PWCC Huigens Now Has a Criminal Defense Attorney

[Republicaninmass]

Lots of people punching WELL above their weight these days.

[Moonlight Graham]

Seems to me Brent screwed a lot of people for a lot of money. I think it's kind of cool that a fellow board member is now going to take a lot of money from him.

Joe Kemmett

[hcv123]

I do not know Jeff personally, but have read many of his posts here. He has been a champion of the hobby. I believe if Brent was represented by a different attorney, he very well could have been advised to take different actions than refunding those who have purchased doctored cards. I presume Jeff thought about and is walking a bit of a fine line here. Facilitating both what is in his clients best legal interest while helping some people get restitution. I trust his practice and intention here.

[Johnny630]

I wonder who else is giving money to this victims restitution fund ?

Who is funding all the refunds ? Does PWCC have enough bread in their vault to cover the bad card ? Is PSA saying the cards are altered when returned to PWCC or is PWCC making that call ?

Is PSA be investigated ? I’m not taking up for anyone but geez how can PSA not be held somewhat responsible/..not criminally responsible but liable for negligence in grading thousand of these bad cards. That Cap Anson Peter previously posted from Blowout was Awful....originally Slabbed by PSA as Altered in MH then later a PSA 4 in PWCC ....idk it’s very depressing...more ugly cards each day discover by BO Detectives who along with Peter have done a great service.

When all litigation is over and adjudication rendered, will the bad cards in government evidence be returned to PSA to be removed from the Pop Report? if and when PSA deems them as altered ?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I do not know Jeff personally, but have read many of his posts here. He has been a champion of the hobby. I believe if Brent was represented by a different attorney, he very well could have been advised to take different actions than refunding those who have purchased doctored cards. I presume Jeff thought about and is walking a bit of a fine line here. Facilitating both what is in his clients best legal interest while helping some people get restitution. I trust his practice and intention here.

Client's best interest? Restitution? Jeff really has you guys fooled. Y'all are so gullible.

You think Jeff gives a shit about his client's best interest? He was hooking up with his girlfriend during El Chapo's trial. Was that in his client's best interest?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/el-chapos...-client-report

If you really think Jeff gives a shit about restitution? Tell me what kind of restitution did El Chapo's victims get? Should I post some extremely graphic images as a reminder?

Please! What a crock of shit!

[jhs5120]

Can we try to refrain from personal attacks.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Truth hurts, huh?

[jhs5120]

Guess that’s a no.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Client's best interest? Restitution? Jeff really has you guys fooled. Y'all are so gullible.

You think Jeff gives a shit about his client's best interest? He was hooking up with his girlfriend during El Chapo's trial. Was that in his client's best interest?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/el-chapos...-client-report

If you really think Jeff gives a shit about restitution? Tell me what kind of restitution did El Chapo's victims get? Should I post some extremely graphic images as a reminder?

Please! What a crock of shit!

Ive seen Jeff use the word scumbag multiple times on this site while attacking others. Are lawyers held to any accountibility when I read an article like the one posted? Does the Bar look into Ehtics of an attourney when something like this happens?

I wonder if other Criminal defense lawyers on this board would have taken on Brent as a client? Don't they have a choice?

[Peter_Spaeth]

There's nothing in that article that suggests any ethical violation. It's a personal matter.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There's nothing in that article that suggests any ethical violation. It's a personal matter.

Peter, that's a load of crap! I'm not an attorney and I don't know what is or is not an ethical violation, but do you think if he was in court while texting/thinking about his girlfriend that he can fully focus on the trial? How about this line from the article, "Lichtman also told his paramour that she was distracting him from the drug lord’s case. He said, according to the Post, that he was 'spending more time on your case than on the one where I got paid a million dollars.'"


And maybe that's not an ethical violation. I don't know and I don't care.
But it goes back to my original point. How do you focus on your client's best interest when the focus is on other things? I don't think you read the entire article. And this is not a personal attack on Jeff's character, it's to show that Jeff doesn't give a shit about anybody but Jeff.

Question for you though. If you were a defense attorney, would you defend Brent? And please don't give me the typical lawyer answer, "Well, but I'm not a defense attorney...blah, blah, blah." It's a hypothetical question. Would you or would you not defend Brent?

[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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I do not know Jeff personally, but have read many of his posts here. He has been a champion of the hobby. I believe if Brent was represented by a different attorney, he very well could have been advised to take different actions than refunding those who have purchased doctored cards. I presume Jeff thought about and is walking a bit of a fine line here. Facilitating both what is in his clients best legal interest while helping some people get restitution. I trust his practice and intention here.

I think you have to take with a grain of salt anything a lawyer says about what their clients intention is etc... If another lawyer was worried about the hobby more than the client it would be a conflict of interest to the client

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Moonlight Graham

Seems to me Brent screwed a lot of people for a lot of money. I think it's kind of cool that a fellow board member is now going to take a lot of money from him.

Joe Kemmett

Me too