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

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't see how we're getting anywhere. With any charge, of course there is always the theoretical possibility that had there been no plea, the jury might not have convicted. That's inherent in life, no one can predict with absolute certainty the outcome of a jury trial. That does not in the slightest negate the significance, legal or practical, of a guilty plea. And right, you didn't read the case, but that did not stop you from making repeated incorrect pronouncements about it. Why do you have such an incredibly difficult time just saying, OK I was wrong?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't see how we're getting anywhere. With any charge, of course there is always the theoretical possibility that had there been no plea, the jury might not have convicted. That's inherent in life, no one can predict with absolute certainty the outcome of a jury trial. That does not in the slightest negate the significance, legal or practical, of a guilty plea. And right, you didn't read the case, but that did not stop you from making repeated incorrect pronouncements about it. Why do you have such an incredibly difficult time just saying, OK I was wrong?

You're reverting back again to whether or not a jury would find them guilty of a charge. Again, that's not my point. He did it. He admitted to doing it. The question I'm asking is whether or not a jury would agree that it's criminal behavior to begin with. Not whether or not he in fact did it.

You keep circling back to the significance of a plea deal. Why are you doing this? This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I keep pointing to this over and over and you keep responding with some other point that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I have no problem with saying I'm wrong. I was absolutely wrong about the details of the case before. I was misinformed and took that misinformation for granted and repeated it. I was dead wrong. No problem admitting that. But those details still have nothing to do with what I've been talking about this entire time, which is wether or not a jury would agree that what Mastro did with the Wagner was in fact criminal behavior to begin with.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're reverting back again to whether or not a jury would find them guilty of a charge. Again, that's not my point. He did it. He admitted to doing it. The question I'm asking is whether or not a jury would agree that it's criminal behavior to begin with. Not whether or not he in fact did it.

You keep circling back to the significance of a plea deal. Why are you doing this? This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I keep pointing to this over and over and you keep responding with some other point that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I have no problem with saying I'm wrong. I was absolutely wrong about the details of the case before. I was misinformed and took that misinformation for granted and repeated it. I was dead wrong. No problem admitting that. But those details still have nothing to do with what I've been talking about this entire time, which is wether or not a jury would agree that what Mastro did with the Wagner was in fact criminal behavior to begin with.

The jury would have been instructed very precisely on the elements of the crime as charged. It would not have been up to them to decide if it could be a crime or not, only if as a factual matter the government had proved each element. In other words, that's not a judgment for the jury, they are told what the law is. Any argument that it couldn't be a crime would have been raised by Mastro in motion practice, presumably.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The jury would have been instructed very precisely on the elements of the crime as charged. It would not have been up to them to decide if it could be a crime or not, only if as a factual matter the government had proved each element. In other words, that's not a judgment for the jury, they are told what the law is. Any argument that it couldn't be a crime would have been raised by Mastro in motion practice, presumably.

You make it sound like the judge is going to say something along the lines of "If you believe Billy Boy trimmed and later sold a baseball card, then you must convict him of this charge."

Here's an example of a set of jury instructions from a NY court corresponding to a criminal simulation case. The phrasing of these instructions creates multiple significant hurdles that you'd need to successfully argue your way through in order to get a conviction even on something like the Wagner case with Mastro. And it would be significantly more difficult (perhaps nearly impossible) to get a jury to convict someone of criminal simulation for something as benign as selling a cleaned baseball card.

[Stampsfan]

Anyhow... How about that Morehouse Baking #151 Babe Ruth Rookie?

[ClementeFanOh]

Stampsfan- Congratulations, and a standing ovation! Back to the actual
topic of the thread. This REA catalog is loaded, I've bookmarked several
items and can't wait to see how things play out. My goal is to win just one

Trent King

[MikeGarcia]

1937-1939 Cincinnati Reds Orcajo Photo Art Dayton Ohio ; some were advertising for a butcher and his side-hustle : Lard. Val Decker Lard was famous .

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Anyhow... How about that Morehouse Baking #151 Babe Ruth Rookie?

Currently at $505k + juice. Any guesses on hammer? $1M? $2M? $5M?

[Beercan collector]

Dang I was gonna post pictures of beer cans here this morning
But thread is back on the original topic .
I’m guessing $2.4 million ,

[BigfootIsReal]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Currently at $505k + juice. Any guesses on hammer? $1M? $2M? $5M?

I still don't get why this is considered a "Rookie" when it wasn't widely distributed.