Path: ...!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: [OT] Murder in New York
Date: 17 Dec 2024 15:38:42 GMT
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <lsdk82F2t1dU1@mid.individual.net>
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>
X-Trace: individual.net 36IzP67n2tvzJVqadc5zfgFvOuOXF7qH4f+sMrZVFJUXgKTElS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3uTH6DQQxBqJBi3IRnhOS+oYWpo= sha256:V0cmLji866dwpa9qEdwne5LMliM1nRJkONwVWui2g/U=
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Bytes: 3456

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.

Chris