Where he will be Dancing with the Bars.
Oh, man was that bad! Seriously bad. You’d better duck out the back, I’ll try and stall them…
I can not believe that defense was bought by the court. It was not money laundering because it was checks instead of cash.
It’s not quite as crazy as it sounds. A key purpose oif the money laundering laws is to forbid large amounts of cash with no clear ancestry from entering the commerce stream. Checks, which show their ancestry perfectly, are not the problem that cash is. Indeed, the ease in which the prosecutors can show what money flowed where is due to the fact that checks were used.
Of course, the legislature probably intended to cover checks as well as cash, so the above is not an argument I’d want to defend tooth and nail. But it’s not insane.
The link no longer goes to the referenced article, but I doubt Molly wrote it.
She died in 2007.
The link is from 2004. I did a double-take when post #8 started out, “As long as Bush remains in power . . .”
Odd. Does anybody else hear chuckling?
Aside from being among the oldest zombies I’ve encountered, this thread seems to be less of a debate and more of either IMHO cheering or a Pit RO.
I’m closing it. If someone wishes to start a new thread, they are welcome to do so, but either place it in another (appropriate) forum or come up with an actual debate, please.
[ /Modding ]