Biden for President?

[xjx388]

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.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

I've noticed there's a lot of classism in both of these allegations.

in the charity "theft" example, Reade attackers can't help but point out that she was hiding a car from the repo man, like that's some grave sin.

And back in the 90's, she bounced a check and got a nastygram from the court, and every indication is that she sorted it out without further incident.

Can't help but notice that these people hate the poor.

She wen't bankrupt in 2012. How long before they latch onto that?

Money problems aren't a moral failing.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

Do you have a cite for the highlighted?

 

[johnny karate]

Not in the case of bad checks. You pay the debt, there is no crime.

Sorry, but your logic is flawed.

If law enforcement is involved, there’s a crime. They don’t act as freelance independent mediators.

And just because someone had their record purged of a crime for providing court-mandated restitution, it doesn’t mean the crime didn’t occur.

 

[wareyin]

I've noticed there's a lot of classism in both of these allegations.

in the charity "theft" example, Reade attackers can't help but point out that she was hiding a car from the repo man, like that's some grave sin.

I will note that you are the only one bringing up the car repossession. Everyone else is bringing up the $1400 she stole, the items she tried to steal at the auction, the go-fund-me account, etc.

And back in the 90's, she bounced a check and got a nastygram from the court, and every indication is that she sorted it out without further incident.

Evidence that it was a single bounced check, please. Even your notedly not credible Reade isn't making that claim.

Can't help but notice that these people hate the poor.

She wen't bankrupt in 2012. How long before they latch onto that?

Money problems aren't a moral failing.

Most of us aren't rich. Most of us have also bounced checks. For some crazy reason, most of us didn't get cases of fraud filed in court over them. The bank charges a fee, the business who had the check bounce charges a fee, and that's it.

 

[wareyin]

Do you have a cite for the highlighted?

I thought that she hadn't claimed it was evidence that she was unable to. Is there some reason to think she could have but didn't?

 

[xjx388]

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

Has Hummer ever bounced a check? Someone should look into that.

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.

If you don't believe her, fine, say so. There's no real evidence either way. Just ignore it if you want. I just don't understand the smear campaign; I find it extremely distasteful. But maybe I'm just sensitive that way.

 

[wareyin]

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.

Evidence that this was a simple bounced check? I know SuburbanTurkey keeps claiming that, but so far that's not what Reade nor her lawyer has said.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Evidence that this was a simple bounced check? I know SuburbanTurkey keeps claiming that, but so far that's not what Reade nor her lawyer has said.

He lawyer says the case was dismissed. how is that inconsistent with the case being dismissed as part of a diversion?

The county she lived in, San Luis Obispo, claims they have recovered over 11 million through this program since 1989. That's over $350,000 in bounced checks a year.

That's a lot of bad checks. Must be a real hotbed of fraudulent activity, huh?

I agree with xjx. Blowing up the routine process of chasing down bounced checks into some indication of fraud and low character is gross.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I thought that she hadn't claimed it was evidence that she was unable to.

How are you aware of what she claimed and what she didn't claim? I was unaware that the matter ever went to trial.

Is there some reason to think she could have but didn't?

If the diversion program merely required payment of a small administration fee and the amount of the check and the end result was the same as mounting a hearty defense, then there may be no reason to mount a hearty defense. Namely: the cost of a decent defense attorney.

 

[wareyin]

Has Hummer ever bounced a check? Someone should look into that.

What a bizarre attempt at a diversion. I wouldn't be surprised if Reade's theft from Hummer caused a couple bounced checks (but zero fraud charges for some reason).

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.

If you don't believe her, fine, say so. There's no real evidence either way. Just ignore it if you want. I just don't understand the smear campaign; I find it extremely distasteful. But maybe I'm just sensitive that way.

There are no contemporaneous accounts to a mom or a friend of Reade's claim of sexual assault. We have a current claim by her friend, and a different claim by someone that was likely her mother. We have Reade telling multiple contradictory versions of this account, and her brother also now telling different stories.

Again, I've bounced checks. I've never had a court case threatened over it, much less filed. That leads me to believe it wasn't a simple, single bounced check. The $1400 theft from a charity that employed her? That's certainly not a good thing, either. It's not something most of us have done, I'd wager, and really speaks to the personal integrity of this women with multiple conflicting stories that some are asking us to believe.

If only those who are so passionate that she should be believed could tell us which version of the story we're supposed to believe now.

 

[wareyin]

He lawyer says the case was dismissed. how is that inconsistent with the case being dismissed as part of a diversion?

That's still not evidence for your claim.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's still not evidence for your claim.

You're right. I shouldn't be speculating. Those hoof beats could be zebras.

You're burying your head in the sand and ignoring the extremely likely scenario here. The DA chasing down bad checks through the diversion program was extremely common when Reade committed her dastardly fraud.

A diversion settlement of a bad check looks exactly like this. A dismissed charge and a purged record.

 

[xjx388]

Sorry, but your logic is flawed.

If law enforcement is involved, there’s a crime. They don’t act as freelance independent mediators.

And just because someone had their record purged of a crime for providing court-mandated restitution, it doesn’t mean the crime didn’t occur.

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?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Most of us aren't rich. Most of us have also bounced checks. For some crazy reason, most of us didn't get cases of fraud filed in court over them. The bank charges a fee, the business who had the check bounce charges a fee, and that's it.

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.

I called my mortgage broker and he jumped into action to "fix it" so that he didn't lose a closing. I honestly don't know what he did and it has never turned up on any background checks over the decades since.

If the cleaners had simply called me, I would have hand delivered the amount, but they had a clearly posted policy of turning over all bad checks to the local DA. Ever since then I have avoided dealing with business that have such notices posted. It is very disruptive to the customer relationship.

Also, it is obsane how many checks we used to write. But that is likely off topic.

 

[wareyin]

How are you aware of what she claimed and what she didn't claim? I was unaware that the matter ever went to trial.

Can you repeat your question in a more clear way? Are you claiming somehow that she did claim it was accidental but the case was filed anyway?

If the diversion program merely required payment of a small administration fee and the amount of the check and the end result was the same as mounting a hearty defense, then there may be no reason to mount a hearty defense. Namely: the cost of a decent defense attorney.

If, may. Sure, ok, I can play that game. If Reade was caught passing forged checks that were less than the $950 (iirc) that made it a felony, but she chose to enter the diversion program instead of going to court, that would have been cheaper as well.

How does one enter these diversion programs, anyway?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can you repeat your question in a more clear way? Are you claiming somehow that she did claim it was accidental but the case was filed anyway?



If, may. Sure, ok, I can play that game. If Reade was caught passing forged checks that were less than the $950 (iirc) that made it a felony, but she chose to enter the diversion program instead of going to court, that would have been cheaper as well.

How does one enter these diversion programs, anyway?

Perhaps you should read the diversion program page. It's largely an automatic, rubber stamp process. Merchants that got a bounced check submit a form to the office and the process kicks off.

 

[wareyin]

Perhaps you should read the diversion program page. It's largely an automatic, rubber stamp process. Merchants that got a bounced check submit a form to the office and the process kicks off.

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.

 

[Delvo]

I've noticed there's a lot of classism in both of these allegations.

...Can't help but notice that these people hate the poor.

It's an old tradition. For Clinton, it was that the method for finding somebody who would accuse him was "drag a dollar bill through a trailer park" like bait on a fish hook & see what you catch.

But the poor owe them their votes so if a poor person fails in his/her obligation to vote for them then there's something wrong with that voter.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Can you repeat your question in a more clear way? Are you claiming somehow that she did claim it was accidental but the case was filed anyway?

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?

If, may. Sure, ok, I can play that game. If Reade was caught passing forged checks that were less than the $950 (iirc) that made it a felony, but she chose to enter the diversion program instead of going to court, that would have been cheaper as well.

How does one enter these diversion programs, anyway?

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