Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[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