Biden for President?

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't really see this as clarifying much.

Reade's attorney says the charges were dismissed. Was that because of a bad check diversion program, which exists to dismiss bounced check claims, or because of some other reason?

Again, someone should ask her about this. People online flying off the handle assuming the worst about Reade, especially when the most likely explanation is that it was a simple bad check diversion, are revealing their bad motives.

IIRC, the initial Tweet was questioned.

We are past that now. She resigned 4 days after being charged with a crime that she admits happened.

Claiming it was for a bounced check and pretending it really wasn't a couple days before she left Biden's office is at a minimum, false.

You don't get charged for bounced checks! Can we please stop with that dishonest description?

It doesn't matter that she went to some bad check school and paid a fine. She was charged with a crime and left Biden's office 4 days later.

Now decades later (and earlier explaining her leaving Biden's office to her (ex)husband and mother) the claim is her leaving Biden's office had nothing to do with being charged with a crime and everything to do with being sexually assaulted in a hallway.

IMO (given all the evidence to date) it's more likely the claim of assault is an excuse/coverup for the embarrassment of being fired.

 

[tyr_13]

Which parts are you not getting?

I'm not getting the part where any of this check stuff actually matters.

If she lied about why she stopped working in DC, that might indeed matter. But none of this gets us closer to knowing that. It still leaves the step of finding documentation of why she left that job, which would be the thing to do to answer the question even without knowing about the possibility of it being check fraud at all.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

IIRC, the initial Tweet was questioned.

We are past that now. She resigned 4 days after being charged with a crime that she admits happened.

Claiming it was for a bounced check and pretending it really wasn't a couple days before she left Biden's office is at a minimum, false.

You don't get charged for bounced checks! Can we please stop with that dishonest description?

It doesn't matter that she went to some bad check school and paid a fine. She was charged with a crime and left Biden's office 4 days later.

Now decades later (and earlier explaining her leaving Biden's office to her (ex)husband and mother) the claim is her leaving Biden's office had nothing to do with being charged with a crime and everything to do with being sexually assaulted in a hallway.

IMO (given all the evidence to date) it's more likely the claim of assault is an excuse/coverup for the embarrassment of being fired.

There is no evidence that her bounced check problems had anything to do with her firing/resignation. There's no evidence that anyone in Biden's office knew about her bad checks in California.

 

[xjx388]

I'm not getting the part where any of this check stuff actually matters.

If she lied about why she stopped working in DC, that might indeed matter. But none of this gets us closer to knowing that. It still leaves the step of finding documentation of why she left that job, which would be the thing to do to answer the question even without knowing about the possibility of it being check fraud at all.

Well yes.

But some here seem to be hung up on the check thing so I think it's important to clear up any misconceptions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And let me just note the extent to which some will go to paint Reade as a bad person: Turning the common and very minor occurrence of bounced checks being handled by the DA’s office into some nefarious fraud. Very interesting.

Straw man much?

Not painted as a "bad" person, rather the evidence supports the conclusion her accusation is false.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you have a cite for the highlighted?

You're a lawyer. Do you seriously believe people are charged with a crime for accidentally bouncing a check? Do you need a source?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Straw man much?

Not painted as a "bad" person, rather the evidence supports the conclusion her accusation is false.

There is very much an effort, both on this forum and in the wider online world, to paint Reade as a repeat fraudster. This check fraud story is something that is being promulgated as evidence of her poor character, despite the details being extremely thin.

 

[wareyin]

No, you stated that she did not claim the defense of lacking intent. I'm asking how you know this. I am fairly certain that you don't know this and you were just making an assumption.

My point is that mounting a defense takes time and money. And in the end she would still have to pay the amount of the check. If there is a program that is cheaper than mounting a proper defense that gives the same result, no record of a conviction, then why go to the effort of mounting a defense?

It sounds like we're both assuming she didn't claim that defense then, doesn't it? Can you come up with some way that she did claim it?

I think many links have been provided. Have you not read any of them?

Shall I take it that you don't know either?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are lucky. I have been sent a warrant for writing a hot check to my dry-cleaners for less than $10. I moved and closed down a checking account 2 weeks after writing the check and forgot to make sure it had cleared. The warrant arrived just as I was trying to arrange financing for my first home purchase, quite some time after writing the check.
....

This is not the common course of affairs for most people with bounced checks.

 

[xjx388]

You don't get charged for bounced checks! Can we please stop with that dishonest description?

It doesn't matter that she went to some bad check school and paid a fine. She was charged with a crime and left Biden's office 4 days later.

Depends on the jurisdiciton. You can definitely be charged for a crime for writing a hot check. Sometimes the diversion process happens with formal charges being filed and a notice about the diversion program. Sometimes no charges are filed and the check-writer gets a scary letter warning about the possibility of criminal charges unless they participate in the diversion program. Some jurisdictions have "bad check school," and some don't.

Dr. Keith mentioned that he received a warrant for his. This means there was a crime charged.

You are making connections that are unwarranted with the little information we have. All in an effort to discredit an accuser.

 

[wareyin]

There is no evidence that her bounced check problems had anything to do with her firing/resignation. There's no evidence that anyone in Biden's office knew about her bad checks in California.

This was back in 1993, after all. They had no way to communicate across the country! Why, the Pony Express wasn't even invented until 2005!

(And to think that the office of a Senator might be informed of criminal charges against his staff? That's crazy talk even if there was some way for communication over such long distances!)

 

[xjx388]

Straw man much?

Not painted as a "bad" person, rather the evidence supports the conclusion her accusation is false.

Evidence that she wrote a bad check, even that she got fired for it (which is totally uncorroborated), is evidence her sexual assault accusation is false? What a weird connection to make . . .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is no evidence that her bounced check problems had anything to do with her firing/resignation. There's no evidence that anyone in Biden's office knew about her bad checks in California.

Doesn't change the totality of the evidence, something a number of people keep forgetting.

It's not uncommon when letting someone go, to not document too much in the personnel file to do the employee a favor.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I wasn't asking how merchants submit forms, I was asking how Reade or any of the others charged with fraud could choose the diversion process. Do they have to go to court, just check a box and sign a letter? I don't know, Dr. Keith seems to be hinting that he does, so I asked.

Couldn't find info for her county, but here's another similar program in Florida. Seems like they get a nasty letter saying pay up, and if they pay, that's the end of it.

http://www.sao6.org/bad_checks.htm

http://www.sao6.org/pdf/BCDP181B.pdf

I don't see anything specific about records, but the verbiage is that diversion means the "case will be closed with no further criminal action taken."

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This was back in 1993, after all. They had no way to communicate across the country! Why, the Pony Express wasn't even invented until 2005!

(And to think that the office of a Senator might be informed of criminal charges against his staff? That's crazy talk even if there was some way for communication over such long distances!)

So you're just well into fantasy land now, right?

Until Tara can prove otherwise, her employer knew that she had a bounced check problem and fired her for it. Is that the skeptical starting point for you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evidence that she wrote a bad check, even that she got fired for it (which is totally uncorroborated), is evidence her sexual assault accusation is false? What a weird connection to make . . .

No one is saying she's a bad person. You said that was our argument.

As for this post, see what I wrote above. This is not the only evidence the accusation lacks credibility.

 

[xjx388]

This is not the common course of affairs for most people with bounced checks.

Again, it depends on the merchant and the jurisdiction. Most merchants don't refer to the DA's office. But many do and Bad Check Diversion Programs are very common -they are the way most DAs deal with bad checks.

That many here don't understand this is not surprising. It's a testament to the responsibility of most people and the fact that most bad checks don't get referred for prosecution by the merchant. Most of us have been lucky. No surprise at all.

What's surprising is how such a minor, common occurrence is being used to try and poke holes in the character of a person making sexual assault allegations. It's also somewhat surprising how such a simple, documented process as a Bad Check Diversion Program is so unitelligible to so many smart folks.

 

[johnny karate]

Law enforcement often gets involved in things without arresting anyone or charging a crime. Writing a bad check is a crime, yes, but whether or not one gets prosecuted and the crime entered on their record for it is up to: 1)The merchant referring it to the DA's office and 2)Whether or not the DA's office has a diversion program for bad checks. In such cases (which is everywhere, pretty much) the DA's office does act as mediators in bad check cases. Merchant refers to the DA, DA sends a scary letter to the check-writer warning them they will be charged with a crime, the check writer pays up along with a fee. It happens all over the country because it's preferable to trying to prosecute a bad check case and all the time and money it would cost. Everyone wins: The merchant gets paid, the check-writer doesn't have a criminal record and the court system isn't clogged with bad check cases.

The laws and programs have been cited. Which parts are you not getting?

The part where you’re claiming there is no crime.

Clearly, there’s a crime or there would have been nothing to adjudicate.

 

[wareyin]

So you're just well into fantasy land now, right?

Until Tara can prove otherwise, her employer knew that she had a bounced check problem and fired her for it. Is that the skeptical starting point for you?

No, why would you say that? I'm agreeing with you that it's just flat out impossible for a Senator's office all the way over in DC could have any idea what was going on across country in California. It was the 90's, that was like the stone ages. And even if there were some magical way to communicate across thousands of miles, it's simply inconceivable that a Senator's office would be informed of or aware of court cases against his employees. They probably wouldn't have even wanted to know!

 

[xjx388]

No one is saying she's a bad person. You said that was our argument.

As for this post, see what I wrote above. This is not the only evidence the accusation lacks credibility.

So maybe that one should be dropped, no?

Maybe the whole, "let's find bad things about her so we can poke holes in her credibility," angle should be dropped, no?

The check is irrelevant. The fraud allegations from 2014 are irrelevant. Her changing story is not uncommon from sexual assault survivors.

The only thing that is relevant is evidence of the assault. We don't have that. Should be the end of the story, no?