• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dennis Hastert indicted.

shemp said:
If the government has a LEGITIMATE reason to look into your ....
Click to expand...

Everyone agrees w/ that part. The issue is that the "friends of big-brother" believe that breathing is a LEGITIMATE reason for government to snoop.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What's the statute of limitations for blackmail, though? The other guy might or might not be a victim of one thing, but that doesn't mean he's not the villain of another thing.
Click to expand...

We don't know if he blackmailed Hastert.

"I'm going to tell my story to the NY Times"
"Wait a minute, let me 'buy' it from you instead"

is different from

"I'm going to tell my story to the NY Time unless you pay me $1 million"
":eek:"
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
We don't know if he blackmailed Hastert.

"I'm going to tell my story to the NY Times"
"Wait a minute, let me 'buy' it from you instead"

is different from

"I'm going to tell my story to the NY Time unless you pay me $1 million"
":eek:"
Click to expand...


Under federal law, it is not extortion to ask to be paid by someone to not sue them. If he said, "pay me or I'll sue," then it was perfectly legal (don't know about Illinois law).
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
We don't know if he blackmailed Hastert.

"I'm going to tell my story to the NY Times"
"Wait a minute, let me 'buy' it from you instead"

is different from

"I'm going to tell my story to the NY Time unless you pay me $1 million"
Click to expand...

Yes, just like "I think you should buy fire insurance" is different from "very flammable-looking place you gots here, wink wink nudge nudge". Presumably somebody's investigating that side of things. Unless millions of dollars changing hands in connection with crimes and sex is suddenly uninteresting to authorities. "Yawn, how dull. Politicians, jailbait, gay sex, and a crapton of cash--where are the interesting cases?"
 
TragicMonkey said:
If the other party is at or above the age of consent it probably is. It might be against the rules of his employment, but is there actual law forbidding employees of particular employers from sexual relationships with various people?
Click to expand...

No there are exceptions to many general age of consent laws specifically to criminalize abusing your authority on high school students.
 
shemp said:
This is probably the one and only time I'm going to agree with Elf Grinder. His point (which you seem to have missed) is that, regardless of anything else going on here, THE GODDAMN U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO REQUIRE YOU TO REPORT YOUR BANK WITHDRAWALS. On this point alone, the law is an ass.
Click to expand...

Yea money should always be anonymous so that it doesn't need to be laundered to hide where it came from.
 
stevea said:
I wouldn't attempt to speak for Elf' on a bet.

Clearly our government is not permitted to perform such searches, except by warrants issued based on probable cause. Your exaggerated, unrealistic fears of terrorism cause you to prefer a police state to a republic with a functional 4th amendment.
Click to expand...

So with out an warrant is an IRS audit criminal?
 
H-a-s-t-e-r-t

Oh thank god; for a second I thought that president Palmer was indicted. He was my favorite president.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
Yes, just like "I think you should buy fire insurance" is different from "very flammable-looking place you gots here, wink wink nudge nudge". Presumably somebody's investigating that side of things. Unless millions of dollars changing hands in connection with crimes and sex is suddenly uninteresting to authorities. "Yawn, how dull. Politicians, jailbait, gay sex, and a crapton of cash--where are the interesting cases?"
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that, if nothing else, the recipient of the payments was also guilty of "structuring", unless he was allowing the CTR's to be filed.
 
CORed said:
It would seem to me that, if nothing else, the recipient of the payments was also guilty of "structuring", unless he was allowing the CTR's to be filed.
Click to expand...

Or not putting the money in banks. With that much he can probably buy a lot of mattresses and bedrooms to keep them in.
 
Last edited:
stevea said:
... Where do you get your rumors ? You are suggesting that certain cases of blackmail are now acceptable and not prosecutable - and that's vile....
Click to expand...
That one was from the news. There is even talk that Hastert said it was a mutual agreement, not blackmail.

Hastert's still only been charged with bank shenanigans (the actual charge eludes me).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
That one was from the news. There is even talk that Hastert said it was a mutual agreement, not blackmail.

Hastert's still only been charged with bank shenanigans (the actual charge eludes me).
Click to expand...

Yes, Hastert said this was a repayment of a past wrong, not blackmail. Hence the victim has no legal worries. Nor does he have to pay income tax (I am not a CPA so this is based on what I understand) on it as it was a redress of a debt.
 
BenBurch said:
Nor does he have to pay income tax (I am not a CPA so this is based on what I understand) on it as it was a redress of a debt.
Click to expand...

I would assume for that to apply there would have to be paperwork proving the debt. Otherwise anybody could get around income tax on large monetary gifts by claiming it was settlement of debt. It's easy to get away with murder; it's much more difficult to evade tax.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I would assume for that to apply there would have to be paperwork proving the debt. Otherwise anybody could get around income tax on large monetary gifts by claiming it was settlement of debt. It's easy to get away with murder; it's much more difficult to evade tax.
Click to expand...

Do we know that the victim/criminalcreditor did not account for any potential taxes on the monies (though I can see the logic of repaying a debt, and if the debtor acknowledges and consents to the debt is there legal recourse)?

Sounds like a way to get away with blackmail especially if there are additional embarrassing factors that still have not been revealed to assure compliance by the person being blackmailed.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
I would assume for that to apply there would have to be paperwork proving the debt. Otherwise anybody could get around income tax on large monetary gifts by claiming it was settlement of debt. It's easy to get away with murder; it's much more difficult to evade tax.
Click to expand...

Then that is more gift issues that Hastert has because according to the IRS

"Who pays the gift tax?
The donor is generally responsible for paying the gift tax. Under special arrangements the donee may agree to pay the tax instead. Please visit with your tax professional if you are considering this type of arrangement."

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes
 
BenBurch said:
Yes, Hastert said this was a repayment of a past wrong, not blackmail. Hence the victim has no legal worries. Nor does he have to pay income tax (I am not a CPA so this is based on what I understand) on it as it was a redress of a debt.
Click to expand...

IANACPA, but I would advise the victim not to employ your "strategy". :)
 
Come to think of it, even if you were the victim you could be guilty of concealing a crime if you take payment in exchange for silence, couldn't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom