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

[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.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sure, it's possible that charge would not have stuck

Hey, now we're getting somewhere. This is progress. Congratulations, Peter!

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It doesn't invalidate the conclusions one can draw from a guilty plea.

Sure. But again, I'm not interested in those conclusions. I don't think they're interesting or informative at all about how the rest of the world, the people outside this hobby, would view the selling of altered sports cards.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Recall that your initial thesis was that it wasn't part of the case at all but something Mastro himself injected.

I knew nothing about the case. I never read it. I was simply quoting/responding to whatever you said about it.

[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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Because his thesis is that this is not a crime, so if he concedes this actual real-world case, his argument falls apart. It is very important this not be conceded, because he totally does not commit this kind of fraud himself, it's his passion for completely unrelated reasons.