PWCC Huigens Now Has a Criminal Defense Attorney

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

All I can say to this is I’m sure 99% of you wish you were in the financial position he is. I’m not bragging because I’m sure he could care less what any of you think but again, he did not take this case for the fee. As hard as this may be to do, try and think through how this problem would have played out without his involvement. Like all of the others maybe? People are getting paid back for altered cards, stories are getting written in national papers, and so on. Do you think with any of your involvement this could have happened? Is it better nothing gets done or all of us just complaining on message boards?

You're right. I probably do wish I was in the financial position he is in. On the other hand, I thank God I've got way more moral character than he has. Which is better? At the end if my life, when I'm laying on my deathbed, is it better to look back on my life and say, "I wish I would have made more money" or say "I wish I would have had more integrity"? He can take his money and shove it up his ass because money without integrity still equals broke in my book. He may have millions in the bank, but he's morally bankrupt.

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

You're right. I probably do wish I was in the financial position he is in. On the other hand, I thank God I've got way more moral character than he has. Which is better? At the end if my life, when I'm laying on my deathbed, is it better to look back on my life and say, "I wish I would have made more money" or say "I wish I would have had more integrity"? He can take his money and shove it up his ass because money without integrity still equals broke in my book. He may have millions in the bank, but he's morally bankrupt.

David, unlike him you have no choice. When you’re broke with no possibility of that changing it’s very easy to choose integrity over money.

[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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

David, unlike him you have no choice. When you’re broke with no possibility of that changing it’s very easy to choose integrity over money.

I assure you I'm not broke. But, even if that were the case, I'd rather be broke and have integrity rather than to be wealthy with no integriy.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I assure you I'm not broke. But, even if that were the case, I'd rather be broke and have integrity rather than to be wealthy with no integriy.

I don’t know how this transcended into finances, morals and whatever but nonetheless I’m happy to hear you are not broke and look forward to bidding against you on some great cards at upcoming auctions. But continuing to bring up Jeff’s personal issues, which are really between him and his family and none of us know really know what transpired anyway, only makes you look petty and I’m not sure this is the appropriate forum for that. Maybe if you feel this strongly it would be better for you to reach out to your clergyman and discuss the problems you have with him?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

Who said he texted anyone during a trial?

[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???

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

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?

I’m sure he sexting girls while in court cross-examining witnesses. And let’s add in that he’s also having sex with them during lunch breaks. And I’ve also seen him text while driving a couple times too so let’s throw that in there too.

Unfortunately this conversation has deteriorated and I’m left with thinking you are nothing but a petty, jealous, moron. Oh but I forgot, a petty, jealous moron with lots of integrity.

[Snapolit1]

Lawyer bashing on he board is de riguer. Pretty soon someone will be ignorantly misquoting Shakespeare. Count on it.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

Unfortunately this conversation has deteriorated and I’m left with thinking you are nothing but a petty, jealous, moron.

Look in the mirror, douchebag.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

Because everyone is putting their names on their comments.

There's a fine line though. Jeff has a wife and a family. Regardless of who agrees and disagrees and however we all feel there's no need to go there period when talking about another member.

[JeremyW]

Originally Posted by kateighty

There's a fine line though. Jeff has a wife and a family. Regardless of who agrees and disagrees and however we all feel there's no need to go there period when talking about another member.

I agree 100%. The only thing that I've said against Jeff was his interview on CBS when he said that El Chapo had been nice to him. As that it some excuse for all the crimes that El Chapo committed.

[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.....

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Look in the mirror, douchebag.

I’m looking brother and all I see is a guy who is trying to help you. You should all look up the definition of the phrase “self fulfilling prophecy” because most of you won’t be happy until it gets to that.

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

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.....

I get the disappointment Kevin and I assure you I was as well. However as this all plays out I am beginning to see it differently so let’s see what transpires in the near future and then perhaps we will all understand things a little differently than we do today. Doesn’t make one side right or wrong but a baseball game doesn’t end until 27 outs are made. And don’t start with rainouts!

[Rhotchkiss]

I have no pull, but I would love to see this thread locked/pulled down. It has deteriorated into all out name calling and bashing people for things that have nothing to do with cards or scandals in the card industry.

Jeff is representing PWCC. It will be what it be. Going to get my popcorn....

Steven, sell me your W600 Wagner!!!

[pokerplyr80]

He says he took the case in part so he can be on the inside and work to make sure as many collectors as possible can be made whole. Whether or not any of us believe him is irrelevant. His actions will prove his words true or untrue in the coming months. What is the harm in giving him a chance to do what he said he will do?

The personal attacks against another member should have no place on this board. Especially regarding his personal life. There are countless examples in many threads not just related to Jeff or even PWCC. This site has been going down hill for a while in terms of negative and inappropriate comments. Many members have even left, or avoid commenting for the most part, which is unfortunate. And I think we may have hit a new low with this thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Lawyer bashing on he board is de riguer. Pretty soon someone will be ignorantly misquoting Shakespeare. Count on it.

"Unsext me here"?

[CuriousGeorge]

I appreciate you guys wanting to stop the name calling and the rest but I assure you I’m a big boy as is my brother and we can handle it. At the end of the day I think we all want the same thing and unfortunately frustration sometimes gets in the way and things deteriorate as they have here. Hopefully we all can put our hopes and trust in Jeff, since we really don’t have much of a choice anyway, and see where that takes us. I know which way I’m betting but if I were him and had to put up with this abuse, it would give me a lot less incentive to help. My two cents for whatever that’s worth.

And Ryan I will see you next at the Famous and Barr Ruth! You cost me plenty on that Wagner!

[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.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I agree 100%. The only thing that I've said against Jeff was his interview on CBS when he said that El Chapo had been nice to him. As that it some excuse for all the crimes that El Chapo committed.

Also agreed. In all seriousness if Jeff was all "yeah El Chapo is mean and a real jerk!" who knows if he'd be alive to represent Brent. I mean going from El Chapo to El Brento. Who would have thought.

[SMPEP]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Lawyer bashing on he board is de riguer. Pretty soon someone will be ignorantly misquoting Shakespeare. Count on it.

Lead on macduff!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by SMPEP

Lead on macduff!

Bubble bubble toil and trouble.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I have no pull, but I would love to see this thread locked/pulled down. It has deteriorated into all out name calling and bashing people for things that have nothing to do with cards or scandals in the card industry.

Jeff is representing PWCC. It will be what it be. Going to get my popcorn....

Steven, sell me your W600 Wagner!!!

I don't have any pull either. I think there might be something else behind this thread.

[asphaltman]

Originally Posted by kateighty

I don't have any pull either. I think there might be something else behind this thread.

As in why is Leon letting it continue? I don’t know. I know he and Jeff haven’t always seen eye to eye but don’t think that’s influencing this thread remaining open.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

Hopefully we all can put our hopes and trust in Jeff, since we really don’t have much of a choice anyway, and see where that takes us.

Nope. That actually made me laugh out loud. Now you're pressing it.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

As in why is Leon letting it continue? I don’t know. I know he and Jeff haven’t always seen eye to eye but don’t think that’s influencing this thread remaining open.

That is total BS...Leon lets forum threads run for the most part... Hell, I've seen threads up for a month! BST threads are more sensitive.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by JeremyW

I agree 100%. The only thing that I've said against Jeff was his interview on CBS when he said that El Chapo had been nice to him. As that it some excuse for all the crimes that El Chapo committed.

And that is at least enough to have your full name out here, I would think? I know you but most others probably don't.

[asphaltman]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

That is total BS...Leon lets forum threads run for the most part... Hell, I've seen threads up for a month! BST threads are more sensitive.

I’m not arguing that. I was asking where the previous comment was hinting at.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by kateighty

I don't have any pull either. I think there might be something else behind this thread.

LIke what? It is what it is....Jeff is representing a crook that he has lambasted on this forum since Moby Dick was a minnow!

[Leon]

The forum has been going downhill for the last 18 yrs. Hopefully there will be 18 more.

One other small thing, my goal is always to try my best to not interfere with threads. That is why they stay up and don't get locked, generally speaking, and almost never go poof. And if there is negativity then that is what it is. I don't tell people what to say or not to say. If someone has their name next to it I think they should be able to fire away, per the less than strict rules pertaining to our subject matter.

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

He says he took the case in part so he can be on the inside and work to make sure as many collectors as possible can be made whole. Whether or not any of us believe him is irrelevant. His actions will prove his words true or untrue in the coming months. What is the harm in giving him a chance to do what he said he will do?

The personal attacks against another member should have no place on this board. Especially regarding his personal life. There are countless examples in many threads not just related to Jeff or even PWCC. This site has been going down hill for a while in terms of negative and inappropriate comments. Many members have even left, or avoid commenting for the most part, which is unfortunate. And I think we may have hit a new low with this thread.

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

As in why is Leon letting it continue? I don’t know. I know he and Jeff haven’t always seen eye to eye but don’t think that’s influencing this thread remaining open.

No, unrelated to Leon. I'm thinking in trial terms and legal specifics down the road. Brother saying what he has on here something doesn't seem right. Hopefully I'm just neurotic and wrong!

[asphaltman]

Originally Posted by kateighty

No, unrelated to Leon. I'm thinking in trial terms and legal specifics down the road. Brother saying what he has on here something doesn't seem right. Hopefully I'm just neurotic and wrong!

Jeff maybe telling his brother to zip it once he sees this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What does any of this have to do with a trial? It's a message board, not evidence.

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by asphaltman

Jeff maybe telling his brother to zip it once he sees this.

Brother ain’t telling me what to do anywhere.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by CuriousGeorge

Brother ain’t telling me what to do anywhere.

LOL. This must be an interesting family dynamic.

[CuriousGeorge]

Until they get Brent and Moser bankrupt, in jail for life and free parking vouchers for the next trade show they won’t be happy.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What does any of this have to do with a trial? It's a message board, not evidence.

What is said here can absolutely be used as evidence in a trial, no?

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think there are NDAs but as I posted there is IMO no chance that whatever amount Brent and a few other card doctors pay back will even scratch the surface of the amount of their ill gotten gains, or the harm inflicted on the hobby.

Is it better than no restitution? Yes, of course. Is it an adequate punishment for the crime? That to me is the real question. We'll see what happens.

I just want the cheater effer to come out and say HE targeted the cards that were to be trimmed and altered, HE ran a shill bidding operation, he cheated e-bay, HE didn't pay his taxes on ill gotten gains. HE put stupid stickers on cards he knew were his and trimmed. HE was Eddie Embelisher in his descriptions. HE was the Maestro. How fitting his name is Brent Mastro, pun intended.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

What is said here can absolutely be used as evidence in a trial, no?

It would depend what it was and for what purpose it was being offered. What on this thread could possibly be admissible in a trial against PWCC or Brent?

[CuriousGeorge]

Originally Posted by Leon

What is said here can absolutely be used as evidence in a trial, no?

Yes this will all be Exhibit A in United States vs Brent Mastro. Leon, seriously you’re kidding right?

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

I just want the cheater effer to come out and say HE targeted the cards that were to be trimmed and altered, HE ran a shill bidding operation, he cheated e-bay, HE didn't pay his taxes on ill gotten gains. HE put stupid stickers on cards he knew were his and trimmed. HE was Eddie Embelisher in his descriptions. HE was the Maestro. How fitting his name is Brent Mastro, pun intended.

Knowing Brent and Betsy Huigens, sincere good luck with that....

[kateighty]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

LOL. This must be an interesting family dynamic.

I'm guessing their family Thanksgiving is going to be pretty pretty pretttyyy interesting this year.