Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[Snowman]

Yes Peter, you can charge someone with whatever the hell charges you want in an indictment. Obviously, some threshold has to be met, but just because something is listed on an indictment doesn't mean they are guilty of said charges. Hence in a trial, the jury gives verdicts for each charge.

If you want to argue that he went to prison for trimming/selling the Wagner because he struck a plea deal and it never went to trial, then fine. But that's something different from what I'm talking about and you know it.

Find me a single court case where someone was charged with and convicted BY A JURY for altering and/or selling an altered baseball card. I'll wait...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes Peter, you can charge someone with whatever the hell charges you want in an indictment. Obviously, some threshold has to be met, but just because something is listed on an indictment doesn't mean they are guilty of said charges. Hence in a trial, the jury gives verdicts for each charge.

If you want to argue that he went to prison for trimming/selling the Wagner because he struck a plea deal and it never went to trial, then fine. But that's something different from what I'm talking about and you know it.

Find me a single court case where someone was charged with and convicted BY A JURY for altering and/or selling an altered baseball card. I'll wait...

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?

[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.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I feel like I’ve just taken crazy pills and somehow no one recalls who and what Bill Mastro is.

+1

[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.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

Thanks for posting this, Peter. It was entertaining to say the least.

An actual quote from later in the video: “If you cannot detect the alteration, okay, in any way, shape, or form, is it altered?”

This is a ridiculous statement by Bill Mastro trying to justify his bad behavior. It's like saying:

"If I steal something and don't get caught, is it really stealing?"

jeff

[calvindog]

I expect Bill's priest, who he dragged to every court appearance, to pop up here and speak on his behalf.

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Was Brian somehow, someway unaware that much of Bill’s criminal behavior running Mastro Auctions was his creation of fake accounts to run up his customers’ bids while knowing what their ceiling bids were? And his telling Mastro employees to secretly hit lots over and over to run up the prices, creating hidden reserves?

I feel like I’ve just taken crazy pills and somehow no one recalls who and what Bill Mastro is.

100% agree. Too many people in get hobby are easily forgiven for fraud. A few even made a comeback this summer. It’s BS.

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Lionel Hutz, for one.

We probably can’t afford blue haired lawyer

[puckpaul]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Right.

The problem seems to be in Mastro’s insistence that he didn’t hide it (the fact it was cut) from anyone, vs. the stories that started circulating after Gretzky and McNall bought the card and PSA graded it.

You can kind of see Mastro’s side of the story though. At the time he cut it from the sheet or the “oblong football” of a card he bought, there were no grading companies. Even after PSA graded the card in 1992 or whenever, there still was not this widespread focus on the deceptive practice of trimming, what a certain type of card should or should not measure to up to 1/72 of an inch - and things like that. Mastro likely wasn’t asked much about the circumstances in which he acquired the card and what he did with it before selling it to Jim Copeland in the late 80’s. There was not this cloud of eternal suspicion over things like that, as we have today with just about anything in a slab that is vintage that appears perfect or near perfect to the naked eye.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No widespread focus on trimming?? There was a huge focus on it, and it was rampant. I discussed this with quality dealers and hobby people all the time back then. I didnt purchase PSA cards because of the deals made to get grades on trimmed cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

No widespread focus on trimming?? There was a huge focus on it, and it was rampant. I discussed this with quality dealers and hobby people all the time back then. I didnt purchase PSA cards because of the deals made to get grades on trimmed cards.

Of course there was. Ironically, the rampant trimming at that time was the very marketing pitch on which PSA launched its business.

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

No widespread focus on trimming?? There was a huge focus on it, and it was rampant. I discussed this with quality dealers and hobby people all the time back then. I didnt purchase PSA cards because of the deals made to get grades on trimmed cards.

many high grade trimmed vintage cards in older PSA holders. it's laughably sad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by tjisonline

many high grade trimmed vintage cards in older PSA holders. it's laughably sad.

People wanted high grade cards, and were and are willing to pay for the illusion that they were real. Hall saw the opportunity in this and, in my opinion, made certain compromises with certain card doctors.

[OhioLawyerF5]

As a lawyer in the hobby, snowman, you don't know what you are talking about. The facts supporting the charge are listed in the indictment. If he ultimately pled guilty to the charge, unless part of the plea deal was to amend the indictment by removing those specific facts, a plea of guilty is a complete admission to the facts alleged in the indictment. Thus, that plea of guilty results in a conviction on the charge, and a finding of facts as alleged in the count that was pled guilty to, even if those facts constitute a small part of the scheme that made up the charge.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

As a lawyer in the hobby, snowman, you don't know what you are talking about. The facts supporting the charge are listed in the indictment. If he ultimately pled guilty to the charge, unless part of the plea deal was to amend the indictment by removing those specific facts, a plea of guilty is a complete admission to the facts alleged in the indictment. Thus, that plea of guilty results in a conviction on the charge, and a finding of facts as alleged in the count that was pled guilty to, even if those facts constitute a small part of the scheme that made up the charge.

It's even beyond that because in his filings he specifically admitted to those facts.

[calvindog]

Where’s Dmitri Young these days?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's even beyond that because in his filings he specifically admitted to those facts.

That's fine, but what matters as to what he's convicted of is what's said at the plea hearing (and in the indictment). He can admit to anything he wants in filings, but if he doesn't enter a plea on the count containing those facts, he's not convicted of those facts.

I'm not digging into his plea, because frankly I don't care. I was just correcting smowman's misstatements about the law. If he pled to the count of the indictment containing those facts, he's guilty of those facts. Period.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That's fine, but what matters as to what he's convicted of is what's said at the plea hearing (and in the indictment). He can admit to anything he wants in filings, but if he doesn't enter a plea on the count containing those facts, he's not convicted of those facts.

Yes of course. I was just making a belt and suspenders point. In any event, neither of us apparently knows anything, per Travis.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by puckpaul

No widespread focus on trimming?? There was a huge focus on it, and it was rampant. I discussed this with quality dealers and hobby people all the time back then. I didnt purchase PSA cards because of the deals made to get grades on trimmed cards.

Thanks for the info. I honestly didn't know; I was 14 in 1991. Where I guess I was going was, did the average collector then look at a nice expensive card and ask if it had been trimmed? Maybe not for 50's cards. But I guess maybe if you were considering buying a Wagner you would.

So there were "deals made" to get grades on other trimmed cards even in the early PSA days? Interesting. You always hear the argument that PSA was the savior of the wild wild west scene, where nobody knew whether cards had been altered or not. But if they were making deals from the getgo of slabbing trimmed cards with the profit motive - I guess that's just earlier than I realized.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

People wanted high grade cards, and were and are willing to pay for the illusion that they were real. Hall saw the opportunity in this and, in my opinion, made certain compromises with certain card doctors.

Does anyone else find it laughable that in the 30-for-30, Hall just says with a poker face "It doesn't look trimmed to me..." when discussing being in the grading room with Mastro's Wagner?

Really? Hall is supposedly the world's foremost expert on T206, who at the time had the most complete master set of backs and variations ever assembled. That's the best answer he could give? Not any kind of lengthy discussion on genuine size variation, paper stock, appearance under magnification, nothing? That's the PSA "expertise" we get on that card all these years later?

Sheesh.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by tjisonline

100% agree. Too many people in get hobby are easily forgiven for fraud. A few even made a comeback this summer. It’s BS.

Most collectors today turn a blind eye to the fraud that is and has been committed and are enablers. It shocks me sometimes that some of the worst in the hobby get as much support as they do.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes of course. I was just making a belt and suspenders point. In any event, neither of us apparently knows anything, per Travis.

You guys can keep dancing around this all you want. You can argue semantics or say I'm misusing terms or "moving the goalposts" or whatever you want. I don't care. My main point has been quite clear from the beginning of this conversation (which started elsewhere, years ago and which Peter just can't seem to let go of for some strange reason). My point is and always has been that nobody, including Mastro, has ever been "tried and convicted?", "charged and convicted?", "tried by a jury?", "found guilty by a judge?" for the "crime" (or however the hell you want to word it) of altering and selling a sports card. It hasn't happened. And you pointing to the fact that it was mentioned in a lengthy indictment full of other crimes for which he could not escape in a case that didn't go to trial because he struck a plea deal doesn't mean he would have been found guilty of that charge by a judge or a jury. It just doesn't. I get that in the "logic" of lawyer-land, you guys all think a "conviction" by plea deal is equivalent to a conviction by a jury, because "Yay! I won my case!", but it doesn't make it true. HE WAS NEVER TRIED ON THE CHARGE OF ALTERING/SELLING THAT WAGNER. Not by a jury. Not by the standard that matters with respect to what I've been arguing now for years.

Why would this distinction matter? Again, not a lawyer here, but I'd wager my left nut that a plea deal does not set a precedent for jack shit with respect to future cases for precisely the reasons I'm alluding to (and likely many others).

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

So there were "deals made" to get grades on other trimmed cards even in the early PSA days? Interesting. You always hear the argument that PSA was the savior of the wild wild west scene, where nobody knew whether cards had been altered or not. But if they were making deals from the getgo of slabbing trimmed cards with the profit motive - I guess that's just earlier than I realized.

PSA knowingly built their entire brand off the backs of trimmers. The early cert holders are chock full of trimmed cards. Nearly all high-grade vintage cards are trimmed or otherwise altered and/or severely overgraded, and 99% of them are early certs.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You guys can keep dancing around this all you want. You can argue semantics or say I'm misusing terms or "moving the goalposts" or whatever you want. I don't care. My main point has been quite clear from the beginning of this conversation (which started elsewhere, years ago and which Peter just can't seem to let go of for some strange reason). My point is and always has been that nobody, including Mastro, has ever been "tried and convicted?", "charged and convicted?", "tried by a jury?", "found guilty by a judge?" for the "crime" (or however the hell you want to word it) of altering and selling a sports card. It hasn't happened. And you pointing to the fact that it was mentioned in a lengthy indictment full of other crimes for which he could not escape in a case that didn't go to trial because he struck a plea deal doesn't mean he would have been found guilty of that charge by a judge or a jury. It just doesn't. I get that in the "logic" of lawyer-land, you guys all think a "conviction" by plea deal is equivalent to a conviction by a jury, because "Yay! I won my case!", but it doesn't make it true. HE WAS NEVER TRIED ON THE CHARGE OF ALTERING/SELLING THAT WAGNER. Not by a jury. Not by the standard that matters with respect to what I've been arguing now for years.

Why would this distinction matter? Again, not a lawyer here, but I'd wager my left nut that a plea deal does not set a precedent for jack shit with respect to future cases for precisely the reasons I'm alluding to (and likely many others).

Hm. Still waiting for any of these numerous lawyers to be identified.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You guys can keep dancing around this all you want. You can argue semantics or say I'm misusing terms or "moving the goalposts" or whatever you want. I don't care. My main point has been quite clear from the beginning of this conversation (which started elsewhere, years ago and which Peter just can't seem to let go of for some strange reason). My point is and always has been that nobody, including Mastro, has ever been "tried and convicted?", "charged and convicted?", "tried by a jury?", "found guilty by a judge?" for the "crime" (or however the hell you want to word it) of altering and selling a sports card. It hasn't happened. And you pointing to the fact that it was mentioned in a lengthy indictment full of other crimes for which he could not escape in a case that didn't go to trial because he struck a plea deal doesn't mean he would have been found guilty of that charge by a judge or a jury. It just doesn't. I get that in the "logic" of lawyer-land, you guys all think a "conviction" by plea deal is equivalent to a conviction by a jury, because "Yay! I won my case!", but it doesn't make it true. HE WAS NEVER TRIED ON THE CHARGE OF ALTERING/SELLING THAT WAGNER. Not by a jury. Not by the standard that matters with respect to what I've been arguing now for years.

Why would this distinction matter? Again, not a lawyer here, but I'd wager my left nut that a plea deal does not set a precedent for jack shit with respect to future cases for precisely the reasons I'm alluding to (and likely many others).

What precedent for future cases do you think a conviction after a jury trial would set? You should be careful wagering body parts n a field you know nothing about, by the way, as a gambler you certainly should know this.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What precedent for future cases do you think a conviction after a jury trial would set? You should be careful wagering body parts n a field you know nothing about, by the way, as a gambler you certainly should know this.

Probably also jack shit

[Peter_Spaeth]

It may not be intuitive to you, but a conviction via a guilty plea is legally the same as a conviction by a judge or jury after trial. The overwhelming majority of convictions are via a guilty plea. As a layperson, perhaps it seems less meaningful to you, but instead of fighting endlessly about the law and the facts of the actual case, you could have just said that all along.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You guys can keep dancing around this all you want. You can argue semantics or say I'm misusing terms or "moving the goalposts" or whatever you want. I don't care. My main point has been quite clear from the beginning of this conversation (which started elsewhere, years ago and which Peter just can't seem to let go of for some strange reason). My point is and always has been that nobody, including Mastro, has ever been "tried and convicted?", "charged and convicted?", "tried by a jury?", "found guilty by a judge?" for the "crime" (or however the hell you want to word it) of altering and selling a sports card. It hasn't happened. And you pointing to the fact that it was mentioned in a lengthy indictment full of other crimes for which he could not escape in a case that didn't go to trial because he struck a plea deal doesn't mean he would have been found guilty of that charge by a judge or a jury. It just doesn't. I get that in the "logic" of lawyer-land, you guys all think a "conviction" by plea deal is equivalent to a conviction by a jury, because "Yay! I won my case!", but it doesn't make it true. HE WAS NEVER TRIED ON THE CHARGE OF ALTERING/SELLING THAT WAGNER. Not by a jury. Not by the standard that matters with respect to what I've been arguing now for years.



Why would this distinction matter? Again, not a lawyer here, but I'd wager my left nut that a plea deal does not set a precedent for jack shit with respect to future cases for precisely the reasons I'm alluding to (and likely many others).

You, sir, are the one attempting to play the semantics game. And poorly I might add.

Because contrary to your understanding of the law, "charged and convicted" is precisely what Mastro was. The fact that the charge wasn't called "trimming sports cards" is irrelevant. And the fact that you think it is shows how little you know of criminal law.

I can slap you in the face with a rubber chicken, and be charged and convicted of assault. Does that mean I wasn't convicted for hitting you in the face with a rubber chicken? Of course not. Those facts formed the basis for the charge. If Mastro is convicted of fraud, he was convicted of the facts that constituted the fraud. Which not coincidentally, are those facts listed in the indictment.

You won't find a charge where someone is charged with trimming a card alone. Because as you know (since it's part of YOUR little semantics game), merely trimming a card isn't a crime. However, trimming a card and concealing that fact to deceive a buyer into paying you more money for it, IS a crime. And that crime will be charged under its own statutory name. In my jurisdiction it's called "theft by deception."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Travis likes to reason backwards from the fact that the government ultimately decided not to pursue anyone in the "scandal" to conclude there's no possible crime in knowingly selling altered cards without disclosure. Of course that's not at all logical, but it's another one of his favorite sideshows.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Travis likes to reason backwards from the fact that the government ultimately decided not to pursue anyone in the "scandal" to conclude there's no possible crime in knowingly selling altered cards without disclosure. Of course that's not at all logical, but it's another one of his favorite sideshows.

He likes to tell lies about the case because arguing that trimming card and selling them without disclosure is not illegal is part of his thesis for why it's okay to defraud people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

He likes to tell lies about the case because arguing that trimming card and selling them without disclosure is not illegal is part of his thesis for why it's okay to defraud people.

Since the first revelations by BODA, there's been a steady drumbeat of people with no understanding of the law -- i.e., Fraud 101 -- making that claim.

[OhioLawyerF5]

People can think what they want, but I'm a prosecutor. And make no mistake, trimming a card to deceive a buyer into paying more for it will be charged as theft by decpetion every time in my jurisdiction as well criminal simulation. And if you do it as a business model, I will charge with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity as well (which is a high-level felony in Ohio).

Look up criminal simulation in Ohio. It is RC 2913.32. It describes precisely what trimming a card to deceive is.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Listen to the whole first hour because there is a TON of hobby history talked about by a person with first hand experience.

First hand experience in shilling his own auctions too I hear.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

PSA knowingly built their entire brand off the backs of trimmers. The early cert holders are chock full of trimmed cards. Nearly all high-grade vintage cards are trimmed or otherwise altered and/or severely overgraded, and 99% of them are early certs.

A tradition that has been followed, it seems, until recently and not just high grade but mid grade too. I think they appear to be running a more legit operation under Turner in regards to blindly grading bad cards.

When one of the first cards that got graded, at the time, was valued at over a million dollars, they set that precedent by grading it an 8.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

He likes to tell lies about the case because arguing that trimming card and selling them without disclosure is not illegal is part of his thesis for why it's okay to defraud people.

This is really it in a nutshell. Unless Travis has brain damage he’s just trying to convince himself and us that altering a card and selling it without disclosure isn’t a chargeable offense. Gee, I wonder why? I’d be careful buying a card from him after reading his bullshit.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

This is really it in a nutshell. Unless Travis has brain damage he’s just trying to convince himself and us that altering a card and selling it without disclosure isn’t a chargeable offense. Gee, I wonder why? I’d be careful buying a card from him after reading his bullshit.

Yes, that is my position. And while I've been very clear that I am against trimming and do not trim cards, I see nothing wrong with cleaning cards or soaking them in water, and I in fact prefer clean cards. I think you'd have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a jury to convict someone of cleaning/soaking/selling a sports card that has been and convincing them that it somehow amounts to fraud. That's where this whole discussion originally stemmed from.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

People can think what they want, but I'm a prosecutor. And make no mistake, trimming a card to deceive a buyer into paying more for it will be charged as theft by decpetion every time in my jurisdiction as well criminal simulation. And if you do it as a business model, I will charge with engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity as well (which is a high-level felony in Ohio).

Look up criminal simulation in Ohio. It is RC 2913.32. It describes precisely what trimming a card to deceive is.

While I agree that it is immoral, it can't possibly be theft if the victim isn't out any money. That Wagner isn't worth one penny less as a result of it having been trimmed. The same is true of the controversial Wemby Black Prizm 1/1 that was polished by Kurt's Card Care. It's not worth a single penny less today. These cards can and will be transacted at full market value into perpetuity. There is no victim.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

While I agree that it is immoral, it can't possibly be theft if the victim isn't out any money. That Wagner isn't worth one penny less as a result of it having been trimmed. The same is true of the controversial Wemby Black Prizm 1/1 that was polished by Kurt's Card Care. It's not worth a single penny less today. These cards can and will be transacted at full market value into perpetuity. There is no victim.

How about your garden variety card, let's just arbitrarily say a 1956 Mantle PSA 6. Let's say I have two very similar examples. Both are trimmed, but it isn't obvious to most. I sell one with no disclosure. I sell the other in the same venue, but disclose prominently that I lightly trimmed it. Same price?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, that is my position. And while I've been very clear that I am against trimming and do not trim cards, I see nothing wrong with cleaning cards or soaking them in water, and I in fact prefer clean cards. I think you'd have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a jury to convict someone of cleaning/soaking/selling a sports card that has been and convincing them that it somehow amounts to fraud. That's where this whole discussion originally stemmed from.

Well there is this https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=9.&article=7. Calif Business and Professions code...see 21670 and 21671. Nothing about jail time and not sure if this has ever been litigated.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

While I agree that it is immoral, it can't possibly be theft if the victim isn't out any money. That Wagner isn't worth one penny less as a result of it having been trimmed. The same is true of the controversial Wemby Black Prizm 1/1 that was polished by Kurt's Card Care. It's not worth a single penny less today. These cards can and will be transacted at full market value into perpetuity. There is no victim.

Did you look up criminal simulation? The crime is for altering an item with intent to defraud. Actual value isn't an element, just that you committed the act to try to raise the price.

But hey, I've only been a prosecutor for 16 years. You clearly know more about the elements of criminal offenses than me. Nothing I say will convince you. And frankly, nothing a jury says would convince you. You would sit behind bars arguing the jury doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Rich Klein]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Well there is this https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...r=9.&article=7. Calif Business and Professions code...see 21670 and 21671. Nothing about jail time and not sure if this has ever been litigated.

That law was also why you see odds posted on the unopened boxes ever since then. I know many of us don't collect packs then or now but that's another FYI which that law wanted to "fix"

Rich

[G1911]

Originally Posted by calvindog

This is really it in a nutshell. Unless Travis has brain damage he’s just trying to convince himself and us that altering a card and selling it without disclosure isn’t a chargeable offense. Gee, I wonder why? I’d be careful buying a card from him after reading his bullshit.

I think we all know why . The majority of his posts come down to this central point that it is not illegal and is fine to alter and sell cards without disclosure. He frequently gets caught telling absolute lies defending his central theme (like this crap, instead of arguing it should be acceptable and not a crime, he tells easily proven lies about provable events and primary source documents), but will never give it up. Seems pretty obvious what the motive is, when his whole identify here is about justifying criminal fraud for years and screeching at anyone against criminal fraud, especially Tiffany for having the audacity to try and do a small thing to combat that fraud.

[calvindog]

I’ve been a criminal trial lawyer for 34 years, tried 50 cases to verdict, but the guy with Asperger’s knows more about what a criminal jury will do than me.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Did you look up criminal simulation? The crime is for altering an item with intent to defraud. Actual value isn't an element, just that you committed the act to try to raise the price.

But hey, I've only been a prosecutor for 16 years. You clearly know more about the elements of criminal offenses than me. Nothing I say will convince you. And frankly, nothing a jury says would convince you. You would sit behind bars arguing the jury doesn't know what they're talking about.

When the FBI jumped into the PWCC and related offenders' investigation the cards in question were worth more at the time of the investigation than buyers would have paid for those cards yet they poured time and resources into the investigation for years.

Using Snowman's reasoning they must have dropped the matter once they realized, years later, that there were no victims because the cards were worth more than people paid for them.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by g1911

i think we all know why . The majority of his posts come down to this central point that it is not illegal and is fine to alter and sell cards without disclosure. He frequently gets caught telling absolute lies defending his central theme (like this crap, instead of arguing it should be acceptable and not a crime, he tells easily proven lies about provable events and primary source documents), but will never give it up. Seems pretty obvious what the motive is, when his whole identify here is about justifying criminal fraud for years and screeching at anyone against criminal fraud, especially tiffany for having the audacity to try and do a small thing to combat that fraud.

💯