Great article here.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ion-pathology/

Pretty much anyone who does not solely have a 9-5 job, can be
prosecuted for all kinds of odd "crimes" that a big fraction of people
are inadvertently committing.

i

On Sat, 30 May 2015 15:15:03 -0500, Ignoramus4936 wrote:

Great article here.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...astert-highly-
unsympathetic-face-americas-criminalization-pathology/

Pretty much anyone who does not solely have a 9-5 job, can be prosecuted
for all kinds of odd "crimes" that a big fraction of people are
inadvertently committing.

And, as the article points out, he's getting indited, in part, for laws
that he got paid a lot of money to support. So it's not like he can
bitch about it too loudly.

--
www.wescottdesign.com

On 2015-05-30, Tim Wescott wrote:
On Sat, 30 May 2015 15:15:03 -0500, Ignoramus4936 wrote:

Great article here.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...astert-highly-
unsympathetic-face-americas-criminalization-pathology/

Pretty much anyone who does not solely have a 9-5 job, can be prosecuted
for all kinds of odd "crimes" that a big fraction of people are
inadvertently committing.

And, as the article points out, he's getting indited, in part, for laws
that he got paid a lot of money to support. So it's not like he can
bitch about it too loudly.


Here's how I understand this.

I have never structured transactions. I know what structuring is
(anyone in business should know this) and I never get even close to
structuring anything and generally do not deal with cash much.

However, a long time ago I tried withdrawing over 10,000 and I got all
kinds of hassle with that, stupid questions from the bankers, warnings
about how my money could be stolen (like it could not be stolen from
the bank) etc. It was a very unpleasant experience being hassled for
what was not their business.

So, if I had a regular need to withdraw money, like to pass it to my
heirs under the table, I would be sorely tempted to deal in quantities
less than 10,000 and have the bank file SARs (suspicious activity
reports) on me on every transaction, just to avoid the inane hassles.

It is common knowledge, and I am sure Hastert knew this too, that
banks are under the government's boot and that they file SARs on
activities starting from far below the CTR limit of $10,000.

So Hastert, definitely, knew that SARs were being filed on him. If so,
then how can we call that "structuring" in "attempt to avoid CTRs
being filed" when he was surely aware that the bank filed SARs and the
govt was informed what he was doing, he just did not care. This
"structuring" has become a completely retarded concept when applied to
people who know that SARs are filed. A very stretchy law that can be
applied to a lot of situations.

i

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 5:39:33 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus4936 wrote:


A very stretchy law that can be
applied to a lot of situations.

i

I can almost see requiring the banks to report suspicious transactions, but as far as I am concerned you ought to be able to withdraw any amount you want and as often as you want.

Dan

On 2015-05-30, wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 5:39:33 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus4936 wrote:


A very stretchy law that can be
applied to a lot of situations.

i

I can almost see requiring the banks to report suspicious
transactions, but as far as I am concerned you ought to be able to
withdraw any amount you want and as often as you want.

I suggest that you read this and only then form your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring

i

wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 5:39:33 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus4936 wrote:


A very stretchy law that can be
applied to a lot of situations.

i

I can almost see requiring the banks to report suspicious transactions,
but as far as I am concerned you ought to be able to withdraw any amount
you want and as often as you want.

That is what the law allows. Your bank may try to
talk you out of it because they prefer not to do
the paperwork and because cash withdrawals cost them
money.

"Ignoramus4936" wrote in message
...

It is common knowledge, and I am sure Hastert knew this too, that
banks are under the government's boot and that they file SARs on
activities starting from far below the CTR limit of $10,000.

i


Hastert may be suffering from senility or dementia.

Hastert could have very easily hired a lawyer to structure
a settlement which would have included a confidentiality
clause and non disclosure agreement. Pay the money
with a check and it all would have been perfectly legal.

Best Regards
Tom.

On 2015-05-30, Howard Beal wrote:

"Ignoramus4936" wrote in message
...

It is common knowledge, and I am sure Hastert knew this too, that
banks are under the government's boot and that they file SARs on
activities starting from far below the CTR limit of $10,000.

i


Hastert may be suffering from senility or dementia.

Hastert could have very easily hired a lawyer to structure
a settlement which would have included a confidentiality
clause and non disclosure agreement. Pay the money
with a check and it all would have been perfectly legal.

If I was in Hastert's place, I would just disclose the sordid past
episode (as a fact, or as an accusation under dispute) and refuse to
pay. A gay pedophile "pro-family" Republican is hardly news these
days, and the story would be forgotten in a month or two with barely
any consequence. Maybe he would lose some business, but who cares, it
is better than being blackmailed.

i

On 5/30/2015 3:25 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 5:39:33 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus4936 wrote:


A very stretchy law that can be
applied to a lot of situations.

i

I can almost see requiring the banks to report suspicious transactions

It's part of anti-money laundering law. Bank employees have to go
through annual training on it, even those who are not customer-facing staff.

"Ignoramus4936" wrote in message
...

If I was in Hastert's place, I would just disclose the sordid past
episode (as a fact, or as an accusation under dispute) and refuse to
pay. A gay pedophile "pro-family" Republican is hardly news these
days, and the story would be forgotten in a month or two with barely
any consequence. Maybe he would lose some business, but who cares, it
is better than being blackmailed.

i

We don't have all the facts. Perhaps Hastert is still an active pedophile
which is why he paid hush money. Expect more alligations and lawsuits
from people claiming to have been abused by Hastert. Evidence aquired
in a civil lawsuit can be used in a future criminal prosecution. I believe
illinios extended thier statute of limitations for sex abuse to 20 years in
2014.

Best Regards
Tom.

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 6:30:41 PM UTC-4, Ignoramus4936 wrote:


I suggest that you read this and only then form your opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring

i

I did read it, and still have the same opinion. It is similar to a law that says if you commit a crime , you have to report it to the police. Ie, self incrimination.

The Constitution grants this right quite simply: "[No person]...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..." However, as with most other constitutional rights, it is subject to interpretation by the courts and often inspires fierce debate.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal....VBa3VlnQ.dpuf

Dan

On Sat, 30 May 2015 15:15:03 -0500, Ignoramus4936
wrote:

Great article here.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ion-pathology/

Pretty much anyone who does not solely have a 9-5 job, can be
prosecuted for all kinds of odd "crimes" that a big fraction of people
are inadvertently committing.

And I still say that random drug/alcohol/STD tests for all gov't
workers would clear up many of the problems within a year.

(zero tolerance on the drugs and STDs, legal limit on the alky)

--
It takes as much energy to wish as to plan.
--Eleanor Roosevelt