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

[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.

[calvindog]

Travis, I think Brian would be surprised to learn he was fired from the FBI. He was a decorated FBI agent and probably one of the best two I’ve ever worked with and against. Similarly, you know I can’t talk about my relationship with Brent but like everything else you have said here, it’s either a lie or just wrong.

You’re a low level fraudster. Period. And you want to convince yourself that you aren’t a fraudster by twisting yourself into a pretzel in defending of all people, Bill Mastro.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

You’re a low level fraudster. Period. And you want to convince yourself that you aren’t a fraudster by twisting yourself into a pretzel in defending of all people, Bill Mastro.

That sure smells a lot like defamation to me, Jeff.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Be careful. That smells a lot like defamation, Jeff.

Sue him for defamation. Please. Please do it.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sue him for defamation. Please. Please do it.

I'm just hoping to be the subject of his next podcast episode.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I'm just hoping to be the subject of his next podcast episode.

Don't bitch out, do it. You know the law better, I'm sure you'll win.

[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.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

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

It really is, just probably not the way you are thinking.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It really is, just probably not the way you are thinking.

It's a two-way street. You guys think I'm batshit crazy and remarkably stubborn (to say it politely) because I won't admit to being wrong about something when you think I'm debating legal matters with a legal expert.

But there's a while other side you're not seeing to this, which is that the legal experts in this thread have such tunnel vision that they cannot understand why someone would think there is merit in pointing out that someone being charged with a specific crime and found guilty of having committed that crime by a jury would have different implications than someone agreeing to a plea deal where dozens of offenses with varying degrees of seriousness were listed on it.

Here's the key difference. In one case, someone successfully argued in front of a jury that not only was someone guilty of doing the thing they are being accused of, but (and here's the kicker) also that the thing they are being accused of is in fact a crime to begin with. That's the key differentiator here. In a plea deal, you can just accuse them of something that you think is a crime and if they think the deal they're being offered is a favorable outcome, they'll just agree to it. And you never even have to successfully argue whether or not accusation #21 out of a list of 37 accusations was even a crime to begin with. And it might not matter anyhow, especially if the other 36 charges are far more serious (which in this case they certainly were).

The tunnel vision crew is stuck on the fact that Mastro was charged with trimming the Wagner and pled guilty to a list of charges in his plea deal which included the Wagner trimming/reselling. They are simply taking for granted that what he did with the Wagner was even a crime to begin with. What I am saying is that I don't believe that's a given. I'm saying it's something that would need to be argued. It's not like stealing a car or slashing someone's tires or something. This isn't a black & white issue. It would be very easy to make an argument that what he did with the Wagner wasn't even a crime to begin with. I'm saying it needs to be argued in front of a judge and jury. I'm also saying that because the Mastro case ended in a plea deal, the hobby was robbed of the opportunity to see how a jury would view the arguments for and against what he did with the Wagner as even being a crime to begin with. I think it would be very difficult to make the case today, knowing what we know, that he withheld material information about the Wagner when we know that the entire hobby is well aware that the card was trimmed but that it still didn't affect its value one bit (how can a fact be material if knowing it does not affect the value of something?). It is still to this day the single most valuable sports card in existence. There were no victims in his sale of that card. And if you think it's just a given that a jury would automatically accept your viewpoint/argument that it is in fact a crime, I'm saying perhaps you should think again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

What you're missing, among other things, is that the reason people agree to plea deals in the first place is that they've been advised that the admissible evidence against them is so strong that they'll highly likely be convicted if they go to trial. People don't agree to go to jail lightly. So the decision to plead is highly correlated with the strength of a case and the likely outcome of a trial. If Bill Mastro and his counsel thought there was any modest chance he would be acquitted, he would have gone to trial.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What you're missing, among other things, is that the reason people agree to plea deals in the first place is that they've been advised that the admissible evidence against them is so strong that they'll highly likely be convicted if they go to trial. People don't agree to go to jail lightly. So the decision to plead is highly correlated with the strength of a case and the likely outcome of a trial. If Bill Mastro and his counsel thought there was any modest chance he would be acquitted, he would have gone to trial.

No, I'm not missing that at all. Of course he did. Every other charge on that plea deal was far more serious. He knew he was cooked. His only objective at that point was to spend the least amount of time behind bars as possible. But we still learned nothing about whether or not what he did with the Wagner would have been viewed as a crime by a jury to begin with. I know you think it's pretty straight-forward. Jeff thinks it's straight-forward as well. But I assure you, it is not so cut and dried.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

No, I'm not missing that at all. Of course he did. Every other charge on that plea deal was far more serious. He knew he was cooked. His only objective at that point was to spend the least amount of time behind bars as possible. But we still learned nothing about whether or not what he did with the Wagner would have been viewed as a crime by a jury to begin with. I know you think it's pretty straight-forward. Jeff thinks it's straight-forward as well. But I assure you, it is not so cut and dry.

If I recall now, the charge was that he touted the past sale of the Wagner by Mastronet, and the price realized, without disclosing that he had trimmed it. I believe the prior sale had been years before, the one he touted. At that time, "everyone" certainly did not know it was trimmed, nor could you fairly say that it wasn't a material fact affecting the value. It seems like straight fraud, intentional failure to disclose a material fact. Sure, it's possible that charge would not have stuck, but in theory that's true of everything. It doesn't invalidate the conclusions one can draw from a guilty plea. Recall that your initial thesis was that it wasn't part of the case at all but something Mastro himself injected.