Biden for President?

[wareyin]

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.

I think the disconnect is that being taken to court over it isn't common. Maybe it is to you, maybe it is to that county in California. But it has not been common to me over a wide range of states that I've lived in. We all agree that bounced checks are common. We disagree that charges of fraud over bounced checks are common. Even Dr. Keith didn't go through any diversion programs, despite the claims that it is common.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Ok folks.

The California criminal code explicitly states that any records shall not be disclosed upon successful completion of a diversion program:

(C) Every arrest for an offense for which the records of the Department of Justice do not contain a disposition or which did not result in a conviction, provided that the Department of Justice first makes a genuine effort to determine the disposition of the arrest. However, information concerning an arrest shall not be disclosed if the records of the Department of Justice indicate or if the genuine effort reveals that the subject was exonerated, successfully completed a diversion or deferred entry of judgment program, or the arrest was deemed a detention, or the subject was granted relief pursuant to Section 851.91.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=11105.&article=3.&highlight=true&keyword=purge+diversion

The only criminal record for Reade is one that was purged and citing the bad check law, in which there is an explicit diversion program for settling bad checks.

Also from the law:

Diversion does not require an admittance of guilt. Diversion occurs before prosecution.

1001.66.
At no time shall a defendant be required to make an admission of guilt as a prerequisite for placement in a precomplaint diversion program.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?chapter=2.9A.&part=2.&lawCode=PEN&title=6.

Reade's claim that her bad check problems were dismissed seems reasonable, likely, and consistent with the common method to resolve bad check claims. There are no records available because the law forbids disclosure of cases that end in diversion.

At this point, anyone claiming this was more serious than a bounced check has the burden of proof. If they can't provide evidence, they are just spreading baseless rumors.

 

[xjx388]

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

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

No. Clearly, there is evidence that a crime has been committed. The DA needs to prove intent for the crime of writing bad checks. They don't do that unless the person doesn't pay up.

Evidence of a crime (a check bounced) does not mean a crime has been committed.

 

[xjx388]

I think the disconnect is that being taken to court over it isn't common. Maybe it is to you, maybe it is to that county in California. But it has not been common to me over a wide range of states that I've lived in. We all agree that bounced checks are common. We disagree that charges of fraud over bounced checks are common. Even Dr. Keith didn't go through any diversion programs, despite the claims that it is common.

It's possible that his mortgage broker sent payment on his behalf to get the sale closed. That could have satisfied the requirements of the diversion program. I think he lives in Texas, as do I. In my county that's all there is to it; you pay it, your neighbor pays it, whoever pays it and it's done.

 

[johnny karate]

No. Clearly, there is evidence that a crime has been committed. The DA needs to prove intent for the crime of writing bad checks. They don't do that unless the person doesn't pay up.

Evidence of a crime (a check bounced) does not mean a crime has been committed.

You’re right.

But the part where the person accused of the crime agrees to provide restitution to prevent a formal charge does.

 

[xjx388]

You’re right.

But the part where the person accused of the crime agrees to provide restitution to prevent a formal charge does.

Depends on the jurisdiction. But in hers (and mine) there is no admission of guilt for entering the diversion program.

 

[wareyin]

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?

No. Often stories are told for which there is no evidence besides what the 2 sides say. When we don't have that evidence, we don't just drop the whole thing. We assess the claims for internal consistency, we look to see what they may have been telling others over time about what happened, we look to see if there is any reason to doubt one or both, and we look to see if there are motivations to lie. Right now, this is just another in a string of reasons to doubt Reade's credibility. That does not make this episode a reason to ignore any other woman (or man) who claims sexual assault without evidence.

 

[Bob001]

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

There is rarely hard evidence -- witnesses, videos -- of a sexual assault. Even if a rape kit reveals semen, the assailant will claim sex was consensual. It ultimately comes down to "he said, she said," and whose account is more believable. If someone has a proven history of lies and fraud, that diminishes her account, just as someone's denial would be diminished if he had a proven history of assault. Every case must be examined on its own terms, as would be the case for an accusation of any other crime.

I continue to contend that what most raises doubts about Reade's claims is that she says she doesn't remember where this happened. She worked on Capitol Hill. She was familiar with the multiple buildings, and she says she was sent to meet Biden in a specific public place. But she just doesn't remember where it was? I don't need to know more than that to doubt her accusation.

 

[johnny karate]

Depends on the jurisdiction. But in hers (and mine) there is no admission of guilt for entering the diversion program.

Again, you’re confusing what the official record says with what actually happened.

Unless you want to claim that she didn’t actually write a bad check or was somehow framed, she very clearly committed a crime.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Also from the law:

Diversion does not require an admittance of guilt. Diversion occurs before prosecution.




https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?chapter=2.9A.&part=2.&lawCode=PEN&title=6.

Diversion does not require entering a plea because the prosecutor has the option of dropping charges should the accused complete the program and not have further incidences occur. Generally diversion programs are not free (unless the person is indigent) and there are usually court costs involved and legal fees (unless she got a public defender), so I'm having trouble believing that an innocent person would enroll in a diversion program since they still have to pay back the check and the bank fees. Maybe since she was out of work she was really bored and wanted to take a class.

Reade's claim that her bad check problems were dismissed seems reasonable, likely, and consistent with the common method to resolve bad check claims. There are no records available because the law forbids disclosure of cases that end in diversion.

Reade's claim that her bad check problems were dismissed after she paid court costs and diversion program fees in addition to covering the checks and paying bank fees are consistent with the common method of handling first-time non-violent offenders.

At this point, anyone claiming this was more serious than a bounced check has the burden of proof. If they can't provide evidence, they are just spreading baseless rumors.

We know she was charged with a criminal offense. We know that her case proceeded in a manner typical of that of a first-time non-violent offender. We know that she didn't simply pay what she owed. Has her lawyer claimed that it was just an accounting error?

ETA:
All the news articles that I've read have used the phrase "check fraud" rather than "bad check". I don't know if that is sloppy reporting or if she was actually accused of "check fraud".

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I continue to contend that what most raises doubts about Reade's claims is that she says she doesn't remember where this happened. She worked on Capitol Hill. She was familiar with the multiple buildings, and she says she was sent to meet Biden in a specific public place. But she just doesn't remember where it was? I don't need to know more than that to doubt her accusation.

For me, even more doubts are raised because she claims to not remember when it happened, not even what month it happened in, when she only worked for Biden for 8 months. How would she have filed a complaint about sexual harassment if she wasn't documenting what was going on?

 

[wareyin]

Again, you’re confusing what the official record says with what actually happened.

Unless you want to claim that she didn’t actually write a bad check or was somehow framed, she very clearly committed a crime.

If this really was just a case of a bounced check being drastically over-reacted to, I'm not going to go crazy about it being a crime. Bounced checks are common. So common that banks make a significant part of their revenue from the fees...I'd actually say they love them for that alone. In the vast majority of cases, there was no willful intent to defraud. If it isn't willful intent to defraud, then it was probably a simple mistake. The whole bit about her being charged with willful intent is what made it notable in my opinion.

 

[wareyin]

For me, even more doubts are raised because she claims to not remember when it happened, not even what month it happened in, when she only worked for Biden for 8 months. How would she have filed a complaint about sexual harassment if she wasn't documenting what was going on?

Well, she can't remember if she filed a complaint either, or if she did she can't remember what it was about. So I guess documentation is just something for all the other people.

 

[wareyin]

Diversion does not require entering a plea because the prosecutor has the option of dropping charges should the accused complete the program and not have further incidences occur. Generally diversion programs are not free (unless the person is indigent) and there are usually court costs involved and legal fees (unless she got a public defender), so I'm having trouble believing that an innocent person would enroll in a diversion program since they still have to pay back the check and the bank fees. Maybe since she was out of work she was really bored and wanted to take a class.



Reade's claim that her bad check problems were dismissed after she paid court costs and diversion program fees in addition to covering the checks and paying bank fees are consistent with the common method of handling first-time non-violent offenders.



We know she was charged with a criminal offense. We know that her case proceeded in a manner typical of that of a first-time non-violent offender. We know that she didn't simply pay what she owed. Has her lawyer claimed that it was just an accounting error?

ETA:
All the news articles that I've read have used the phrase "check fraud" rather than "bad check". I don't know if that is sloppy reporting or if she was actually accused of "check fraud".

Interesting. According to some here, all the diversion program entails is paying the bounced check and maybe a couple fees, but now it seems there are "a class or classes" involved as well. Really seems to me that this is not a normal "oh, crap I forgot about that one $10 check to the dry cleaners" situation.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

It's strange how the evidence that corroborates Reade's account is brushed off or explained away (contemporaneous accounts to her mom and freind, her mom calling into Larry King, etc) but any little thing (she bounced a check once, someone accused her of theft, etc) that makes Reade look like a bad person is made a huge deal out of.

There is no evidence that she told her mother. The call to Larry King hardly qualifies as proof that her mother knew of a sexual assault. Which friend are you claiming that she made a "contemporaneous accounting" to? There are issues with both the Lacasse and Sanchez statements.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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?

But it would have been even cheaper to have paid up before the criminal charge was filed.

ETA:
She didn't have a job, she wasn't married yet, and according to her future husband she had financial difficulties. Would she not have qualified for a public defender? Or is a public defender not completely free?

 

[theprestige]

I almost feel bad for Joe Biden.

I think his preferred strategy would have been to stay quiet and let Trump bungle the pandemic response. Low effort, low risk, just not die between now and November, and ride into the Oval Office on a blast of voter disgust for the president.

Instead he's been saddled with this rape allegation. So instead of having nothing, and thus no risk of something problematic between now and November, now he's got something problematic to deal with. And instead of the press being able to ignore him and focus entirely on the president's pandemic response, they now have to spend at least some time on this issue.

He can't really speak up. He can't afford to keep quiet. And if the death toll from the pandemic stays below some as-yet-unknown threshold for voter tolerance and the economic shutdown is resolved in a timely manner, even the strategy of letting Trump bungle the response won't pay off.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Reade claims that she had already left Biden's office before the bounced check court action and that the Aug 6th date from her employment record was simply the date of her last paycheck for that pay period. Aug 6th is a Friday, a common payday.

Federal pay periods end on Saturdays, and this has been the case for decades.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I am convinced, Definitely wouldn’t vote for this Reade woman.

 

[wareyin]

I almost feel bad for Joe Biden.

I think his preferred strategy would have been to stay quiet and let Trump bungle the pandemic response. Low effort, low risk, just not die between now and November, and ride into the Oval Office on a blast of voter disgust for the president.

Instead he's been saddled with this rape allegation. So instead of having nothing, and thus no risk of something problematic between now and November, now he's got something problematic to deal with. And instead of the press being able to ignore him and focus entirely on the president's pandemic response, they now have to spend at least some time on this issue.

He can't really speak up. He can't afford to keep quiet. And if the death toll from the pandemic stays below some as-yet-unknown threshold for voter tolerance and the economic shutdown is resolved in a timely manner, even the strategy of letting Trump bungle the response won't pay off.

Oooh, oooh, like the 60,000 dead they were claiming a month ago? Yeah, it could get bad for Trump if it gets higher than that...