indictment. What matters is what he was actually found guilty of and sentenced for. That's what we're talking about. Show me where I can find something along the lines of the jury saying "As to count #11, we the jury find the charge of the defendant trimming the Honus Wagner baseball card and failing to disclose said alteration upon selling it: GUILTY".

You can't because it didn't happen.

I'm not saying it wasn't brought up at trial. I'm saying he wasn't sentenced for it and he didn't go to prison for it.

Aspergers guy getting frisky.