Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You keep moving the goalposts. I cannot have an intelligent discussion with you. First you said he wasn't charged with it. Then you said he wasn't convicted of it. Now you want an example of a jury verdict, even though legally it's the same thing as a guilty plea, where SOMEONE ELSE was convicted. I never said I knew cases where a jury had convicted anyone of a charge related to trimming or concealment of trimming. Most criminal cases don't go to trial. I have been talking exclusively about the Mastro case, and so have you until you just shifted the goalposts yet again because every single thing you postulate has been proven to be wrong. So where are all these "lawyers in the hobby" who disagree with my take on the MASTRO CASE?

Are you that ego invested that you can't just see that you were wrong, and move on?

No YOU keep moving my goal posts. I said "charged and convicted" not just "charged". My point in the earlier thread and still to this day has always been that no one has ever been charged with and convicted of altering a sports card. You were the one who then brought up the Mastro case as your example to tell me that I'm wrong. But it's materially different and you know it.

Lawyers stack indictments full of charges that they know won't stick all the time Peter. They use it as leverage to try to get a plea deal. You can't then point to a plea deal agreement and say that everything listed in it is why someone went to prison. Some of those charges would have stuck, some of them wouldn't.

Remember, this whole discussion all started from the trimming scandal involving PWCC, Gary Moser, et al. I said from the begging that nobody was going to prison for any of it. You told me I was an idiot and that the FBI doesn't take up cases like this without very good reasons. I laughed at you. You laughed at me and called me ignorant. But I'm sure those charges are coming... Any day now... Any day now...

[Peter_Spaeth]

A guilty plea is a conviction. And he specifically admitted it in pleading guilty. Here is a quote from his sentencing memorandum.

2 Although the vast majority of the offense conduct concerns shill bidding, Bill has also accepted responsibility
for his role in the sales of two authentic items whose condition or appearance was altered. First, Bill
acknowledged having personally altered one item, the T-206 Honus Wagner card, by cutting its side borders.
(Plea Agr. (Doc. No. 99) at 12-13). Bill voluntarily waived the statute of limitations to acknowledge this
conduct. Although the Wagner card was authentic, Bill was not honest about the alteration when he sold it and
for years afterward. Bill has now fully disclosed and accepted responsibility for the alteration, and the Wagner
card remains one of the most valued items of sports memorabilia, having resold since these allegations became
widely publicized for its highest price ever. The Government agrees that Bill’s conduct related to the Wagner
card did not involve any loss for Guidelines purposes. (Id. at 13-14).

So he's charged with it, he specifically admits to it and pleads guilty to it, but it somehow doesn't count because there was no jury trial? Alternate reality.

BTW you said he wasn't "charged" multiple times. Start with 83 and 91. Sure you also said he wasn't sentenced, but you objected to BOTH propositions, not just the latter.

PS my goalposts are exactly where they have been. Mastro was charged, admitted it, and pled guilty, to the Wagner offense among other things.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I still maintain the FBI was on solid LEGAL ground pursuing Brent and his ilk, but that they must have had evidentiary concerns not the least of which was that Brent from what I infer decided not to cooperate after all.

[G1911]

Can we identify any of these 'numerous lawyers in the hobby' that believe that being indicted for something is not being charged with that thing, and that pleading guilty to the charge and it being one of the things sentenced for is not being sentenced for it? Since they are numerous, I am sure we can get one of these lawyers to explain this novel legal theory to us laypersons.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Can we identify any of these 'numerous lawyers in the hobby' that believe that being indicted for something is not being charged with that thing, and that pleading guilty to the charge and it being one of the things sentenced for is not being sentenced for it? Since they are numerous, I am sure we can get one of these lawyers to explain this novel legal theory to us laypersons.

For context.

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.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

Can we identify any of these 'numerous lawyers in the hobby' that believe that being indicted for something is not being charged with that thing, and that pleading guilty to the charge and it being one of the things sentenced for is not being sentenced for it? Since they are numerous, I am sure we can get one of these lawyers to explain this novel legal theory to us laypersons.

Lionel Hutz, for one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Mr. goalposts, here was your theory a year ago lol. I cannot even count the number of errors here, but suffice it to say you've completely changed your theory while pretending you haven't. You did well with your first three words but it was downhill from there.

I'm no lawyer, but when I read through discussions of this topic on the Blowhard forums a few years back, I seem to recall most of the lawyers there were in agreement that he had not in fact been charged with any crimes in relation to the Wagner card. But rather it was brought up during the trial as a mere testimony to his character, or lack thereof. Him basically just trying to come clean with anything and everything he could in an effort to gain favor and get a more lenient sentence. But he was not directly charged with a crime for anything related to the Wagner. You mention that he admitted to trimming the Wagner in his plea deal, but that plea deal was rejected by the judge. He was not sentenced for anything to do with the Wagner.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Lionel Hutz, for one.

We probably can’t afford blue haired lawyer

[G1911]

Originally Posted by G1911

Can we identify any of these 'numerous lawyers in the hobby' that believe that being indicted for something is not being charged with that thing, and that pleading guilty to the charge and it being one of the things sentenced for is not being sentenced for it? Since they are numerous, I am sure we can get one of these lawyers to explain this novel legal theory to us laypersons.

It's starting to look like the fraudman is unable to provide a single one of these lawyers in the hobby. I am shocked!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's starting to look like the fraudman is unable to provide a single one of these lawyers in the hobby. I am shocked!

Oh we've moved on from that. Goalpost shift.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh we've moved on from that. Goalpost shift.

I'm sorry, I just have fun sticking with this clowns lies!