Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[conVINCEd 21,474]

36 minutes ago, Constant said:

Interesting. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

23 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

nothing to see here ....

 

Bet you dollars to doughnuts there's fuck all of importance in those boxes.  He's trying to get the world howling about it and will fight, delay, deflect turning over those boxes for months.  Then the Feds will get their hands on them and find out there's nothing worth shit in them and the "witch hunt" bullshit gets turned up to 11 all the while he's smuggling the real shit out clandestinely. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

22 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

tagging the "CEO" of a corporate-type organization with criminal liability for the misdeeds of the organization can be very difficult, even if you know or believe that the CEO was intimately involved.

So what you're saying is Sarbanes-Oxley did nothing to curb rampant fraud at the executive level but ruined a great run we middle level peons had going with our expense reports?  That figures.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Fudge Nuggets

[Gil Bang 26,071]

1 hour ago, Constant said:

Interesting. 

Dotard is trying out to figure the fuck out what happened to those missing strawberries right about now.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

My man 3 putt knows what's up.  If you work for an oil and gas service company you go work for the company with the best expense report policy over salary.  You can make up the difference in no time.

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

11 hours ago, Hermanator said:

You understand that the legislature, although containing a lot of lawyers, usually very bad ones, is responsible for drafting and enacting the laws right?

And the legislative branch is pretty firmly regarded as a separate branch from the judicial branch, yeah?

And most of the "legal system," especially the part people like to whinge about on here, is pretty much entirely contained within the judicial branch?

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

15 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So what you're saying is Sarbanes-Oxley did nothing to curb rampant fraud at the executive level but ruined a great run we middle level peons had going with our expense reports?  That figures.

Contrary to popular belief, although SOX did impose some level of responsibility on CEOs or "signing officers" for the accuracy of financial statements and the processes that produce them, it didn't make the CEO automagically liable for every misdeed of the corporation.

Curiously enough, obstruction of an official proceeding, the prime 1/6 felony, 18 USC 1512, was added by SOX.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

Not that it's a full report, but ChatGPT says the most high profile cases of executives going to jail under SOX are Bernie Ebbers (2005), Skilling (2006) and Richard Scrushy  from HealthSouth in 2003.  So this great piece of legislation that was supposed to tamp down rampant corporate fraud basically rounded up the three biggest pieces of shit that instigated the legislation in the first place and for the last 17 years basically fuck all has been accomplished.  Remind me again which branch writes the laws? 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Contrary to popular belief, although SOX did impose some level of responsibility on CEOs or "signing officers" for the accuracy of financial statements and the processes that produce them, it didn't make the CEO automagically liable for every misdeed of the corporation.

It sure as shit said they were liable for false and misleading financial statements.  So the CEO's, CFO's, etc just started every conference call with a "forward looking statements" disclosure to let them lie out of their asses.  Apparently it works.  Great job lawyers that didn't see that loophole coming from a mile away.

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It sure as shit said they were liable for false and misleading financial statements.  So the CEO's, CFO's, etc just started every conference call with a "forward looking statements" disclosure to let them lie out of their asses.  Apparently it works.  Great job lawyers that didn't see that loophole coming from a mile away.

I didn't say that it didn't.

And forward looking statements and disclaimers have jackshit to do with SOX.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Securities_Litigation_Reform_Act

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

So another great piece of legislation by the legal folk?  The PSLRA was enacted in 1995 and still the likes of Enron, Worldcom, etc were allowed to thrive.  Not exactly a great counterpoint there, hoss.

And before you get all butthurt again, I'm not blaming you personally at all.  You're a great dude and respected poster.  It's just that your profession is complete shit and you don't seem to think said shit stinks.

[tx 3 putt 77,673]

53 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

My man 3 putt knows what's up.  If you work for an oil and gas service company you go work for the company with the best expense report policy over salary.  You can make up the difference in no time.

 

i used to work with a guy. his side gig was a legal $100k / year business, all cash. that whole side gig was at least 75% built up and maintained from his expenses. 

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So another great piece of legislation by the legal folk?  The PSLRA was enacted in 1995 and still the likes of Enron, Worldcom, etc were allowed to thrive.  Not exactly a great counterpoint there, hoss.

And before you get all butthurt again, I'm not blaming you personally at all.  You're a great dude and respected poster.  It's just that your profession is complete shit and you don't seem to think said shit stinks.

You realize, though, that lawyers don't write and enact the laws right?

Some legislators are lawyers, yes, but it's not a requirement and most aren't.

You'll get no argument from me that white collar criminal laws are lax, as are many corporate regulations.

That has nothing to do with the legal system, per se.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

You realize, though, that lawyers don't write and enact the laws right?

Some legislators are lawyers, yes, but it's not a requirement and most aren't.

You'll get no argument from me that white collar criminal laws are lax, as are many corporate regulations.

That has nothing to do with the legal system, per se.

What profession did most lobbyists come from?

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

10 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

i used to work with a guy. his side gig was a legal $100k / year business, all cash. that whole side gig was at least 75% built up and maintained from his expenses. 

I never had a side gig like that, but for about 10 years straight I bet minimum 90% of my cash outlays were covered by an expense report.  I traveled a lot in those days and company policy was "Door to door, provide a receipt for anything over $100 and you're good."  We used form 99-99 a lot.  Go on a 10 day business trip, and I could easily pass along a $3,000 expense report that would get fully approved and I only spent $300 out of my own pocket.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Some legislators are lawyers, yes, but it's not a requirement and most aren't.

Around 40% of Reps have some sort of law degree and around 60% of senators have a law degree.

[Pato del Muerto 52,688]

21 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I never had a side gig like that, but for about 10 years straight I bet minimum 90% of my cash outlays were covered by an expense report.  I traveled a lot in those days and company policy was "Door to door, provide a receipt for anything over $100 and you're good."  We used form 99-99 a lot.  Go on a 10 day business trip, and I could easily pass along a $3,000 expense report that would get fully approved and I only spent $300 out of my own pocket.

This is called stealing. Low end white collar crime. 

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

What profession did most lobbyists come from?

Not sure about most, but it's still not the legal system.

 

32 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Around 40% of Reps have some sort of law degree and around 60% of senators have a law degree.

According to the ABA, 175 out of 535 Reps and Senators have law degrees. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/washingtonletter/january-2021-wl/attorneys-117thcongress/

Congressional Research Service says 230 list their occupation as "law." https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/washingtonletter/january-2021-wl/attorneys-117thcongress/

Still. Not. The. Legal. System.

No lawyer or even group of lawyers can enact a law.  Unless, that group of lawyers happen to be elected legislators that constitute a majority of the legislature.

Edited May 27, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

This is called stealing. Low end white collar crime. 

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not sure about most, but it's still not the legal system.

 

According to the ABA, 175 out of 535 Reps and Senators have law degrees.

Still. Not. The. Legal. System.

No lawyer or even group of lawyers can enact a law.

So which profession do you think is at fault for this bullshit?  If one profession has 33% of the reps, what profession has a higher representation?

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

25 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

This is called stealing. Low end white collar crime. 

I followed company policy to a T pre and post SOX.  Prove otherwise.

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

6 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So which profession do you think is at fault for this bullshit?  If one profession has 33% of the reps, what profession has a higher representation?

Why does a single profession have to be responsible for it?  33% cant do jackshit in either house of congress without at least acquiescence of a good chunk of their colleagues.

Lawyers are not some monolith.

How about fucking politicians?  That's actually the largest "profession" reported by CRS.

One reason white collar crimes aren't robust is because politicians, lawyers or otherwise, are as ripe a targets for them as business types.

Edited May 27, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19,242]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why does a single profession have to be responsible for it?

How about fucking politicians?  That's actually the largest "profession" reported by CRS.

I'm just asking which profession most of these politicians came from.  Looks like 33% or so are from the legal profession. Which profession is higher?

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

Table 2.

Most Frequently Listed Occupational Categories by Members, 117th Congress At the beginning of the 117th Congress

Occupation Representatives Senators

Public Service/Politics 297 64

Business 273 47

Law 173 57

Education 85 28

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

23 hours ago, safe sex said:

And I think we know how well trying to legislate tougher penalties for white collar crimes would go

Also, it's not tougher penalties.  White collar crimes are the same crimes, with the same penalties, as blue collar crimes.

I'm not a fan of tougher penalties.  Most are too tough already.

It's that a lot of "corporate misconduct" isn't expressly criminal, or can't be wedged into a criminal statute that easily.

Most recently, Elizabeth Holmes got tagged for about 12 years for pretty straight up wire fraud.  That's probably about "right" for that crime with that kind of "loss number."

On the other hand, DOJ sort of made up this "honest services" variation of wire fraud to be applied to corporate types and politicians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_services_fraud

Jeff Skilling was convicted of it, but had his sentence overturned, on that part, at least.  Jack Smith had the same result with Bob McDonnell, the Virginia governor.

DOJ cooked up a theory on Varsity Blues (college admission case) on honest services fraud and the only two tried and convicted defendants just got their convictions overturned.  It appears that all of the defendants that pled would have obtained the same result.  DOJ got over their skis.

So, the laws don't match up very well with the crimes.

Then in some cases, the actual sentence rendered, as opposed to the statutory sentencing range, seems light.  I'm not sure that that is a real problem so much as those cases get more attention and any light sentences are decried.  Thankfully, actually, light sentences happen all the time for all manner of crimes, just no one is looking unless it's a high profile crime, or the defendant goes on to whack someone on parole.  You get the same hysterics either way.

I guarantee you, though, that 'tougher sentencing," which usually takes the form of mandatory minimums, is not the answer.  It's never the answer.

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Hermanator 7,210]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You understand that the legislature, although containing a lot of lawyers, usually very bad ones, is responsible for drafting and enacting the laws right?

And the legislative branch is pretty firmly regarded as a separate branch from the judicial branch, yeah?

And most of the "legal system," especially the part people like to whinge about on here, is pretty much entirely contained within the judicial branch?

That part of the legal system is responsible for crafting the laws in the way that protects the rich thieves. So it's all the legal system. Legislative creates the crooked laws, judiciary judges based on crooked laws.

[safe sex 11,800]

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I guarantee you, though, that 'tougher sentencing," which usually takes the form of mandatory minimums, is not the answer.  It's never the answer.

 

You're right, and I know that. Tougher sentencing was not the right phrasing from what I'm trying to express. Better enforcement? Better written laws? Just something. Would it be some tragic miscarriage of justice if civil jury verdict requirements were used for white collar criminal cases? I don't even know if that makes sense or if it even works that way; I'm pretty baked.

But what needs to happen is never gonna happen, we've all just gotta sit with that L.

Edited May 27, 2023 by safe sex

[conVINCEd 21,474]

3 minutes ago, safe sex said:

You're right, and I know that. Tougher sentencing was not the right phrasing from what I'm trying to express. Better enforcement? Better written laws? Just something. Would it be some tragic miscarriage of justice if civil jury verdict requirements were used for white collar criminal cases? I don't even know if that makes sense or if it even works that way; I'm pretty baked.

But what needs to happen is never gonna happen, we've all just gotta sit with that L.

Lowering the burden of proof is a bad idea.  Get more baked, come back and reevaluate in the morning.  You don’t send someone to prison because you’re 51/49 in favor of guilty.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high bar, and it should be.

[safe sex 11,800]

Well, I don't think it should be 51/49. But I'm not sure it should be 100% either for these pieces of shit that ravage our democracy, economy, the middle class, the poor, all the constant victims of white collar crime, and get away with it on the reg.

Edited May 27, 2023 by safe sex

[Foosters 17,906]

I think you'd be surprised how many people walk in general once they get to trial in a criminal case. Most of the slam dunk cases resolve with pleas. And that's not just white-collar criminals either.

[DalTxHornFan 3,121]

19 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I think you'd be surprised how many people walk in general once they get to trial in a criminal case. Most of the slam dunk cases resolve with pleas. And that's not just white-collar criminals either.

Winning a trial is a lot of hard work, and sometimes a crap shoot depending upon evidentiary rulings. That's why pleas/settlements happen something like 95% of the time.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

Blaming the legal system for the flaws of our political system is dumb and boring. Please stop. 

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

8 hours ago, safe sex said:

You're right, and I know that. Tougher sentencing was not the right phrasing from what I'm trying to express. Better enforcement? Better written laws? Just something. Would it be some tragic miscarriage of justice if civil jury verdict requirements were used for white collar criminal cases? I don't even know if that makes sense or if it even works that way; I'm pretty baked.

But what needs to happen is never gonna happen, we've all just gotta sit with that L.

I knew that's more or less what you meant, but thought I'd expound on the issue a bit.  I'm overall pro-defendant in most cases and think the criminal justice system is over-harsh overall.

So I get some cognitive dissonance talking about "slamming" those "deserving" while being lenient on those "less deserving."  And, as we have seen, "adjusting" the law to hammer or slam those we deem deserving winds up having similar unintended effects on others.

There are a couple of factors that thoughtful analysts say account for lenient sentencing in white-collar cases, to the extent it exists.  One is that many of them do have substantial records of some sort of "good works" or contributions to society that your ordinary working stiff can't show.  The other is that as (white) degreed professional types, prosecutors and judges often "see themselves" and are more willing to accept or believe that misconduct is some one-off thing.

[Lurch 5,932]

I followed company policy to a T pre and post SOX.  Prove otherwise.

And you paid taxes on that income, too, right?

[Macanudo 13,026]

SOX didn't do anything to curb corporate fraud.  All it had done is benefit the auditors and big tax firms.

[jimmyjazz 46,371]

So is expense report grift much more than pocketing one's per diem?  How exactly is it a side hustle, other than eating and drinking one's way thru a business trip?

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

21 hours ago, Foosters said:

I think you'd be surprised how many people walk in general once they get to trial in a criminal case. Most of the slam dunk cases resolve with pleas. And that's not just white-collar criminals either.

Except the feds.  If they indict, they usually convict, although by plea bargain most of the time.  Only 2% of federal cases go to trial, but when they do, the conviction rate drops to about 50%.

The nature of a lot of federal crimes is different from that of the more common state-law crimes like assault, murder, etc. where they're willing to indict on a cop's affidavit, either as a witness or an interviewer of witnesses.  They tend to take more proof and more investigation and more documents, etc. 

And, I know their charging policy is mostly the most severe crime the evidence can support and that it is difficult to obtain a plea for less than the worst charge in the indictment absent a serious failure of proof that can be shown before trial.  About the only thing you can bargain with the feds over is the sentence or range for a given crime.

I imagine foosters will confirm, but outside the major felony units, so much state court criminal work on both sides of the docket is really done by the seat of the pants.   I've known ADAs that will have 25 jury trial settings in a week and only the vaguest notion which ones will go to trial that week, if any.  They DGAF, they'll just read the file, bring the cops and witnesses and try the motherfucker.  Can be lots of surprises at those trials, and pleas right in the middle of them when someone's case goes to shit.

The feds are more like big firm lawyers.  Anal as hell, dotting every I and crossing every T and trying to the absolute best of their ability to eliminate any surprises.  They probably have six trial settings a year, if that, and know damn well whether that setting will move or go to trial weeks in advance.

Edited May 28, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,653]

22 hours ago, conVINCEd said:

Lowering the burden of proof is a bad idea.  Get more baked, come back and reevaluate in the morning.  You don’t send someone to prison because you’re 51/49 in favor of guilty.  Beyond a reasonable doubt is a high bar, and it should be.

Yeah, the government never wields so much power against an individual citizen as in a criminal case.  That's an awesome and scary thing.  And we've seen recently how easily government can be corrupted in blatant and grotesque ways, let alone the subtle corruptions of prejudice.  So, lowering the burden of proof is bad idea jeans.

So, yeah, we've got this process and it's slow and cumbersome and has some built in biases in favor of the powerful, but it also tries mightily to keep the deck stacked in favor of the little guy.  Anything we do to alter that to get the big guys is going to hurt the little guys worse.

[AnTiM 1,675]

The good news is that donald JAIL trump does not know how to keep his lying mouth shut and every time he opens it now it leads to a new charge.  I just hope he lives to be a hundred and spends every waking moment fighting and losing lawsuits.  And may all his remaining devotees keep wasting their money supporting his sorry ass.

[YGIFS 19,453]

The best part is the stupids don't understand that he keeps talking because it brings new charges so he can claim he needs more legal aid funds so they keep sending more money.  He's literally fucking with them in real time straight to their faces and they keep liquidating assets to "assist his cause." 

The entire 2024 campaign season will be completely about calendars.  These beautiful calendars.  How Trump will juggle fundraising/rallies with debates and primaries up against any of 3-5 different trials and lawsuits.  Not even the Donald with his newly repaired jet can keep this up for over a year.  He will drop dead as a result of the stress and logistics.  And that's the whole idea behind all of this anyways.  Sometime between the convention and the general, he gets sick.  Sorry some of you are gonna get the sads during the 2024 holidays.  Bummer.  I'm gonna be on acid.  

[DigglerontheHoof 21,263]

23 minutes ago, AnTiM said:

 I just hope he lives to be a hundred 

[WhatTheBuck 28,824]

I hope he dies today. 

[Brisketexan 105,490]

I hope he dies today. 

You misspelled “yesterday.”

[BamaATL 16,593]

51 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I hope he dies today. 

I hope he gets to a celly with an MS13 leader in ADX Florence due to overcrowding.

[Chewbacca 7,788]

I followed company policy to a T pre and post SOX.  Prove otherwise.

Well, you admitted to it, so there's that. Shit like that is why my employees get per diems when they are out of town.

And you paid taxes on that income, too, right?

Not on expense reimbursements you don't.

[Lurch 5,932]

On 5/26/2023 at 10:06 PM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Go on a 10 day business trip, and I could easily pass along a $3,000 expense report that would get fully approved and I only spent $300 out of my own pocket.

I get it now.  I was confused by this statement.  It read like you paid out $300 over 10 days, but then reported $3000, netting $2700 income.  I now understand it to mean you lived off of $3300 those 10 days and had $3000 of it reimbursed.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,908]

[Grade of D as in David 13,253]

8 hours ago, BamaATL said:

I hope he gets to a celly with an MS13 leader in ADX Florence due to overcrowding.

[conVINCEd 21,474]

1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Danny Devito has had a very impressive acting career for an ugly midget.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,132]

7 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Well, you admitted to it, so there's that. Shit like that is why my employees get per diems when they are out of town. Not on expense reimbursements you don't.

As someone who worked with a per diem expense account vs a non per diem expense account, I can tell you I made a shit ton more money on the per diem. I’ll give you a for instance. With a per diem, I eat 2 meals a day, and I eat cheap. Let’s say the customer provides lunch during our workshop and then I go get subway or something for dinner. I spent $10 on food that day and I get to pocket $90 of the $100 per diem. Or, I have a much nicer meal on my non Per diem account for dinner. I don’t claim breakfast because I didn’t eat it and I don’t claim lunch because it was provided. So now I have $50 dinner and I walk home with $0 and the company saves $50. Of course I could throw in fake meals for less than $20 for breakfast and lunch and wind up with ~$40 cash, and the company still saves $10, but that, I agree, would be stealing. I picked $20 in this case because my current company requires receipts above $20. 

Anyway, usually it’s cheaper for the company not to offer a per diem. Though I loved those per diem trips when I was traveling with a sales person and they picked up all the food bills, then I got to pocket the whole per diem every day. Oh, and final note, the company’s I’ve worked for offered the per diem for daily expenses, airfare/mileage, ground transportation and hotels were all handled outside that. 

[G650 14,294]

16 hours ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I go get subway or something for dinner.

C'mon man.