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

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

LOL. Travis previously. It's four lines but I cannot even count the errors.


I'm no lawyer, but when I read through discussions of this topic on the Blowhard forums a few years back, I seem to recall most of the lawyers there were in agreement that he had not in fact been charged with any crimes in relation to the Wagner card. But rather it was brought up during the trial as a mere testimony to his character, or lack thereof. Him basically just trying to come clean with anything and everything he could in an effort to gain favor and get a more lenient sentence. But he was not directly charged with a crime for anything related to the Wagner. You mention that he admitted to trimming the Wagner in his plea deal, but that plea deal was rejected by the judge. He was not sentenced for anything to do with the Wagner.

[calvindog]

If you look at all his lies regarding Mastro’s case, they all form a pattern: his effort to downplay Mastro’s criminal conduct of knowingly selling an altered card. Which just happens to be the very thing people on this board accuse him of: willingness to sell altered cards without disclosure.

It’s fairly obvious why he’s willing to die on this hill, no matter how bad it makes him look.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If you look at all his lies regarding Mastro’s case, they all form a pattern: his effort to downplay Mastro’s criminal conduct of knowingly selling an altered card. Which just happens to be the very thing people on this board accuse him of: willingness to sell altered cards without disclosure.

It’s fairly obvious why he’s willing to die on this hill, no matter how bad it makes him look.

I would be more than happy to disclose anything I've done to any of my cards. But I don't alter cards, so your theory doesn't hold up.

I'm curious though, when you were representing Brent, why do you think he told you to go pound sand and fired you after you told him that he was cooked and that his best defense was restitution and a plea deal? And why do you think you were wrong and that his best defense was to instead fire you and listen to someone else's advice?

And why do you think your boyfriend Brusokas was fired (sorry, "retired"?) after the investigation he spent years on, and millions of dollars worth of our tax dollars, fizzled out and fell flat? An outcome that I predicted years prior, I might add.

And why do you think an "ignorant moron with Aspergers" was able to see how this would all play out ahead of time while one of the best lawyers (even a "savant" in his own words) in the country was absolutely certain it would end quite differently.

[Leon]

You are digging deeper but please continue. It's the trainwreck you can't take your eyes off of.

Originally Posted by Snowman

I would be more than happy to disclose anything I've done to any of my cards. But I don't alter cards, so your theory doesn't hold up.

I'm curious though, when you were representing Brett, why do you think he told you to go pound sand and fired you after you told him that he was cooked and that his best defense was restitution and a plea deal? And why do you think you were wrong and that his best defense was to instead fire you and listen to someone else's advice?

And why do you think your boyfriend Brusokas was fired (sorry, "retired"?) after the investigation he spent years on, and millions of dollars worth of our tax dollars, fizzled out and fell flat? An outcome that I predicted years prior, I might add.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

You are digging deeper but please continue. It's the trainwreck you can't take your eyes off of.

It would be interesting to know what changed in Brent's approach to the investigation, which did seem a turning point from this outsider's perspective after Brent initially was cooperating -- but attorney-client privilege means we won't know unless Brent himself chooses to talk. Without knowing, it's pretty useless to speculate.

In any case, to tie this back to a favorite false theme of Travis, I highly doubt the reason for ultimately not bringing the case was the lack of a viable legal theory. That part, as has been explained ad infinitum, is easy -- mail fraud and wire fraud.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Leon

You are digging deeper but please continue. It's the trainwreck you can't take your eyes off of.

This has definitely become my favorite discussion on the forum It's a fascinating dive into human psychology.

[G1911]

I get that one has to really disconnect from facts a bit to try and justify things like criminal fraud, which is the central point of every Snowman thread for reasons that surely do not have to do with him being a fraudster doctoring cards and selling them without disclosure, but it will never stop being funny that the hill he chooses to die on more than any other in his quest to justify fraud is the absurd claim that pleading guilty to a crime just doesn't really count.