Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[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."