Mastro sentencing update

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

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.

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).

[vintagewhitesox]

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.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by vintagewhitesox

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by travrosty

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).

[buymycards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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).

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by buymycards

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

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

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Peter wins the interwebs today with that one.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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).

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.

[buymycards]

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

[QUOTE=buymycards;1440647]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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.

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?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by buymycards

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.

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.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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).

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by travrosty

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.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.