Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yep. And then I'll call more with the complete opposite opinion as you. Including countless graders at PSA and SGC. Even the former owner of SGC openly cleaned cards. The MAJORITY of collectors in this hobby see nothing wrong with it. That's a problem for you and your argument. And despite what fantasy world you think you live in, once you step outside of the hobby, you will find almost zero people who would view cleaning and reselling a sports card as evenly remotely fraudulent. I'll call PSA graders to the stand and ask them if it's OK to remove wax off an 86 Fleer Basketball card and then you're going to have a real hard time convincing a jury that while it's OK to clean wax off an 86 Fleer Basketball card that it's actually not OK to wipe it off of a 72 Topps Baseball card because "just trust me bro". Or that while it's OK to soak cards A, B, and C in water to remove the glue and scrapbook paper from the backs that it's actually not OK to soak cards D, E, and F in water because "that's just how it is and that's just how I want my hobby to be god dammit!". You're going to come across to any jury as a hypocritical old man screaming at clouds attempting to apply double-standards to a hobby that has blinded your ability to see the world through the lens of any normal rational human being.



Taking a thing and cleaning the thing so that it presents nicer is not fraud. Nor is it an alteration. If a bird poops on your car, you don't have to attach a letter to the bill of sale for having cleaned it off. And if you get a piece of gunk on a baseball card, you don't have to attach a letter to it either for having removed said gunk from the card just because some delusional nutjob collector (or even an army of them) wishes the world worked that way because "god dammit! I don't want any cards that used to have gunk on them in my collection!!!"



It's not fraud and you're a dumbass for thinking it is.

Your arrogance knows no bounds.

If you think I'll come off as a dumbass to a jury, you're a dumbass in this thread. I have expertise pursuading juries for 19 years and am quite good at it. You, on the other hand, are an armchair lawyer without a logical bone in your body. I'd wipe the floor with you.

I notice you have ignored the legal points I made in favor of the "hur dur you can't convince a jury hur dur" argument. I wonder why that is? Hmm. One thing your inexperienced legal brain either has forgotten, or doesn't know, is that the judge gives the jury instructions on the law. And the instructions for the charges I am refrencing will specifically instruct the jury to disregard your stupid argument. Good luck with that, smart guy.

Again, internet talk is cheap. Clearly any idiot can do it. Come and see how well your argument actually works. I dare you.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

You, on the other hand, are an armchair lawyer without a logical bone in your body. I'd wipe the floor with you.

Ah yes, pit the mathematician up against the lawyer in a battle of logic. This should go well for you.

[Snowman]

Have fun jerking each other off as always. The Net54 legal experts are always hot on the trail! I'm excited to watch all these card cleaners behind bars coming to an Ohio courtroom near you!

What's the count again on that FBI investigation from 5+ years ago where all you clowns said these guys would all be going down in flames? Ah yes, I almost forgot. Any day now, any day now, right?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Ah yes, pit the mathematician up against the lawyer in a battle of logic. This should go well for you.

I see no evidence you're using any skills you may have from your profession in this debate. You're arguing from a combination of ignorance about the subject matter (tell us again that Mastro was never charged in connection with the Wagner, please), hubris, emotion, a false belief you have some superior insight into people's thinking, and so forth.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I see no evidence you're using any skills you may have from your profession in this debate. You're arguing from a combination of ignorance about the subject matter (tell us again that Mastro was never charged in connection with the Wagner, please), hubris, emotion, a false belief you have some superior insight into people's thinking, and so forth.

Snowman never disappoints. He is a great read even if he is 100% predictable.

[Section103]

Thank you gentlemen. Seriously, thank you. Im laughing so hard over this thread, Im coughing and unable to breathe. My wife, lawyer, is just.......speechless. Its been a great time for both of us.