Mastro indicted

[barrysloate]

As well you should be.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

Is anyone but me curious as to why Mastro only had one count, where the other two had multiple? I wonder if Allen is a bit of a fall guy here (no, not even remotely saying he's innocent.)

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

the counts were mail fraud, and doug and mark sent more stuff through the mail and email than mastro, who they only have a charge of sending one thing through the mail. the feds can only charge people with federal crimes.

[calvindog]

Good lord.

Mastro was charged differently because he's cooperating against Dougie.

[travrosty]

The state could feel free to file numerous charges that fall outside of federal jurisdiction against the principals of which they have evidence of wrondoing if they choose.

[calvindog]

No soap radio.

[shelly]

You are correct but normally the feds get to do what they want. The states do not have the money or the time. If the fed get fines the state shares at no cost.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by calvindog

No soap radio.

like

[travrosty]

heres something to chew, and you can believe in me because i watch law and order a lot.


they only charged mastro with one count because he is pleading guilty. they dont need any more numerous "insurance" indictments against him since he agreed to plead guilty. the feds are probably interested in getting these guys a couple-few years in the pen so this one charge will accomplish that because it's 100 percent stuck and agreed to by mastro.

since allen is fighting the charges, they charged him with the entire book, as many charges as they could, so in case a couple fail, they will stand a good chance to prove at least one against him. and whether he gets found guilty of one charge or 14, its very probably he will see about the same time as mastro, a couple-few years as the convictions can be served concurrently if the judge sentences it that way, instead of consecutive. they just needed as many charges as they could, for "insurance" purposes. Mastro only needed one because it was for sure.

also, mastro's charge was different than the 14 for allen, they didnt want to charge mastro with one of the same ones they charged allen with, because they didnt want to give allen's lawyers a chance to point to mastro's guilty plea to help get allen off of the exact same charge by claiming mastro was behind it and here is mastro's guilty plea for that charge.

so that's another reason to charge mastro with only one charge, to make allens lawyers work for it and not point to a bunch of guilty pleas by mastro that could help allen get off of the hook for those charges if he were charged for the same violations. They probably picked one charge for mastro that was dissimilar as possible to any they charged allen with, to make it easier to pin allen on the ones he was charged with without allen pointing to mastro saying he was behind it and here is his guilty pleas.

mastro's charge was probably well thought out to show that it was done by him alone, a one-off, with allen not involved in it, and then have mastro say that the rest of them were allen's doing alone or at least with allen's full knowledge and consent. but we will see.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by travrosty

heres something to chew, and you can believe in me because i watch law and order a lot.


they only charged mastro with one count because he is pleading guilty. they dont need any more numerous "insurance" indictments against him since he agreed to plead guilty. the feds are probably interested in getting these guys a couple-few years in the pen so this one charge will accomplish that because it's 100 percent stuck and agreed to by mastro.

since allen is fighting the charges, they charged him with the entire book, as many charges as they could, so in case a couple fail, they will stand a good chance to prove at least one against him. and whether he gets found guilty of one charge or 14, its very probably he will see about the same time as mastro, a couple-few years as the convictions can be served concurrently if the judge sentences it that way, instead of consecutive. they just needed as many charges as they could, for "insurance" purposes. Mastro only needed one because it was for sure.

also, mastro's charge was different than the 14 for allen, they didnt want to charge mastro with one of the same ones they charged allen with, because they didnt want to give allen's lawyers a chance to point to mastro's guilty plea to help get allen off of the exact same charge by claiming mastro was behind it and here is mastro's guilty plea for that charge.

so that's another reason to charge mastro with only one charge, to make allens lawyers work for it and not point to a bunch of guilty pleas by mastro that could help allen get off of the hook for those charges if he were charged for the same violations. They probably picked one charge for mastro that was dissimilar as possible to any they charged allen with, to make it easier to pin allen on the ones he was charged with without allen pointing to mastro saying he was behind it and here is his guilty pleas.

mastro's charge was probably well thought out to show that it was done by him alone, a one-off, with allen not involved in it, and then have mastro say that the rest of them were allen's doing alone or at least with allen's full knowledge and consent. but we will see.

Travis. Between your job, your family, and net54... just how in the hell do you have time to watch Law & Order?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by travrosty

heres something to chew, and you can believe in me because i watch law and order a lot.


they only charged mastro with one count because he is pleading guilty. they dont need any more numerous "insurance" indictments against him since he agreed to plead guilty. the feds are probably interested in getting these guys a couple-few years in the pen so this one charge will accomplish that because it's 100 percent stuck and agreed to by mastro.

since allen is fighting the charges, they charged him with the entire book, as many charges as they could, so in case a couple fail, they will stand a good chance to prove at least one against him. and whether he gets found guilty of one charge or 14, its very probably he will see about the same time as mastro, a couple-few years as the convictions can be served concurrently if the judge sentences it that way, instead of consecutive. they just needed as many charges as they could, for "insurance" purposes. Mastro only needed one because it was for sure.

also, mastro's charge was different than the 14 for allen, they didnt want to charge mastro with one of the same ones they charged allen with, because they didnt want to give allen's lawyers a chance to point to mastro's guilty plea to help get allen off of the exact same charge by claiming mastro was behind it and here is mastro's guilty plea for that charge.

so that's another reason to charge mastro with only one charge, to make allens lawyers work for it and not point to a bunch of guilty pleas by mastro that could help allen get off of the hook for those charges if he were charged for the same violations. They probably picked one charge for mastro that was dissimilar as possible to any they charged allen with, to make it easier to pin allen on the ones he was charged with without allen pointing to mastro saying he was behind it and here is his guilty pleas.

mastro's charge was probably well thought out to show that it was done by him alone, a one-off, with allen not involved in it, and then have mastro say that the rest of them were allen's doing alone or at least with allen's full knowledge and consent. but we will see.

Travis -- don't quit your day job.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Travis -- don't quit your day job.

It's like he just started dreaming shi* up and writing it as he dreamed it. I never liked fiction that much. I can make crap up with the best of them why do I need to read other people's imaginations?

[travrosty]

allen wont get that much more time than mastro even though its 14 counts to one.

sorry i didnt run my opinion through the office of approved speech first.

a more appropriate response would be, that's interesting, i disagree with that opinion but we will see. instead it's all $%#%$#$ etc. why can't other people have a unique opinion without being attacked?

[calvindog]

A more appropriate response would be "what's your basis for saying these things?" The number of counts could have zero impact on the final sentence - what if the one count is conspiracy and the 14 counts are all substantive acts within that conspiracy? All the 14 counts would be grouped together anyway for purposes of the sentencing guidelines in this case. And you also failed to factor in the impact of 5K1 letter on Bill's sentencing. Other than all that you were right.

[drc]

It's true that Hamlet, Grapes of Wrath and the Great Gatsby are just a bunch of lies.

Actually, John Steinbeck was fired as a newspaper journalist because he made up stuff. He was more suited to be a novelist.

[Scott Garner]

[QUOTE=travrosty;1019515]heres something to chew, and you can believe in me because i watch law and order a lot."

Not to mention that you probably stayed in a Holiday Inn last night, Travis.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist the temptation to react to this quote.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by calvindog

A more appropriate response would be "what's your basis for saying these things?" The number of counts could have zero impact on the final sentence - what if the one count is conspiracy and the 14 counts are all substantive acts within that conspiracy? All the 14 counts would be grouped together anyway for purposes of the sentencing guidelines in this case. And you also failed to factor in the impact of 5K1 letter on Bill's sentencing. Other than all that you were right.

what is my basis for saying these things? it's my opinion and I get one too.

[calvindog]

So other than watching TV a lot -- what is your opinion based on?

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So other than watching TV a lot -- what is your opinion based on?

Stupidity!

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Stupidity!

C'mon Al. Put up a warning when you post something like that! The diet Coke I was drinking came out of my nose like a fire hose!

[shelly]

I think that most everyone that has anything to do with law will at least admit the more you fight the Feds the harder the sentence. I think that before this is over Allen will plead guilty and get this thing over with. I am sure that Mastro gave the Fed's enough evidence that it would make it hard not to be convicted.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

C'mon Al. Put up a warning when you post something like that! The diet Coke I was drinking came out of my nose like a fire hose!

Sorry Jimmy I will give more of a warning next time! But you know what the old saying says "You cant fix Stupid"

[travrosty]

I will still comment on what I think regardless if people think you can only be a lawyer to comment on legal proceedings. This isn't perry mason, we don't need to give our footnotes and cite precedent and law books. It's a blog forum meant to be fun or why would we come here, to work?

Please give your own opinion, I will have mine and so what? Why feel threatened? And if you don't feel threatened, why would anyone act that way toward someone who is voicing their views, calling people stupid?

I have an idea on why the feds do what they do, just like you. If we differ then good for us.

[calvindog]

Perry Mason cited footnotes, precedent and law books? Wow, you DO watch a lot of TV. I simply asked what was the basis for your rather strong opinion as to the federal sentencing guidelines, your experience with prosecutorial charging decisions, and judicial discretion. You used the word "probably" a lot so I simply asked where you were getting your seemingly certain info from. Now I see it was just from your ass -- that's fine, just wasn't sure, no problem.

[mr2686]

ahhhh, now the Diet Coke is coming out of MY nose.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mr2686

ahhhh, now the Diet Coke is coming out of MY nose.

Now you now how Burger felt.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Leon

And David, people can change even though you don't think so. I appreciate Shelly being on the board and let this be a warning that if you continually berate him for posting it won't be allowed for long. You can have your opinion of course, but as I have said many times, no one should be afraid that every single time they post they will be berated. We know how you feel already. Thanks for your understanding.

+1 Leon, way to go
We know how David feels, about me, about Chris, about DanC and about Shelly, we know over and over and over and over, ad infinitum. It has sounded like a broken record for a long time now.
You have to go pretty far off course on this board to get a public warning from Leon,,

[David Atkatz]

So glad you're back from vacation, Dick. We missed you stirring the shit, for absolutely no reason.

What a consummate ass you are.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

So glad you're back from vacation, Dick. We missed you stirring the shit, for absolutely no reason.

What a consummate ass you are.

Wow... C'mon David

[RichardSimon]

Why express surprise Scott, we all know David.

[David Atkatz]

Dick, are you five years old? Did my discussion about Shelly--which ended days ago--have anything to do with you? With Chris? Were either of you mentioned?

Was there any reason--any reason at all--for your gratuitous comment?

No, I thought not.

[Leon]

I would have preferred this thread not be responded to. Fanning the flames isn't a good thing.

[RichardSimon]

Yes that particular discussion did end earlier but I was not here to comment on it.
And I have seen numerous discussions end here on 54 and pick up days later, even months later.
I did not realize that in addition to being the person that you are that you are also the Net54 rule maker. (obviously this sentence was not a reply to Leon's post).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Yes that particular discussion did end earlier but I was not here to comment on it.
And I have seen numerous discussions end here on 54 and pick up days later, even months later.
I did not realize that in addition to being the person that you are that you are also the Net54 rule maker.

I think someone needs another vacation...

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

I think someone needs another vacation...

Not a bad idea but I spent a lot on the one already.
But thanks for the idea Ben.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Leon

I would have preferred this thread not be responded to. Fanning the flames isn't a good thing.

Leon - I responded now because I was unable to when the attacks against a friend of mine started.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Not a bad idea but I spent a lot on the one already.
But thanks for the idea Ben.

Hey..we could all use more r and r right?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by travrosty

It's a blog forum meant to be fun or why would we come here, to work?

Coming from you, Travis... that's really funny. Who would have thought that you had such a terrific sense of humor.

[travrosty]

well, i am the unknown comic.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by travrosty

well, i am the unknown comic.

that was good....especially given your avatar.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by travrosty

well, i am the unknown comic.

Right. Just another not funny no-talent guy that depended on gimmicks to get by.