Card doctoring video

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But I'm the one accused of spinning the facts to meet my narrative. It's right there in black and white in the charging document, but somehow he wasn't charged with it, it was just something that was brought up LATER to reflect on his character, and he admitted it not because it was part of the charges to which he had to answer, but because he was a good citizen coming clean.

The denial and contrarian and counterfactual bullshit on this thread top anything I have seen yet on Net 54.

We see every week or so that a great many people structure the argument after the conclusion, and do so without any regard whatsoever for provable facts. That feels like the normal. The combination of a complete lack of ethics alongside the stupidity elevates this one. On the plus side, it gives a good roster of names not to buy or trade with. People who think criminal fraud is legal and morally acceptable tend to be dishonest in their dealings and greatly heighten the risk factor.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

We see every week or so that a great many people structure the argument after the conclusion, and do so without any regard whatsoever for provable facts. That feels like the normal. The combination of a complete lack of ethics alongside the stupidity elevates this one. On the plus side, it gives a good roster of names not to buy or trade with. People who think criminal fraud is legal and morally acceptable tend to be dishonest in their dealings and greatly heighten the risk factor.

Dunno about you, but when a question comes up about an indictment, I don't look to the indictment itself or the official government press release, I look to my memory of what some anonymous people said almost a decade ago on a chatboard.

Speaking of the actual indictment:

11. It was further part of the scheme that in marketing materials distributed
on behalf of Mastro Auctions, which were intended to portray Mastro Auctions to
potential bidders and consignors as a premier seller of valuable items for which a
strong market existed, defendant MASTRO represented that Mastro Auctions had sold
the most expensive baseball card in the world, a Honus Wagner T-206 card. In making
this representation, however, defendant MASTRO knowingly omitted the material fact
that defendant MASTRO had altered the baseball card by cutting the sides of the card
in a manner that, if disclosed, would have significantly reduced the value of the card.

You probably don't need to be a lawyer to understand what "It was further part of the scheme" means.

Anyone still want to claim he wasn't charged with selling an altered card without disclosure?

[MikeGarcia]

[nolemmings]

I would add that the intentional misrepresentation or omission of a material fact is actionable as civil fraud, and has been for more than the nearly 40 years I have been practicing in Arizona. I am confident that the law is similar in all states. Moreover, apart from being a common law cause of action, many states have statutes on the books for consumer fraud. Arizona at least has a broad view of what conduct can fall within the statute and even allows such claims to be proven by the far less stringent burden of proof-- preponderance of the evidence. Heck, in theory the Attorney General here is authorized to investigate and pursue claims for consumer fraud, and it is not taken lightly, although the politics and resources involved in those decisions are always in play. The law addresses “any deception, unfair act or practice, false statement, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation” and is actionable if relied upon by the plaintiff/victim, regardless of whether such reliance was reasonable.

In sum, to suggest that card alteration is only morally wrong but cannot comprise a crime or other unlawful conduct is just simply incorrect. {redundant for emphasis}

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno about you, but when a question comes up about an indictment, I don't look to the indictment itself or the official government press release, I look to my memory of what some anonymous people said almost a decade ago on a chatboard.

Speaking of the actual indictment:

11. It was further part of the scheme that in marketing materials distributed
on behalf of Mastro Auctions, which were intended to portray Mastro Auctions to
potential bidders and consignors as a premier seller of valuable items for which a
strong market existed, defendant MASTRO represented that Mastro Auctions had sold
the most expensive baseball card in the world, a Honus Wagner T-206 card. In making
this representation, however, defendant MASTRO knowingly omitted the material fact
that defendant MASTRO had altered the baseball card by cutting the sides of the card
in a manner that, if disclosed, would have significantly reduced the value of the card.

You probably don't need to be a lawyer to understand what "It was further part of the scheme" means.

Anyone still want to claim he wasn't charged with selling an altered card without disclosure?

It's in reference to a non-criminal scheme, of course. That's why it's in the indictment and plea deal.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by G1911

We see every week or so that a great many people structure the argument after the conclusion, and do so without any regard whatsoever for provable facts. That feels like the normal. The combination of a complete lack of ethics alongside the stupidity elevates this one. On the plus side, it gives a good roster of names not to buy or trade with. People who think criminal fraud is legal and morally acceptable tend to be dishonest in their dealings and greatly heighten the risk factor.

I have learned quite a few things while reading this thread. The portion above, in bold, was likely the most helpful.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by G1911

We see every week or so that a great many people structure the argument after the conclusion, and do so without any regard whatsoever for provable facts. That feels like the normal. The combination of a complete lack of ethics alongside the stupidity elevates this one. On the plus side, it gives a good roster of names not to buy or trade with. People who think criminal fraud is legal and morally acceptable tend to be dishonest in their dealings and greatly heighten the risk factor.

I will stop after this last response, but I find it sad that you would think to cut off some from business/trade dealings just because they have a different opinion on a 8 year old court case. My goodness.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I will stop after this last response, but I find it sad that you would think to cut off some from business/trade dealings just because they have a different opinion on a 8 year old court case. My goodness.

I avoid deals with people who think fraud is acceptable. For the obvious reason, as my selfish interest is in not getting defrauded. People who think fraud is alright are much more likely to commit fraud. Sad!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Let's be clear. There is no difference of "opinion" about the Mastro case. What there is, is blatant and disingenuous misrepresentation of the factual record, even in the face of the operative documents.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's be clear. There is no difference of "opinion" about the Mastro case. What there is, is blatant and disingenuous misrepresentation of the factual record, even in the face of the operative documents.

I agree. Someone here is blatantly and disingenuously misrepresenting the factual record of the Mastro case to make it appear as though he was convicted of fraud for trimming and selling the Wagner when that simply isn't true. He keeps pointing to the indictment and a rejected plea deal as if those are the same thing. It's not. He also continues to imply that the mail fraud charge that Mastro was convicted of corresponded to the trimmed Wagner, even though he knows full well that it did not. The Wagner was sold directly, in person, to Jim Copeland in 1987 as a cash deal. It was not mailed, and couldn't possibly be considered mail fraud.

No one has ever, to our knowledge, been convicted of fraud (or any other charges for that matter) for trimming and selling cards. It is what it is, and pretending as if that's not the reality we all live in is not helpful. It is just wishful thinking.

Let's get one thing straight though, since some here wish to put words in my mouth that don't belong there. I do not condone trimming cards. As I have said repeatedly, I think it is unethical and a shitty thing to do.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I see you've now backed off your claim that the Wagner was only something "brought up later." Progress.

Mastronet sold the Wagner in 2000.
http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_3.html

In any event, the indictment is not charging him with fraud in connection with the sale to Copeland, it's talking about Mastro Auctions marketing materials which allegedly misrepresented or concealed material facts about the Wagner. Was it a weak claim, could he have prevailed at trial? Maybe so. My only point is that the assertion was made here that the Mastro case did not involve a charge concerning the Wagner and I posted relevant documents to show that it did. Again, it was not the focus of the case, for sure.


And how do you think he was sentenced if he didn't plead guilty? Yes, initially the judge rejected the parties' sentencing proposal, that doesn't mean the substance of the plea agreement was abrogated. You can't sentence someone without a guilty plea or verdict. That's why the official press release from the government continues to refer to the substance of the plea agreement. Or maybe a new one saying the same substantive things was substituted, I would have to check the docket, but it's irrelevant.

I have never claimed the Wagner was a factor in the length of the sentence. I would have to go back and see if the record reflects that one way or the other (and I doubt it was a factor) but it's unimportant to my point.

And you still are ducking MY question, which is why, if there is no conceivable crime for selling an altered card without disclosure, did the FBI investigate for several years, issue scads of subpoenas, etc.?

That is all.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And you still are ducking MY question, which is why, if there is no conceivable crime for selling an altered card without disclosure, did the FBI investigate for several years, issue scads of subpoenas, etc.?

That is all.

Sorry, I intended to address your question earlier, but got sidetracked. I will concede that someone at the FBI (Brusokas?) clearly shares your view that this behavior amounts to fraud, or they wouldn't have even bothered pursuing it.

My argument since the beginning though was that they would eventually discover that their views are not shared by the majority. I forget who it was, but one of the larger hobby content creators recently shared that they ran a poll with their audience and were shocked to learn that 30% of their followers thought it was perfectly acceptable behavior and saw nothing wrong with it whatsoever. And those are people *in this hobby*. Add in the percentage of collectors who are on the fence about it, and those who think it's unethical but not criminal, and then extrapolate that data to people *outside* the hobby, and it becomes quite clear that getting a jury to buy your argument and actually convict someone of fraud is an uphill battle.