Biden for President?

[TurkeysGhost]

Hummer has provided the documentation to substantiate their claim. Simple as that.

Yup, and there can be no other explanation other than Reade knowingly and willingly defrauded a charity. We know this because the very angry person says so.

Also, it's true that people are either Credible, or Not Credible. Reade may have ripped off a charity decades after she worked for Biden. Therefore she has been and always will be a liar.

You see, credible people never lie. They don't bounce checks either. Only dirty poor people bounce checks. And liars.

 

[Dr. Keith]

He also vice-presided over Obama's decision to get involved in hostilities in Libya and Syria, among other places.

But the joke I was actually trying for fell flat. Something about Lincoln, Washington, Churchill and FDR all being big ol' warmongers. It tried to build on TM's subversion of the list, but subverted it in a different way, causing confusion instead of jollity. Sorry 'bout that!

The joke may not have landed, but thanks for the new word.

 

[wareyin]

Why do you think that diversion programs for bad checks were standard practice? Maybe it's an acknowledgement that bounced checks are often aren't really a matter for criminal court and are usually not caused by fraudulent intentions?

I'm hoping you're just woefully ignorant on how things worked when checks were more commonly used. Otherwise this strikes me as a deeply classist argument for why all poor folks who can't pay their bills are morally flawed.

SHE WENT TO COURT FOR FRAUD!!1!. Get a grip. She bounced a check and paid it. probably got a little administrative fine to go along with it. A firm wrist slapping. The court purged the record, because everyone knew that this is ticky-tack crap that isn't a criminal matter.

The modern instant debit card has automated this process with overdraft fees. Those that pay their overdraft fees are not considered fraudsters.

I was alive and writing checks in 1993. I definitely had more than one bounce before modern debit cards. I agree that a bounced check is not usually caused by fraudulent intentions, which is why the statute you quoted included the phrase "willfully, with intent to defraud". Perhaps you missed that?

Your continued claim that she only bounced one check is still unsubstantiated, by the way. I did ask you why you're making it when not even Reade is claiming that. Perhaps you missed that as well?

 

[theprestige]

The joke may not have landed, but thanks for the new word.

You're welcome! I'm partial to "vice-presided", myself.

 

[wareyin]

Yup, and there can be no other explanation other than Reade knowingly and willingly defrauded a charity. We know this because the very angry person says so.

No, we also had other witnesses, and other witnesses to her other attempts to steal from that charity. I know you participated in that conversation, so it's odd that you can't remember those bits.

Also, it's true that people are either Credible, or Not Credible. Reade may have ripped off a charity decades after she worked for Biden. Therefore she has been and always will be a liar.

You see, credible people never lie. They don't bounce checks either. Only dirty poor people bounce checks. And liars.

Who among us hasn't been taken to court for fraud and stolen $1400 from a charity? Why, bringing up Reade's criminal past is nothing short of a dastardly attempt to portray her as a criminal! The pearl clutching is so cute.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I was alive and writing checks in 1993. I definitely had more than one bounce before modern debit cards. I agree that a bounced check is not usually caused by fraudulent intentions, which is why the statute you quoted included the phrase "willfully, with intent to defraud". Perhaps you missed that?

Your continued claim that she only bounced one check is still unsubstantiated, by the way. I did ask you why you're making it when not even Reade is claiming that. Perhaps you missed that as well?

her case was diverted and purged. Do you think that's because she was a fraudster, or because she paid what she owed and the diversion program worked as intended?

Any of those checks you bounced could have been pursued this way. You too could have had a purged record and a-holes on twitter could call you a fraud.

I'd bet that Tara Reade never "went to court for fraud". She probably got a nasty letter saying "pay up or else" and payed up. Papers moved back and forth across a desk and a few stamps were licked.

You realize that poverty is a criminal matter in this country, right? Debtors courts are very much alive, just in different names. Bad check programs have been criticized as heavy-handed approach to the non-criminal matter of bad checks. Often they are criticized as being driven by profit motive, either by private companies or by the law enforcement agencies themselves.

You're showing your ass claiming a bounced check is a fraudulent matter.

 

[wareyin]

her case was diverted and purged. Do you think that's because she was a fraudster, or because she paid what she owed and the diversion program worked as intended?

Any of those checks you bounced could have been pursued this way. You too could have had a purged record and a-holes on twitter could call you a fraud.

I'd bet that Tara Reade never "went to court for fraud". She probably got a nasty letter saying "pay up or else" and payed up. Papers moved back and forth across a desk and a few stamps were licked.

You realize that poverty is a criminal matter in this country, right? Debtors courts are very much alive, just in different names.

You're showing your ass claiming a bounced check is a fraudulent matter.

No, I'm claiming that a court case for fraud is a fraudulent matter. I'm not sure what is confusing to you about that. Remember your statute? It wasn't "accidentally" it was "willfully, with intent to defraud".

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Digression, still, though it builds up to an unsavory character----which of her many completely contradictory stories about her experience with Biden have you chosen to believe?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No, I'm claiming that a court case for fraud is a fraudulent matter. I'm not sure what is confusing to you about that. Remember your statute? It wasn't "accidentally" it was "willfully, with intent to defraud".

You seem to believe that she was prosecuted and then the record was purged. Why?

The typical bad check diversion program occurs after the state becomes involved and charges are filed, but before prosecution. Is there any reason not to believe that Reade's case was diverted and purged at this point?

Which is more likely to you? That she completed the normal diversion by coughing up the money, or that she was convicted of deliberate fraud and managed to get the record purged?

If you had been bouncing checks in this county, it could have been you.

 

[wareyin]

You seem to believe that she was prosecuted and then the record was purged. Why?

The typical bad check diversion program occurs after the state becomes involved and charges are filed, but before prosecution. Is there any reason not to believe that Reade's case was diverted and purged at this point?

Your claim is that she was charged with fraud, pled guilty and paid restitution, and so it was no longer fraudulent? How does that work?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Your claim is that she was charged with fraud, pled guilty and paid restitution, and so it was no longer fraudulent? How does that work?

Diversion isn't restitution.

Where do you see that she plead guilty or was prosecuted?

She claims she completed diversion (aka coughed up the money) and the charges were dropped. Records of the charges were purged, consistent with the diversion program guidelines.

 

[wareyin]

Diversion isn't restitution.

Where do you see that she plead guilty or was prosecuted?

She claims she completed diversion (aka coughed up the money) and the charges were dropped. Records of the charges were purged, consistent with the diversion program guidelines.

Can I ask why you cited California 476, which pertains to Forgery and Counterfeiting, yet you keep claiming this was a bounced check (still not what Reade is claiming or substantiated in any other way yet, btw)?

Under Penal Code 476, you commit check fraud if each of the following elements of this offense are proven by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt:

You made, passed off, possessed or attempted to make or pass, an altered, forged or fake check,
Which you knew was altered, forged or faked and,
With the intent to defraud someone or entity and,
By representing that the check was real or genuine

This wasn't a bounced check or overdraft if you were correct in citing that statute.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can I ask why you cited California 476, which pertains to Forgery and Counterfeiting, yet you keep claiming this was a bounced check (still not what Reade is claiming or substantiated in any other way yet, btw)?

Under Penal Code 476, you commit check fraud if each of the following elements of this offense are proven by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt:

You made, passed off, possessed or attempted to make or pass, an altered, forged or fake check,
Which you knew was altered, forged or faked and,
With the intent to defraud someone or entity and,
By representing that the check was real or genuine

This wasn't a bounced check or overdraft if you were correct in citing that statute.

Reade was never charged with 476. She was charged under 476A(A).

lookup 476A (A). That's what' cited on the twitter rando's screengrab of an alleged background search.

I even linked it for you. earlier. It's about checks with insufficient funds.

she bounced a check. Keep digging.

476a.
(a) Any person who, for himself or herself, as the agent or representative of another, or as an officer of a corporation, willfully, with intent to defraud, makes or draws or utters or delivers a check, draft, or order upon a bank or depositary, a person, a firm, or a corporation, for the payment of money, knowing at the time of that making, drawing, uttering, or delivering that the maker or drawer or the corporation has not sufficient funds in, or credit with the bank or depositary, person, firm, or corporation, for the payment of that check, draft, or order and all other checks, drafts, or orders upon funds then outstanding, in full upon its presentation, although no express representation is made with reference thereto, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

Now how would a court determine if someone bounced a check with intent to defraud vs just ordinary carelessness? Maybe they could have some program to divert cases where people were willing to pay. Some kind of bad check program. Then, if they paid, they don't get prosecuted and the whole thing goes away.

Crazy idea. Would never work.

 

[wareyin]

Reade was never charged with 476. She was charged under 476A(A).

lookup 476A (A). That's what' cited on the twitter rando's screengrab of an alleged background search.

I even linked it for you. earlier. It's about checks with insufficient funds.

she bounced a check. Keep digging.

Ok, for 476a: there is still the "willfully, with intent to defraud" bit that you keep ignoring. According to this law firm: "The bad check statute requires that the defendant have the intent to defraud at the time of writing the bad check. If the defendant unintentionally writes a check without realizing that there are insufficient in his account, he would a valid accident defense if charged criminally."

Yet for some reason Reade didn't have such a defense?

eta: Pertaining to your edit, yes I know you are hyper focused on one particular phrase to the exclusion of the rest of the statute. But the rest of the statute doesn't go away just because you don't want to see it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Ok, for 476a: there is still the "willfully, with intent to defraud" bit that you keep ignoring. According to this law firm: "The bad check statute requires that the defendant have the intent to defraud at the time of writing the bad check. If the defendant unintentionally writes a check without realizing that there are insufficient in his account, he would a valid accident defense if charged criminally."

Yet for some reason Reade didn't have such a defense?

The case was diverted. Through the bad check program that exist for the sole purpose of resolving bad checks without prosecution. Because the system acknowledges that most bounced checks are not attempts to commit fraud. Then the record was purged, because even the most ghoulish lawmakers know that a criminal record for a bounced check is a bit silly.

Then twitter detectives found a purged reference linking FRAUD!!!! and got their wishful thinking factory all fired up.

 

[wareyin]

The case was diverted. Through the bad check program that exist for the sole purpose of resolving bad checks without prosecution. Then the record was purged, because even the most ghoulish lawmakers know that a criminal record for a bounced check is a bit silly.

Then twitter detectives found a purged reference linking FRAUD!!!! and got their wishful thinking factory all fired up.

So, Reade was unable to claim the defense that it was an accident for whatever reason, and paid restitution after she was charged. I'm still not seeing how this wasn't fraud. And I'm still not seeing any evidence for your (not Reade's) claim that it was a single bounced check.


And to repeat another question you seem to have missed "which of her many completely contradictory stories about her experience with Biden have you chosen to believe?"
I'd like to know the answer to that one as well.

 

[xjx388]

Hummer has provided the documentation to substantiate their claim. Simple as that.

Not really. She's provided a vet bill and said that Reade defrauded her relating to that bill, for example. We don't know that the "defrauded" part is true. You are taking her word for it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So, Reade was unable to claim the defense that it was an accident for whatever reason, and paid restitution after she was charged. I'm still not seeing how this wasn't fraud. And I'm still not seeing any evidence for your (not Reade's) claim that it was a single bounced check.


And to repeat another question you seem to have missed "which of her many completely contradictory stories about her experience with Biden have you chosen to believe?"
I'd like to know the answer to that one as well.

Sure, Reade could have been kiting checks for decades and stealing pension checks out of mailboxes. Who knows? When you use your imagination, anything is possible. There's no evidence for anything beyond the single bad check.

The twitter detectives found a single reference to a purged record concerning a bounced check. Occam's razor is that she was in a bad-check diversion program that exists explicitly to extract payment for bad checks and remove these cases from the criminal court.

It looks like a bad check diversion program, it quacks like a bad check diversion program, and walks like a bad check diversion program, but it could still be an elephant. I can't prove it wasn't an elephant.

 

[wareyin]

Not really. She's provided a vet bill and said that Reade defrauded her relating to that bill, for example. We don't know that the "defrauded" part is true. You are taking her word for it.

I'm taking her word, the documentation, and the other witnesses she provided for it, yes. Is there some reason not to?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm taking her word, the documentation, and the other witnesses she provided for it, yes. Is there some reason not to?

It's a strange story, someone with good interview skills should ask her about it, confront her with the evidence.

Concluding that she committed fraud based on this is extremely reckless. Rushing to do so in order to smear her and dismiss her sexual assault claim is disgusting.