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

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Leon

One thing I have tried to do on this forum, is not argue law with leading attorneys. It just doesn't go well. Now, if we are talking pre war type cards, I should be able to hold my own.

The funny thing is we're just taking past each other. They want to pretend that we're arguing about the law or legal terminology. It's hilarious. I'm just making a very simple point that there's a world of difference between someone agreeing to a plea deal and someone being tried in front of a jury and found guilty of a crime (especially in this case where the other charges he was facing were far more serious than him trimming the Wagner). It's not a legal debate. It's just common sense and simple logic. You don't have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2=4 and you don't have to be a lawyer to know that there's a difference of implications between someone agreeing to a plea deal and someone being tried in front of a jury and being found guilty of specific charges.

If a prosecutor lists out 20 things that they think they might be able to get you on and you come to an agreement with them because you think overall the terms are more favorable than you'd get if you were to fight them in court, it says nothing about whether or not each of those specific 20 charges would have stuck. Regardless of whether or not an entire room full of lawyers tells you otherwise.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

The funny thing is we're just taking past each other. They want to pretend that we're arguing about the law or legal terminology. It's hilarious. I'm just making a very simple point that there's a world of difference between someone agreeing to a plea deal and someone being tried in front of a jury and found guilty of a crime (especially in this case where the other charges he was facing were far more serious than him trimming the Wagner). It's not a legal debate. It's just common sense and simple logic. You don't have to be a mathematician to know that 2+2=4 and you don't have to be a lawyer to know that there's a difference of implications between someone agreeing to a plea deal and someone being tried in front of a jury and being found guilty of specific charges.

If a prosecutor lists out 20 things that they think they might be able to get you on and you come to an agreement with them because you think overall the terms are more favorable than you'd get if you were to fight them in court, it says nothing about whether or not each of those specific 20 charges would have stuck. Regardless of whether or not an entire room full of lawyers tells you otherwise.

Mastro pled guilty to every count he was charged with and received no “terms” in exchange. He admitted to all criminal conduct the government said he had done and more crimes than what the Feds were even aware of. He was sentenced for more than trimming the Wagner and selling it as untrimmed. He was sentenced on all that he pled to which included every charge in the indictment. He did not receive a break on the plea by being required to plead to only some of the charges.

He threw himself on the mercy of the court at sentencing and even brought a priest along to help exemplify his acceptance of guilt. Part of the sentencing computation was a three level downward adjustment in his sentencing guidelines (which determined the length of his sentence) for “acceptance of responsibility” for his crimes. He received that at sentencing.

Had he gone to trial he would have fought every allegation. He would have told the jury and the public he was innocent. After conviction he would not have received the three level downward adjustment in his sentencing guidelines for acceptance of responsibility for his crimes. Additionally, afterward he would have surely publicly said the jury was wrong, they didn’t understand the hobby, the judge was biased against him, the prosecutors withheld favorable evidence and the original charges against him were faulty as they didn’t make out crimes. To his grave he’d continue to claim publicly he was innocent.

You might be the only person on the planet who believes Mastro’s guilty plea makes him less guilty than if he had been convicted after trial.

Now can you stop?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Mastro pled guilty to every count he was charged with and received no “terms” in exchange. He admitted to all criminal conduct the government said he had done and more crimes than what the Feds were even aware of. He was sentenced for more than trimming the Wagner and selling it as untrimmed. He was sentenced on all that he pled to which included every charge in the indictment. He did not receive a break on the plea by being required to plead to only some of the charges.

He threw himself on the mercy of the court at sentencing and even brought a priest along to help exemplify his acceptance of guilt. Part of the sentencing computation was a three level downward adjustment in his sentencing guidelines (which determined the length of his sentence) for “acceptance of responsibility” for his crimes. He received that at sentencing.

Had he gone to trial he would have fought every allegation. He would have told the jury and the public he was innocent. After conviction he would not have received the three level downward adjustment in his sentencing guidelines for acceptance of responsibility for his crimes. Additionally, afterward he would have surely publicly said the jury was wrong, they didn’t understand the hobby, the judge was biased against him, the prosecutors withheld favorable evidence and the original charges against him were faulty as they didn’t make out crimes. To his grave he’d continue to claim publicly he was innocent.

You might be the only person on the planet who believes Mastro’s guilty plea makes him less guilty than if he had been convicted after trial.

Now can you stop?

No. He can't.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Now can you stop?

Originally Posted by Leon

No. He can't.

Let's all pretend like Lichtman isn't the one who brought this back up (again) in this thread.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Mastro pled guilty to every count he was charged with and received no “terms” in exchange. He admitted to all criminal conduct the government said he had done and more crimes than what the Feds were even aware of. He was sentenced for more than trimming the Wagner and selling it as untrimmed. He was sentenced on all that he pled to which included every charge in the indictment. He did not receive a break on the plea by being required to plead to only some of the charges.

He threw himself on the mercy of the court at sentencing and even brought a priest along to help exemplify his acceptance of guilt. Part of the sentencing computation was a three level downward adjustment in his sentencing guidelines (which determined the length of his sentence) for “acceptance of responsibility” for his crimes. He received that at sentencing.

Had he gone to trial he would have fought every allegation. He would have told the jury and the public he was innocent. After conviction he would not have received the three level downward adjustment in his sentencing guidelines for acceptance of responsibility for his crimes. Additionally, afterward he would have surely publicly said the jury was wrong, they didn’t understand the hobby, the judge was biased against him, the prosecutors withheld favorable evidence and the original charges against him were faulty as they didn’t make out crimes. To his grave he’d continue to claim publicly he was innocent.

You might be the only person on the planet who believes Mastro’s guilty plea makes him less guilty than if he had been convicted after trial.

Now can you stop?

I agree with everything you said here. But all of that still has nothing to do with my claim. Like I said above, we're just talking past each other. You know damn well what I'm saying, you are just too stubborn to admit that I have a valid point. If you were hired to defend the argument that someone accepting a plea deal does not have the same implications as someone being tried by a jury of a specific charge and found guilty, you'd surely be able to come up with a compelling argument.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I agree with everything you said here. But all of that still has nothing to do with my claim. Like I said above, we're just talking past each other. You know damn well what I'm saying, you are just too stubborn to admit that I have a valid point. If you were hired to defend the argument that someone accepting a plea deal does not have the same implications as someone being tried by a jury of a specific charge and found guilty, you'd surely be able to come up with a compelling argument.

I actually don't know at all what you're saying because you make no sense. There is no compelling argument for anything you said about Mastro's guilty plea. I made it very clear why Mastro's guilty plea - without any out for him to claim that a jury got it wrong or he was unfairly convicted -- is actually more powerful than a conviction after jury trial. You're not a lawyer, you've never been inside a courtroom, you've got no idea what you're talking about. You just are one of those guys who thinks he knows everything when in fact you don't know shit.

I don't know why you continue to double down on this but I have to think there's something wrong with your brain. And next time you want to attack me in a thread, just be aware that I'm going to continue to bring up this idiocy of yours.

Ok, I'm done with this. You've done some fine litigating and I see a bright future in criminal defense for you. But at this point it's a disservice to anyone who is forced to read this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

This is just the latest in a series of absurd positions that Travis never acknowledges were wrong, he just moves on and/or doubles down.

The Wagner had nothing to do with the case. Oh, wait.
The Wagner wasn't in the indictment/part of the charges, Mastro brought it up to curry favor. Oh, wait.
The Wagner had nothing to do with the guilty plea. Oh, wait.
The Wagner had nothing to do with the sentence. Oh, wait.
And now, a guilty plea doesn't mean as much as a verdict.

And who did you say looks stupid?

[Snowman]

I just asked my poker friend (another high-profile attorney that you guys would surely know the name of if I told you) about whether or not charges listed in a plea deal could ever be irrelevant. Here is his response below. Funny how he had no problem grasping what I was saying even though, as you've pointed out dozens of times, "I'm not a lawyer".

"Yes, in some situations, charges included in a plea deal can be considered irrelevant to the case, particularly when they are used as leverage to negotiate a plea on a more serious charge, essentially "throwing in" a lesser charge to secure the defendant's agreement to plead guilty to the main offense."

[calvindog]

"Yes, in some situations, charges included in a plea deal can be considered irrelevant to the case, particularly when they are used as leverage to negotiate a plea on a more serious charge, essentially "throwing in" a lesser charge to secure the defendant's agreement to plead guilty to the main offense."

Except that's not what happened at all in the Mastro case. He pled guilty to every charge in the indictment. He also cooperated and provided information on all the charges against him, admitting all of it. There was no leveraging anything here. For you to suggest that a guy who pled guilty committed perjury before the judge, is really comical. You provided bogus information to your imaginary friend and then received a bogus response back.

Why don't you ask the FBI agent who investigated Mastro if he was guilty of all things he was accused of? He thinks you're a moron too.