Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[4815162342]

[todeen]

I ran out of time to watch the whole conversation. Thank you for posting this, Peter. I was too young for even junk wax 80s boom, buying my first pack at 6 years old, I bought 1991 Topps. And then the strike happened. It was a very different hobby in the late 1990s than before, and even the late 90s was very different than present. But I grew up on a Beckett subscription. But the depth of knowledge on this site has been wonderful. I love interacting in this community and learning collecting history. This site is better than any Beckett magazine I owned.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by 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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCWCSgBgJ0E

[Snowman]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm excited to watch all these fraudsters who are removing wax stains off the backs of their 1986 Fleer Basketball stickers spend some time behind bars for criminal simulation! And all these fraudsters soaking T206s to remove them from scrapbooks!

LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!!!

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I don't know about you guys, but I'm excited to watch all these fraudsters who are removing wax stains off the backs of their 1986 Fleer Basketball stickers spend some time behind bars for criminal simulation! And all these fraudsters soaking T206s to remove them from scrapbooks!



LOCK THEM UP!!! LOCK THEM UP!!!

Logical fallacy. The lack of prosecution is not acquiescence to the legality of the act. Come do it in my county. Do you feel lucky?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Logical fallacy. The lack of prosecution is not acquiescence to the legality of the act. Come do it in my county. Do you feel lucky?

I would wager every penny I have and will ever earn that you could not get a jury to convict me, or anyone else for that matter, for cleaning a baseball card and selling it without disclosure. I think I could represent myself and clean the damn cards on the witness stand and sell them right in front of the jury on ebay in real time too. And I think you're a delusional nutjob if you believe otherwise.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I would wager every penny I have and will ever earn that you could not get a jury to convict me, or anyone else for that matter, for cleaning a baseball card and selling it without disclosure. I think I could represent myself and clean the damn cards on the witness stand and sell them right in front of the jury on ebay in real time too. And I think you're a delusional nutjob if you believe otherwise.

Think what you want, smart guy. You are clearly smarter than everyone else. Consequently, my experience is people with your arrogance are the easiest to convict. Your arrogance gets in the way of your objectivity and you walk right into every trap I lay at trial.

I do find it funny how it went from "no lawyer would say it's illegal." Then 2 lawyers show up and refute your claim. Then it changed to "well nobody gets charged, so it must be legal." And now it's "but you can't convince a jury to convict." LOL As if you have the slightest clue what a jury will do.

Like I said, put your freedom where your mouth is. Come do it in my county if you're so confident. The mere fact that you clean it and don't disclose it is proof in and of itself that not only does it make it worth more (else you wouldn't do it), but that you have an intent to defraud (else you would disclose). Good luck with your defense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I would wager every penny I have and will ever earn that you could not get a jury to convict me, or anyone else for that matter, for cleaning a baseball card and selling it without disclosure. I think I could represent myself and clean the damn cards on the witness stand and sell them right in front of the jury on ebay in real time too. And I think you're a delusional nutjob if you believe otherwise.

So now you're wagering money in addition to body parts? LOL. Hysterical. You may end up broke and impotent.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Think what you want, smart guy. You are clearly smarter than everyone else. Consequently, my experience is people with your arrogance are the easiest to convict. Your arrogance gets in the way of your objectivity and you walk right into every trap I lay at trial.

I do find it funny how it went from "no lawyer would say it's illegal." Then 2 lawyers show up and refute your claim. Then it changed to "well nobody gets charged, so it must be legal." And now it's "but you can't convince a jury to convict." LOL As if you have the slightest clue what a jury will do.

Like I said, put your freedom where your mouth is. Come do it in my county if you're so confident. The mere fact that you clean it and don't disclose it is proof in and of itself that not only does it make it worth more (else you wouldn't do it), but that you have an intent to defraud (else you would disclose). Good luck with your defense.

Yes, just call him Mr. Goalposts. LOL. When confronted before as to why he doesn't disclose, his answer is always, there's nothing to disclose. Taking a step back, though, there does seem to be a different generational attitude about cleaning, at least if it isn't bleach etc. I don't think it's accepted as a consensus by any means yet, but it's not on the same tier as trimming or recoloring.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When confronted before as to why he doesn't disclose, his answer is always, there's nothing to disclose.

Yeah, that's the kind of argument juries are persuaded by. :rollseyes:

I guess all the juries he's argued in front of are just different from the ones I have experience with. :cry:

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Yeah, that's the kind of argument juries are persuaded by. :rollseyes:

I guess all the juries he's argued in front of are just different from the ones I have experience with. :cry:

I think he claimed to have taken some sort of informal survey but I may not be recalling correctly. I'm sure the questions were framed very neutrally lol. Hey Travis, how about my 56 Mantle question?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think he claimed to have taken some sort of informal survey but I may not be recalling correctly. I'm sure the questions were framed very neutrally lol. Hey Travis, how about my 56 Mantle question?

That would go over well at trial as I parade so many sportscards experts and collectors to the stand that the judge has to cut it off. Juries find it very powerful when a judge has to say, "Ok, we get it, no need for more testimony."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That would go over well at trial as I parade so many sportscards experts and collectors to the stand that the judge has to cut it off. Juries find it very powerful when a judge has to say, "Ok, we get it, no need for more testimony."

I only mentioned the survey as the reason he thinks he understands how a jury would view things. I think he also said that no jury would ever convict someone of TRIMMING and then not disclosing, so it's not just cleaning, but he can correct me if I remember that wrong. This was his theory of why the feds dropped the investigation, because no jury would find trimming then concealing to be a crime.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I only mentioned the survey as the reason he thinks he understands how a jury would view things. I think he also said that no jury would ever convict someone of TRIMMING and then not disclosing, so it's not just cleaning, but he can correct me if I remember that wrong. This was his theory of why the feds dropped the investigation, because no jury would find trimming then concealing to be a crime.

That's a really stupid assumption to make on his part.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That's a really stupid assumption to make on his part.

Well of course, but you can spell out over and over again the elements of mail and wire fraud, and how they apply to selling a card without disclosing alterations, and it doesn't penetrate his ego. LOL.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That would go over well at trial as I parade so many sportscards experts and collectors to the stand that the judge has to cut it off. Juries find it very powerful when a judge has to say, "Ok, we get it, no need for more testimony."

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What cards did Forman ever acknowledge he had cleaned? I missed that?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Yeah, that's the kind of argument juries are persuaded by. :rollseyes:

I guess all the juries he's argued in front of are just different from the ones I have experience with. :cry:

The idea that because you're a lawyer you are more in tune to how the general public sees things is remarkably ignorant.

The fact of the matter is that normal people do not see cleaning a thing and later reselling the thing as fraudulent behavior. You can scream fraud all day long from the rooftops, but nobody is going to listen to you because it's utter nonsense. If you think your viewpoint is closer to public opinion on this topic than mine, you're completely delusional.

Now if we're talking about trimming or rebuilding corners, or recoloring a card or something else where you are in fact changing something about the card itself, as opposed to simply cleaning it or removing something from it, then that's a different discussion. But when it comes to merely cleaning a card, you're an idiot if you think that requires disclosure.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The idea that because you're a lawyer you are more in tune to how the general public sees things is remarkably ignorant.

The fact of the matter is that normal people do not see cleaning a thing and later reselling the thing as fraudulent behavior. You can scream fraud all day long from the rooftops, but nobody is going to listen to you because it's utter nonsense. If you think your viewpoint is closer to public opinion on this topic than mine, you're completely delusional.

Now if we're talking about trimming or rebuilding corners, or recoloring a card or something else where you are in fact changing something about the card itself, as opposed to simply cleaning it or removing something from it, then that's a different discussion. But when it comes to merely cleaning a card, you're an idiot if you think that requires disclosure.

Have you not said before that no jury would ever convict someone of concealing trimming? Wasn't that your explanation for why the FBI dropped the investigation? Help me out, I'm too tired to go back and reread stuff.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The idea that because you're a lawyer you are more in tune to how the general public sees things is remarkably ignorant.



The fact of the matter is that normal people do not see cleaning a thing and later reselling the thing as fraudulent behavior. You can scream fraud all day long from the rooftops, but nobody is going to listen to you because it's utter nonsense. If you think your viewpoint is closer to public opinion on this topic than mine, you're completely delusional.



Now if we're talking about trimming or rebuilding corners, or recoloring a card or something else where you are in fact changing something about the card itself, as opposed to simply cleaning it or removing something from it, then that's a different discussion. But when it comes to merely cleaning a card, you're an idiot if you think that requires disclosure.

It's interesting how when I began this discussion with you, trimming was exactly the topic at hand. I love how you've completely abandoned that one. Careful, those pedals aren't designed to go backward.

Furthermore, I never said that being a lawyer makes me more in tune with what the general public thinks. That's a strawman. I said my experience trying cases like this to a jury makes me better at predicting what juries will do. And you're ignorant if you think otherwise. Cases aren't won based on what a jury thinks coming into a case. In fact, we weed those people out in voir dire. Juries aren't "the general public." They are a captive audience, chosen for their objectivity and willingness to hear evidence and apply the law the judge instructs them with, and educated by me over the course of a trial. If your skills in logic and argument here are any indication, you'd convict yourself.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It's interesting how when I began this discussion with you, trimming was exactly the topic at hand. I love how you've completely abandoned that one. Careful, those pedals aren't designed to go backward.

Furthermore, I never said that being a lawyer makes me more in tune with what the general public thinks. That's a strawman. I said my experience trying cases like this to a jury makes me better at predicting what juries will do. And you're ignorant if you think otherwise. Cases aren't won based on what a jury thinks coming into a case. In fact, we weed those people out in voir dire. Juries aren't "the general public." They are a captive audience, chosen for their objectivity and willingness to hear evidence and apply the law the judge instructs them with, and educated by me over the course of a trial. If your skills in logic and argument here are any indication, you'd convict yourself.

LOL it's rather absurd that he thinks he knows how 12 people chosen from a jury pool in whatever Ohio location you practice in, or anywhere else for that matter, are going to view a case. But that's the hubris we're dealing with.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Now if we're talking about trimming or rebuilding corners, or recoloring a card or something else where you are in fact changing something about the card itself, as opposed to simply cleaning it or removing something from it, then that's a different discussion. But when it comes to merely cleaning a card, you're an idiot if you think that requires disclosure.

Cleaning bird poop off of a car is expected. Cleaning stuff off a sports card is not, despite the fact that many do it and many accept it. PSA just updated their terms taking a stance in writing on cleaning, which is likely a CYA.

Anyway, if cleaning is no big deal why have none of your graded card listings mentioned it? Do you never sell cleaned cards but only clean those you retain in your collection?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Have you not said before that no jury would ever convict someone of concealing trimming? Wasn't that your explanation for why the FBI dropped the investigation? Help me out, I'm too tired to go back and reread stuff.

His positions have taken numerous u turns, as usual. Whenever he gets cornered he changes his position and then asserts the person he is arguing with is to blame. When you guys have him on the ropes you need to close.

Anyway, if you are keeping score at home no lawyers have piped in to support the indictment argument he waged. So the score is 3-0 and feeling like a shutout.

[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.

[G1911]

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.

It's starting to look like the fraudman is unable to provide a single one of these lawyers in the hobby. I am shocked!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's starting to look like the fraudman is unable to provide a single one of these lawyers in the hobby. I am shocked!

Oh we've moved on from that. Goalpost shift.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh we've moved on from that. Goalpost shift.

I'm sorry, I just have fun sticking with this clowns lies!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm sorry, I just have fun sticking with this clowns lies!

They've shifted so many times it's hard to keep up, even though I'm sort of used to the tactic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Note that he's gleeful that the FBI ultimately did not pursue the investigation. How pathetic is that? Anyone concerned about the hobby should be disappointed in their decision, and the freedom it confers on criminals to keep up the same shit without fear of reprisal, not gleeful about it. Not our boy though. He's giddy. Taunting, because (for the wrong reasons) he predicted this one right.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Cleaning bird poop off of a car is expected. Cleaning stuff off a sports card is not, despite the fact that many do it and many accept it. PSA just updated their terms taking a stance in writing on cleaning, which is likely a CYA.

Anyway, if cleaning is no big deal why have none of your graded card listings mentioned it? Do you never sell cleaned cards but only clean those you retain in your collection?

The word "cleaning" needs to be better defined to make any sense in determining if it necessitates disclosure. For instance, if I have a stack of cards that sits on a shelf for a couple years, then decide to sell them, I may have to wipe a thin layer of dust off the top card. Technically, that's cleaning it. Does that need to be disclosed at risk of committing a criminal act?

The natural state of the Topps cards I collected in the 1960s came in wax packs. Sometimes the gum was lightly stuck to a card, and I altered that original, from-the-factory natural state by separating the gum from the card.
Often, powdered sugar residue might be in a card, and I'd wipe it off. If there was wax residue on a card back it left a stain and there wasn't much I could do, but if it was on the glossy side, I removed wax by rubbing it with a cloth.

It's a slippery slope, which is why I say the word "cleaning" is much too ambiguous.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The word "cleaning" needs to be better defined to make any sense in determining if it necessitates disclosure. For instance, if I have a stack of cards that sits on a shelf for a couple years, then decide to sell them, I may have to wipe a thin layer of dust off the top card. Technically, that's cleaning it. Does that need to be disclosed at risk of committing a criminal act?

The natural state of the Topps cards I collected in the 1960s came in wax packs. Sometimes the gum was lightly stuck to a card, and I altered that original, from-the-factory natural state by separating the gum from the card.
Often, powdered sugar residue might be in a card, and I'd wipe it off. If there was wax residue on a card back it left a stain and there wasn't much I could do, but if it was on the glossy side, I removed wax by rubbing it with a cloth.

It's a slippery slope, which is why I say the word "cleaning" is much too ambiguous.

I agree, and it needs to be tempered by both common sense and historical practice.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The word "cleaning" needs to be better defined to make any sense in determining if it necessitates disclosure. For instance, if I have a stack of cards that sits on a shelf for a couple years, then decide to sell them, I may have to wipe a thin layer of dust off the top card. Technically, that's cleaning it. Does that need to be disclosed at risk of committing a criminal act?

The natural state of the Topps cards I collected in the 1960s came in wax packs. Sometimes the gum was lightly stuck to a card, and I altered that original, from-the-factory natural state by separating the gum from the card.
Often, powdered sugar residue might be in a card, and I'd wipe it off. If there was wax residue on a card back it left a stain and there wasn't much I could do, but if it was on the glossy side, I removed wax by rubbing it with a cloth.

It's a slippery slope, which is why I say the word "cleaning" is much too ambiguous.

Clearly your examples are not cleaning and clearly I was writing to Snowman about his type of cleaning that he has detailed repeatedly. Assuming he is being truthful about what he really does to clean cards, he has clearly defined what cleaning is to him.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Note that he's gleeful that the FBI ultimately did not pursue the investigation. How pathetic is that? Anyone concerned about the hobby should be disappointed in their decision, and the freedom it confers on criminals to keep up the same shit without fear of reprisal, not gleeful about it. Not our boy though. He's giddy. Taunting, because (for the wrong reasons) he predicted this one right.

Note also how it is an issue of being wrong about a future facing prediction vs. being wrong about extremely well documented past events and lying about what is in the indictment. Kind of different, one could say.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Anyway, if cleaning is no big deal why have none of your graded card listings mentioned it? Do you never sell cleaned cards but only clean those you retain in your collection?

I think we can guess why

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The word "cleaning" needs to be better defined to make any sense in determining if it necessitates disclosure. For instance, if I have a stack of cards that sits on a shelf for a couple years, then decide to sell them, I may have to wipe a thin layer of dust off the top card. Technically, that's cleaning it. Does that need to be disclosed at risk of committing a criminal act?



The natural state of the Topps cards I collected in the 1960s came in wax packs. Sometimes the gum was lightly stuck to a card, and I altered that original, from-the-factory natural state by separating the gum from the card.

Often, powdered sugar residue might be in a card, and I'd wipe it off. If there was wax residue on a card back it left a stain and there wasn't much I could do, but if it was on the glossy side, I removed wax by rubbing it with a cloth.



It's a slippery slope, which is why I say the word "cleaning" is much too ambiguous.

That's why the elements of the offense are altering an item with intent to defraud. That's the key. If they can prove your intent to defraud, it's a crime. Intent to defraud can be proven with many types of evidence, but is generally a question of fact for the jury to decide.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Clearly your examples are not cleaning and clearly I was writing to Snowman about his type of cleaning that he has detailed repeatedly. Assuming he is being truthful about what he really does to clean cards, he has clearly defined what cleaning is to him.

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Cleaning bird poop off of a car is expected. Cleaning stuff off a sports card is not, despite the fact that many do it and many accept it.

All right then, let's say my stack of cards on my shelf, with a 1967 Topps Ron Herbel on top, has a thin layer of dust AND a single mouse turd, right on Herbel's left eye. Does cleaning the dust + poop off without announcing it constitute a potential crime?

This is what I mean by a slippery slope and no, I don't want to progress from mouse poop to bird poop just to make the analogy more solid.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

That's why the elements of the offense are altering an item with intent to defraud. That's the key. If they can prove your intent to defraud, it's a crime. Intent to defraud can be proven with many types of evidence, but is generally a question of fact for the jury to decide.

Talk about moving goalposts

[notfast]

There is no way I can watch/listen to 2 hrs of Brian Grey.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by notfast

There is no way I can watch/listen to 2 hrs of Brian Grey.

Probably the best post in the thread.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

All right then, let's say my stack of cards on my shelf, with a 1967 Topps Ron Herbel on top, has a thin layer of dust AND a single mouse turd, right on Herbel's left eye. Does cleaning the dust + poop off without announcing it constitute a potential crime?

This is what I mean by a slippery slope and no, I don't want to progress from mouse poop to bird poop just to make the analogy more solid.

I had the bird poop thing actually happen. Can't remember the exact card but it was a silly rare Bill Ripken that I sold for several hundred dollars. When I was going to take a picture to send to the buyer I was close to one of my parrots cages and the card did get some bird poop on it. I snapped a quick picture and then cleaned the bird poop off and took a few more pictures. I disclosed the bird poop and the cleaning of the bird poop. Buyer didn't care as long as he got a bird poop free card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I had the bird poop thing actually happen. Can't remember the exact card but it was a silly rare Bill Ripken that I sold for several hundred dollars. When I was going to take a picture to send to the buyer I was close to one of my parrots cages and the card did get some bird poop on it. I snapped a quick picture and then cleaned the bird poop off and took a few more pictures. I disclosed the bird poop and the cleaning of the bird poop. Buyer didn't care as long as he got a bird poop free card.

Does Kurt sell a product for that purpose?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Talk about moving goalposts

I don't think you know what that means. I literally linked to that statute containing those elements at the very beginning. It has always been my definition of what constitutes the crime. Even when you tried to make it value driven, I redirected you to intent to defraud.

Just stop. The adults are talking.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I had the bird poop thing actually happen. Can't remember the exact card but it was a silly rare Bill Ripken that I sold for several hundred dollars. When I was going to take a picture to send to the buyer I was close to one of my parrots cages and the card did get some bird poop on it. I snapped a quick picture and then cleaned the bird poop off and took a few more pictures. I disclosed the bird poop and the cleaning of the bird poop. Buyer didn't care as long as he got a bird poop free card.

But when your buyer re-sells the card, will he disclose the bird poop removal?

I have to think, in prison hierarchy, doing time in the slammer for not disclosing bird poop removal puts one on a pretty low rung. Bad enough to be doing 1 to 5, but to do so in constant dread of your cellmate asking "So, what are you in for?" would make it absolute hell.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Including countless graders at PSA and SGC.

Hmmmm. Aren't they the ones who graded a Honus Wagner card as an 8 despite knowing that it had been trimmed? Isn't that what this thread is about?

All things considered, you're delusional if you think the graders at PSA and SGC merit trust.

Originally Posted by Snowman

And despite what fantasy world you think you live in, once you step outside of the hobby....

Let me give you my solemn assurance that you don't need to venture into some fantasy world to find hobbyists. They're very real and on this very board in large numbers. In fact if it wasn't for them, this board wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'll call PSA graders to the stand....

Even I could then point out that they launched their business with a fraud. I could then leave the jury snickering and giggling with side-by-side comparisons of cards they'd misgraded thereby demonstrating that these pro graders didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Originally Posted by Snowman

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.

Meanwhile you're coming across as a dealer with a whole bunch of slabs he's trying to flog at nosebleed prices.

Originally Posted by Snowman

...some delusional nutjob collector (or even an army of them)....

I might point out that contempt for one's customers is a good way to court swift bankruptcy.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You can argue semantics.... 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.

You're the one engaging in semantics if you're arguing that a guilty plea is not an admission of being guilty. Try explaining that to the man on the street.

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.

Thanks for the tip. I think I'll just continue to say "No!" to such slabs. Hopefully you've not got any for sale.