REA catalog just arrived…. almost as fun as the old time Sears Christmas

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I seem to recall the claim made by myself and others wasn't that it had nothing to do with the case but rather that it had nothing to do with the sentencing. He wasn't charged for trimming the Wagner and he wasn't sentenced for it. It seems to have only come up because he was trying to propose a plea deal and/or as a way to demonstrate what sort of character he was.

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Snowman

What does the indictment have to do with this conversation? You can put whatever you want in an indictment. What matters is what he was actually found guilty of and sentenced for. That's what we're talking about. Show me where I can find something along the lines of the jury saying "As to count #11, we the jury find the charge of the defendant trimming the Honus Wagner baseball card and failing to disclose said alteration upon selling it: GUILTY".

You can't because it didn't happen.

I'm not saying it wasn't brought up at trial. I'm saying he wasn't sentenced for it and he didn't go to prison for it.

Aspergers guy getting frisky.

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Aspergers guy getting frisky.

Nice bond bread Jackie you have. 2 thumbs up

He does have a point though. E.g. There’s a certain popular t206 currently at auction that is laughable. PSA 0x cert. 3 grade w/ that appears cut short & has paper loss. The hammer price hopefully reflects this.

There are plenty of other examples like the 1952 Topps Jackie Robinson (PSA 8 - 02023137 ) that was obviously trimmed. Was recently reholdered & kept the 8 grade & resold privately. It also sold for over $100k twice since 2020. Current owner must have filed a claim w/ PSA as the card as been regraded as “authentic altered”

In some ways I feel bad for the current Collectors mgt as they are cleaning up & literally paying for the mistakes of the previous regime. So those types of payout costs being passed on to us. Plus we are dealing with their current overly strict inconsistent grading. Even SGC’s grading consistency seems to have changed since early summer.

Side note: I’m ranked high on a few PSA player set registries. Never going to have a chance at the top slot even if I cared because those people own high-grade early cert trimmed cards.

[calvindog]

PSA’s first card was trimmed. We’re going to pretend that many to most high graded cards aren’t altered? And the disparity between grading standards across the years? You could lose your mind trying to walk between the raindrops in buying graded cards.

[tjisonline]

The prewar goodness in this auction definitely packs a punch. Amazing. Same with postwar. The only thing missing for me are any of the final three ‘68 Topps 3-D cards needed to finish the set.

Great job by the REA team who put this auction together.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Aspergers guy getting frisky.

I think congratulations are in order, as you had your name mentioned. As did Judge Wapner's


Raymond: One minute to Wapner

Charlie: Yes, one minute to Wapner. I had you in there, Ray! You were in there! The defendant, the plaintiff, you had it all. They are in there making legal history

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Aspergers guy getting frisky.

You should keep pretending like someone striking a plea deal is equivalent to them being tried and found guilty by a jury of every single thing mentioned in that plea deal.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You should keep pretending like someone striking a plea deal is equivalent to them being tried and found guilty by a jury of every single thing mentioned in that plea deal.

I have to admire a man who is shown to be clearly wrong, but instead of admitting he's out of his depth, then doubles down. Over and over again. You've been wrong about nearly every single thing you've said about the Mastro case since the beginning when you kept insisting that the Wagner card was not even part of the charges. But this -- thinking you know more about guilty pleas than a leading criminal defense lawyer -- is truly beyond the pale lol.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have to admire a man who is shown to be clearly wrong, but instead of admitting he's out of his depth, then doubles down. Over and over again. You've been wrong about nearly every single thing you've said about the Mastro case since the beginning when you kept insisting that the Wagner card was not even part of the charges. But this -- thinking you know more about guilty pleas than a leading criminal defense lawyer -- is truly beyond the pale lol.

Just because getting a jury to find a defendant guilty on a charge and getting someone to agree to a plea deal both result in you being able to tally another 'W' on your oh-so-important W/L record doesn't mean they're equivalent. This isn't a discussion about how the law works out how a courtroom works. It's a simple logic problem. And you guys look stupid whether you realize it or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Just because getting a jury to find a defendant guilty on a charge and getting someone to agree to a plea deal both result in you being able to tally another 'W' on your oh-so-important W/L record doesn't mean they're equivalent. This isn't a discussion about how the law works out how a courtroom works. It's a simple logic problem. And you guys look stupid whether you realize it or not.

Oh so now it's not a discussion about the law? I missed that qualifier. So what are we discussing, just subjective impressions? Your personal belief that one is less significant than the other even though the legal effect is identical? Oh, ok.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

And you guys look stupid whether you realize it or not.

I can't really add anything here. Bloody bloody Mary look in the mirror. That's all I've got

[Belfast1933]

(Deleting my message - probably misread your comment, Ted…

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You should keep pretending like someone striking a plea deal is equivalent to them being tried and found guilty by a jury of every single thing mentioned in that plea deal.

There's something seriously wrong with your brain, Asperger's.

Again: a defendant who pled guilty to charges has the same effect as being convicted by a jury -- in fact, most would suggest he's more guilty by pleading because he can't blame a mistaken jury or government misconduct at a trial, or any number of potential appellate issues which could vacate his conviction.

Mastro pled guilty to every charge he faced and admitted to even more bad conduct which wasn't charged.

But you know more about the law because you have a ten card collection and you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Republicaninmass]

I've heard of fur burgers, but never have eaten an Ass burger. Just me though, i could be missing out.