Card doctoring video

[Peter_Spaeth]

Again, from the US Attorney's office:


According to the indictment, in advertising portraying Mastro Auctions as the premier seller of valuable items, including the world’s most expensive baseball trading card, a Honus Wagner T-206 card, Mastro allegedly failed to disclose that he had altered the Wagner T-206 card by cutting the sides in a manner that, if disclosed, would have significantly reduced the value of the card. The charges allege that Mastro and Allen caused the sale of certain items knowing that their authenticity and condition were misrepresented to customers, including purported hair of Elvis Presley and a purported 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings trophy baseball.

For those of you who apparently don't understand this, the indictment is the document setting forth the criminal charges.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Again, from the US Attorney's office:


According to the indictment, in advertising portraying Mastro Auctions as the premier seller of valuable items, including the world’s most expensive baseball trading card, a Honus Wagner T-206 card, Mastro allegedly failed to disclose that he had altered the Wagner T-206 card by cutting the sides in a manner that, if disclosed, would have significantly reduced the value of the card. The charges allege that Mastro and Allen caused the sale of certain items knowing that their authenticity and condition were misrepresented to customers, including purported hair of Elvis Presley and a purported 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings trophy baseball.

For those of you who apparently don't understand this, the indictment is the document setting forth the criminal charges.

Well yes, but a company they like or people they like (or themselves) engage in this activity, and so indictments must be ignored alongside the text of the laws and the definition of criminal fraud itself so they can claim their boys didn't do nothing.

Arguing that things should be restructured so that trimming without disclosure is not fraud would at least not require being blatantly factually wrong, but that angle isn't perfect for the agenda, so it won't be used. Instead, just double down on factually incorrect claims to fact. That's the ticket.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Well yes, but a company they like or people they like (or themselves) engage in this activity, and so indictments must be ignored alongside the text of the laws and the definition of criminal fraud itself so they can claim their boys didn't do nothing.

Arguing that things should be restructured so that trimming without disclosure is not fraud would at least not require being blatantly factually wrong, but that angle isn't perfect for the agenda, so it won't be used. Instead, just double down on factually incorrect claims to fact. That's the ticket.

But I'm the one accused of spinning the facts to meet my narrative. It's right there in black and white in the charging document, but somehow he wasn't charged with it, it was just something that was brought up LATER to reflect on his character, and he admitted it not because it was part of the charges to which he had to answer, but because he was a good citizen coming clean.

The denial and contrarian and counterfactual bullshit on this thread top anything I have seen yet on Net 54.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The denial and contrarian and counterfactual bullshit on this thread top anything I have seen yet on Net 54.

Then you're obviously staying away from the watercooler section

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Then you're obviously staying away from the watercooler section

Sometimes it is essential for maintaining ones sanity

[Johnny630]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYQV9aYNzkg

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYQV9aYNzkg

Dave F.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dYQV9aYNzkg

I like that they call out the people that everyone gets upset if you observe their deeds. Their enemies have a really hard time citing specific instances of their claims to fact being actually wrong.

But this is a good example of why SCR is so immature and insufferable at the same time at the 9 minute mark.

“I’ll tell you something right now, if this guy ever approached me at a card show or anywhere else, he’d get dealt with real quick [cuts to video clip of 2 men shooting sub machine guns into a store]”

Really? Death threats? Hard to claim the moral high ground while implying you’ll shoot everyone.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But I'm the one accused of spinning the facts to meet my narrative. It's right there in black and white in the charging document, but somehow he wasn't charged with it, it was just something that was brought up LATER to reflect on his character, and he admitted it not because it was part of the charges to which he had to answer, but because he was a good citizen coming clean.

The denial and contrarian and counterfactual bullshit on this thread top anything I have seen yet on Net 54.

We see every week or so that a great many people structure the argument after the conclusion, and do so without any regard whatsoever for provable facts. That feels like the normal. The combination of a complete lack of ethics alongside the stupidity elevates this one. On the plus side, it gives a good roster of names not to buy or trade with. People who think criminal fraud is legal and morally acceptable tend to be dishonest in their dealings and greatly heighten the risk factor.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

We see every week or so that a great many people structure the argument after the conclusion, and do so without any regard whatsoever for provable facts. That feels like the normal. The combination of a complete lack of ethics alongside the stupidity elevates this one. On the plus side, it gives a good roster of names not to buy or trade with. People who think criminal fraud is legal and morally acceptable tend to be dishonest in their dealings and greatly heighten the risk factor.

Dunno about you, but when a question comes up about an indictment, I don't look to the indictment itself or the official government press release, I look to my memory of what some anonymous people said almost a decade ago on a chatboard.

Speaking of the actual indictment:

11. It was further part of the scheme that in marketing materials distributed
on behalf of Mastro Auctions, which were intended to portray Mastro Auctions to
potential bidders and consignors as a premier seller of valuable items for which a
strong market existed, defendant MASTRO represented that Mastro Auctions had sold
the most expensive baseball card in the world, a Honus Wagner T-206 card. In making
this representation, however, defendant MASTRO knowingly omitted the material fact
that defendant MASTRO had altered the baseball card by cutting the sides of the card
in a manner that, if disclosed, would have significantly reduced the value of the card.

You probably don't need to be a lawyer to understand what "It was further part of the scheme" means.

Anyone still want to claim he wasn't charged with selling an altered card without disclosure?

[MikeGarcia]

[nolemmings]

I would add that the intentional misrepresentation or omission of a material fact is actionable as civil fraud, and has been for more than the nearly 40 years I have been practicing in Arizona. I am confident that the law is similar in all states. Moreover, apart from being a common law cause of action, many states have statutes on the books for consumer fraud. Arizona at least has a broad view of what conduct can fall within the statute and even allows such claims to be proven by the far less stringent burden of proof-- preponderance of the evidence. Heck, in theory the Attorney General here is authorized to investigate and pursue claims for consumer fraud, and it is not taken lightly, although the politics and resources involved in those decisions are always in play. The law addresses “any deception, unfair act or practice, false statement, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation” and is actionable if relied upon by the plaintiff/victim, regardless of whether such reliance was reasonable.

In sum, to suggest that card alteration is only morally wrong but cannot comprise a crime or other unlawful conduct is just simply incorrect. {redundant for emphasis}

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Dunno about you, but when a question comes up about an indictment, I don't look to the indictment itself or the official government press release, I look to my memory of what some anonymous people said almost a decade ago on a chatboard.

Speaking of the actual indictment:

11. It was further part of the scheme that in marketing materials distributed
on behalf of Mastro Auctions, which were intended to portray Mastro Auctions to
potential bidders and consignors as a premier seller of valuable items for which a
strong market existed, defendant MASTRO represented that Mastro Auctions had sold
the most expensive baseball card in the world, a Honus Wagner T-206 card. In making
this representation, however, defendant MASTRO knowingly omitted the material fact
that defendant MASTRO had altered the baseball card by cutting the sides of the card
in a manner that, if disclosed, would have significantly reduced the value of the card.

You probably don't need to be a lawyer to understand what "It was further part of the scheme" means.

Anyone still want to claim he wasn't charged with selling an altered card without disclosure?

It's in reference to a non-criminal scheme, of course. That's why it's in the indictment and plea deal.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by G1911

We see every week or so that a great many people structure the argument after the conclusion, and do so without any regard whatsoever for provable facts. That feels like the normal. The combination of a complete lack of ethics alongside the stupidity elevates this one. On the plus side, it gives a good roster of names not to buy or trade with. People who think criminal fraud is legal and morally acceptable tend to be dishonest in their dealings and greatly heighten the risk factor.

I have learned quite a few things while reading this thread. The portion above, in bold, was likely the most helpful.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by G1911

We see every week or so that a great many people structure the argument after the conclusion, and do so without any regard whatsoever for provable facts. That feels like the normal. The combination of a complete lack of ethics alongside the stupidity elevates this one. On the plus side, it gives a good roster of names not to buy or trade with. People who think criminal fraud is legal and morally acceptable tend to be dishonest in their dealings and greatly heighten the risk factor.

I will stop after this last response, but I find it sad that you would think to cut off some from business/trade dealings just because they have a different opinion on a 8 year old court case. My goodness.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I will stop after this last response, but I find it sad that you would think to cut off some from business/trade dealings just because they have a different opinion on a 8 year old court case. My goodness.

I avoid deals with people who think fraud is acceptable. For the obvious reason, as my selfish interest is in not getting defrauded. People who think fraud is alright are much more likely to commit fraud. Sad!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Let's be clear. There is no difference of "opinion" about the Mastro case. What there is, is blatant and disingenuous misrepresentation of the factual record, even in the face of the operative documents.