Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[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!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

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

They've shifted so many times it's hard to keep up, even though I'm sort of used to the tactic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Note that he's gleeful that the FBI ultimately did not pursue the investigation. How pathetic is that? Anyone concerned about the hobby should be disappointed in their decision, and the freedom it confers on criminals to keep up the same shit without fear of reprisal, not gleeful about it. Not our boy though. He's giddy. Taunting, because (for the wrong reasons) he predicted this one right.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Note that he's gleeful that the FBI ultimately did not pursue the investigation. How pathetic is that? Anyone concerned about the hobby should be disappointed in their decision, and the freedom it confers on criminals to keep up the same shit without fear of reprisal, not gleeful about it. Not our boy though. He's giddy. Taunting, because (for the wrong reasons) he predicted this one right.

Note also how it is an issue of being wrong about a future facing prediction vs. being wrong about extremely well documented past events and lying about what is in the indictment. Kind of different, one could say.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Note also how it is an issue of being wrong about a future facing prediction vs. being wrong about extremely well documented past events and lying about what is in the indictment. Kind of different, one could say.

I had no crystal ball or special insight or inside information. I did think, given what I knew, that something would come of it. And I certainly hoped it would. I don't know exactly what happened, but I am sure that the issue was not the lack of a viable legal theory. That part of it was easy.