Posted on 12/05/2005 9:23:34 PM PST by vrwc1
The defense attorneys also argued that the definition of money laundering in Texas involves the transfer of criminal proceeds. Because the money in this case was not illegal to begin with, they argued, money laundering never occurred.
But the judge rejected that argument, too, saying the money became suspect when "it began to be held with the prohibited intent."
Apparently the judge has decided to write new law and to re-define money laundering to be what he says it is, not what the plain text of the Texas statute says.
Texas Judge Lets Stand 2 of 3 Charges Against DeLay
Nice headline - no bias there, nosireebob!
Next : DeLay Found Innocent but Could be Guilty in the Future!
This new judge looks to be VERY partisan and crooked.
The judge has already made up his mind to rewrite the law.
Yeah, that quote from him sure made me do a double take. Sounds like he's already decided Delay is guilty and is constructing his own law to convict him with.
That's what it looks like to me too.
Gotta love that impartial media.
Gotta love that impartial media.
~LOL~ MSNBC has the same headline and I had to blink twice to make certain I wasn't seeing things -- then I remembered WHO had the headline and it made perfect sense.. why would they say "DeLay aquited of" .... when they could say "Delay indictment upheld"
But there's a problem here that this judge made for himself...you can't just make up laws on your own and since this is such a high profile case, the judge can and probably WILL be disabused of his arrogance. Tom's got a brilliant lawyer, who won't let this slide.
I am flabbergasted that the judge would go so far as to even entertain the idea that the legal transfer of legitimate funds from one entity to another, and another legal transfer of equally legitimate funds from the second entity to the first, can be construed as an illegal transaction when no law existed at the time of the transactions to make even the linked transactions illegal.
I don't even think such a law even currently exists.
I'm not even sure if the Democrats are even aware that they're endangering their entire financial structure for their party. Unlike Republicans, the Democrats rely heavily on corporate monies to offset their lack of fund raising capability in rural and suburban areas. Democrats will be hampered by this new interpretation in their ability to shift funds from their urban strongholds to the rural, conservative areas.
As for Republicans, since individual giving is a conservative strength - raising funds in urban areas will be tougher, but not necessarily impossible, and it will certainly be easier than for Democrats raising money outside of their usual haunts.
are we in an echo chamber??
the judge is not writing law. intent is one of the most important elements of a crime. carrying a gun might not be illegal, but carrying a gun with the intent to force another to give me his money is.
try taking an introductory criminal law class before posting on issues of which you have no idea.
"Didn't the Chinese Government use the Clinton White House for money laundering?"
I vaguely recall something about them owning Washeeton from 1993-2000 ...
No; the $50,000 delivered in the paper bag to the White House function while Bill and Hillary were present was only a payment on an overdue Chinese laundry bill.
I sure hope you're right. Looks to me that if the judge has his way, Tom will be tied up in appeal for years.
secondly, whats wrong with pointing out the factual statement that conspiracy is less serious than the money laundering charge.
maximum penalty for conspiracy is 2 yrs prison
laundering is 5 years,
so which is more serious??
It is clear that this indictment is an example of the the current servitude of the court system to the ends of political power satyrs...in this instance Ronnie Earle and his Democratic groupie cadre.
This fanatical Grand Inquisitor has no case, it just seems that the judge does not have the balls to rule against the NYTimes left - either that or he is just a democratic crony. Almost no one thinks what Delay did was illegal (among experts) and was a common practice. Yet this judge has chosen to amend the law to what he "wished" it had said...mumbo jumbo about "prohibited intent".
After all, Texas law is plain and clear: money laundering is the act of taking the proceeds of one or more criminal activities and making them untraceable. Typical 'money laundering' includes 'cleaning' the proceeds from drug sales, illegal gambling, bunko scams, etc. by making them financially invisible through off shore accounts, legal gambling operations, etc.. In this light, the speciousness of Earles charges should be self-evident - even to a Democratic judge:
a) During the time in question, no funds (coinage, currency, etc.) eligible (under the law) for laundering was transferred between named parties. All transactions were openly transferred by checks, excluded by law (at the time) as “funds" that are used in money laundering. The judge can call them "funds", but it is clear that this is an ex post facto reinterpitation.
b) Proceeds (dictionary def: "the amount of money derived from a commercial or fundraising venture; the yield") were legally solicited and openly transferred between parties prior to any alleged crime, not (as Texas law stipulates in the meaning of money laundering) derived as a yield from a "criminal" activity.
c) In any case, a predicate criminal act is required and then any resulting proceed laundering consists of two, separate, crimes and transactions. Texas and Federal courts have held they cannot occur in the same transaction. For example, when the courts have ruled on bank fraud and money laundering, seperate acts are required for both charges: the fraud that obtains the funds AND then (following it) a separate transaction that is required that to show an attempt to "launder" the money.
d) Texas election code replaced all related Penal Code in 1975, setting the civil and criminal limits to violations of election law (e.g. the election code stipulates there can be no corporate contributions to canidates beyond administrative expenses and it was defined as a third degree felony). They did not intend to "layer" that code with identical and the more severe Penal code of money laundering (1st degree felony) otherwise it would make election code limits irrelevant.
What the judge is saying is that money laundering is the solicitation of corporate money with the intent to use it in a prohibited activity by openly transfering it between partys...
That may be a lot of things, but it is not money laundering. Any more than collecting money from investors with the intent to use it for illegal purposes is "money laundering"...it may be fraud, or conspiracy to commit a crime (violating the election code), but it is NOT money laundering.
This is the "criminalization" of politics and is, like the RICO statutes, clearly an abuse of the law.
In the end Earle will lose, but he will have done his dirty job of destroying the leadership of the house Republicans on a phony charge cooked up in his office.
Such is the state of our "justice" system..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.