Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[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.

[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).

[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.