Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: [OT] Murder in New York
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 08:51:15 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <4oa3mjtrnkf5k1aglpdg3p6r9nraakf8d8@4ax.com>
References: <ef0975d032abe1b350eed7329d66d0ba@www.novabbs.com> <skijlj9n8q8gbutr454sbf13lflj614plp@4ax.com> <vjdacp$1pmbc$2@dont-email.me> <6r4mljttafoqdu4h29qh62pgvi2n4759ut@4ax.com> <vjfulv$310c6$2@dont-email.me> <8dooljd9na7q0hdtqrrdneaomjb5rmt86s@4ax.com> <vDZ6P.66$qu83.24@fx35.iad> <ffbrljhc0s9s8b6kd21ad83us3b4t6ejip@4ax.com> <vjl7a9$6qs5$3@dont-email.me> <lsdk82F2t1dU1@mid.individual.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 17:51:18 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94f161139a2aaa83aaf21fcb815d26e0";
	logging-data="1928001"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/pDPvWhc+3Ksi0HBJcrq1G5kx31LvNjDs="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:k4NLGMESTEMclzx16fNreAIfVjI=
Bytes: 4631

On 17 Dec 2024 15:38:42 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2024-12-15, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 15/12/24 05:16, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 16:52:43 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>> snip
>>
>>>>> Bribing a public official is a crime in most jurisdictions.
>>
>>>> You haven't been paying attention.    The Supreme Court recently
>>>> ruled that a 'gift' after the fact isn't a bribe.
>>
>>> And the SC is correct -- it's not a bribe, it's a kickback [1].
>>> [1] Provided that there was no prior agreement involved, as the
>>> promise of the payment preceding awarding the contract (or whatever)
>>> would make it a bribe. But no mention was made of such an agreement.
>>
>> Correction. There was no evidence of prior agreement. Corruption is
>> legal if there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence of prior
>> agreement.
>>
>> (  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-108_8n5a.pdf )
>>
>> In summary a bribe is organised and paid prior to some desired =
behaviour
>> so the court determined that any post-facto payments are simply
>> gratuities and therefore not illegal.
>> A small town mayor, Snyder, asked for $13,000 from a company AFTER it
>> was awarded a town contract, was convicted but now absolved by the
>> Supreme Court of which some members have received substantial benefits
>> from billionaire friends whose interests they protect and assist being
>> similar to their own.
>
>NO! The Supreme Court explicitly did NOT say that it was not
>illegal. (It did say it was a gratuity.)
>
>There are very extensive laws and regulations about gratuities at local,
>state, and federal levels. Perhaps there needs to be more, but that's =
not
>the issue here.
>
>The Supreme Court ruled that this one particular law, which in places
>used quite general ambiguous language, applied only to bribery and not
>to after-the-fact gratuities.  Among other things, they pointed out
>that doing otherwise would invalidate pretty much all of those
>extensive laws and regulations about gratuities.  A fortunate thing
>for me, IMO, as I prepare my annual Christmas gift of $20 to my mail
>carrier (the maximum allowed by law/regulation). I could be a felon
>given a prosecutor so inclined (though the federal law may have had
>higher limits.)
>
>Snyder was a very narrow ruling, affecting one federal law, that had no
>impact on all of the laws and regulations regarding gratuities. It did
>not in any way attempt to say that gratuities were not illegal.
>
>Another liberal conspiracy theory.

Thanks for confirming that fools involved could have been convicted
had the prosecutor decided actually charge them with the crime
committed. As I noted, this is just another example of prosecutorial
laziness, possibly brought on by going to one of the schools revealed
last year to be hotbeds of support for Hamas.

Assuming one was; perhaps the local limit on "after-the-fact
gratuities" is $13,001 so this is legally OK. I doubt it, but anything
is, I suppose, possibly when discussing weird hypothetical laws.
--=20
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"