Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
You know, I just have to ask ...
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, September 06, 2007

Why in the world was a guy who'd skipped bail once allowed to have bail again?
[Norman] Hsu pleaded no contest in 1991 to a felony count of grand theft, admitting he'd defrauded investors of $1 million after falsely claiming to have contracts to purchase and sell latex gloves.

He was facing up to three years when he skipped town before his 1992 sentencing.
And yet a judge in California again approves bail and we get the same result. What, no one figured a guy who'd skipped out once and spent 15 years avoiding the law might do it again?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Just another case of the idiocy of the justice system being so liberal nowadays.
 
Written By: William Teach
URL: http://www.thepiratescove.us
Yeah. I don’t get it either.

Though at least they are saying he’s given up his attempt at reducing the bail... lol.

If they find him alive (I’m not putting money on it either way), he not only better not get bail, but the judge needs to toss out the 3 years, and slam him with everything possible.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
And this guy has quite the record going.

Question is - will Hillary be held accountable?
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Question is - will Hillary be held accountable?
The Los Angeles Times started a little investigative series about Hsu last week. On Saturday, 9/01/07, I wrote a comment on the CQ blog predicting the course that this story would take:
There will be no attempt to place this story in the context of previous scandals related to the bankrolling of the Clinton machine by shady Chinese and Indonesian sources. The investigative series will conclude with some high-minded bromides about the "broken system," and the need for campaign finance reform.
On Wednesday, 9/05/07, the NYT weighed in with their take on the story:

1. Hillary is the victim:

"Senator Hillary Clinton has been burned twice lately by so-called bundlers..."

2. Both parties do it:

"Other candidates in both parties have been similarly embarrassed."

3. The lesson here is that public financing of campaigns is needed:

"It would be a tragedy if it takes another Watergate scandal to prod today’s candidates into demanding public financing as the antidote to the abusive power of bundlers."


Got it? Move right along now. Nothing to see here. It would be a tragedy if this becomes a scandal.

Five years from now, after the first Hillary (3rd Clinton) administration, NYT staffers will anonymously go into Wikipedia entries (again) to erase all references to Norman Hsu.







 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
You did say "California judge". Nuf said.

What a maroon.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Hsu, whose criminal past has roiled the campaigns of top presidential candidates, was scheduled to ask a judge to cut in half the $2 million bail he posted last week when he turned himself in after spending 15 years on the lam from a felony theft conviction.

Instead, San Mateo Superior Court Judge Robert Foiles ordered Hsu’s bail forfeited to the county and issued a new arrest warrant. If Hsu is arrested again, he will be jailed without bail this time.
Priceless
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Got it? Move right along now. Nothing to see here. It would be a tragedy if this becomes a scandal.
Oh how I wish you were kidding Aldo.

Watching this (the Clinton candidacy) is like watching a really bad movie late at night. You see all the holes in the story, but the characters don’t. And no matter how much you yell at the screen, the story unfolds and ends the way the author/director wants.

My kingdom for an educated voting population!
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
"Five years from now, after the first Hillary (3rd Clinton) administration, NYT staffers will anonymously go into Wikipedia entries (again) to erase all references to Norman Hsu."
{laff, laff, laff}

I wonder how many people around here remember John Huang.

This is just another lap around the same ol’ mulberry bush.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
Scott writes:
If they find him alive (I’m not putting money on it either way), he not only better not get bail, but the judge needs to toss out the 3 years, and slam him with everything possible.
To whose benefit? Yours? "The People’s?" Did he do anything to you, "The People," or anyone you know? If not, how is it in any way yours or their business?

Now, let’s consider the people he seems to admit having defrauded for a million bucks 15 years ago. Presuming we can determine theirs or their heirs’ wishes, what do you suppose they’d opt for, say, if given the choice to see Hsu "get slammed with everything possible," or monetary restitution, perhaps with a healthy interest attached which could raise the total to $3-4 million?

Should they go without restitution sos you and the peeps can see him get "everything possible," which we already know mean to you some amount of time in jail well in excess of three years?

But that’s not even as obscene as it gets. San Mateo County has now been enriched by $2 million, twice the principal amount of the original offense, and the victims and only ones with any real business in the affair sit empty handed.

Well, since this is a "libertarian" blog and since I find so very little of it here...
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
Culture of corruption? She just got burned. Twice.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Well, since this is a "libertarian" blog and since I find so very little of it here...
How about a post that makes sense Richard. Then we can discuss opinions.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Mr Nikoley said

"To whose benefit? Yours? "The People’s?" Did he do anything to you, "The People," or anyone you know? If not, how is it in any way yours or their business?"

Hmm so that means that as long as someone doesnt do anything to me or anyone I know than it is fine to break the law and skip out on their jail sentence.

Nice argument. Why does it matter if he did anything to me or not? The law isnt written to say if Person A commits a crime specifically against Person B then they go to jail now is it. If someone breaks the laws of a society it is the business of every person in that society. Hence the name SOCIETY.

How is it if other people who skip out on jail sentences get the book thrown at them and this guy should’t? I guess just because he is a big donor to the democratic party. That is what matters the most.




 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
"To whose benefit? Yours? "The People’s?" Did he do anything to you, "The People," or anyone you know? If not, how is it in any way yours or their business?"


So Richard, you then of course would agree with Bush’s commuting Libby’s sentence? After all, it would not be in anyone’s interest/benefit to have him jailed , right?
 
Written By: doubled
URL: http://
retired military writes:
Hmm so that means that as long as someone doesnt (sic) do anything to me or anyone I know than it is fine to break the law and skip out on their jail sentence.
What do you mean by "fine?" And, "fine" to whom? As for me, whether or not it’s "fine" with me is a subjective matter of opinion that is utterly impertinent to the matter of fact, which is that it is wholly none of my business. Right? I mean: it’s just none of my business.

Sure, I can be outraged at his behavior, and so on, but I certainly don’t shame myself by pretending to partake in some fictitious notion of collective or unified victimhood. But don’t let me stop you guys.
Nice argument.
Thank you, sir.
Why does it matter if he did anything to me or not?
Because that is a primary factual element in determining whether it’s any of your business. Tell me: how to you go about determining when some affair is any of your business, or not?
The law isnt (sic) written to say if Person A commits a crime specifically against Person B then they go to jail now is it. (sic) If someone breaks the laws of a society it is the business of every person in that society. Hence the name SOCIETY.
Oh, yea. "Hence the name SOCIETY." I plum forgot about that one.

Unfortunately, your line of thought is non sequitur, even bizarrely so. There being no specific law for every specific individual, to cover interactions with all other individuals at all times and circumstances is simply not a necessary condition for affairs that weren’t your business anyway to remain not your business in the face of a legal system.

Moreover, Does Hsu and his victims have any choice about being members of your SOCIETY (so that you can make their affairs your business)? Huh? So, for example, do they have any option to opt out of your SOCIETY, so that, perhaps, they might work out some resolution with Hsu to recover their money (that $2 mil that went to the county would be a good start)? Or, do you insist that because "Hence the name SOCIETY," they’ve just got to shut up and sit down because you have (their) business to attend to (I mean: being a member of SOCIETY, and all).

meagain writes:
How about a post that makes sense Richard. Then we can discuss opinions.
Yea, sorry. I’ve been at this a mere 15 years or so (USENET and then blogging). But it’s never to late to learn how better to communicate, now is it? I’ll be happy to take any pointers from you as to matters of clarity (or even logic). I think my blog is up to around 1,000 posts now, or something like that going back to ’03. I know it’s a lot to ask, but if you could pop through there and add a comment here or there as to how I might have made more sense I’ll be entirely in your debt.

Thanks in advance.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
doubled:
So Richard, you then of course would agree with Bush’s commuting Libby’s sentence? After all, it would not be in anyone’s interest/benefit to have him jailed , right?
It was great for Bush to do that, but he should have had the courage to state flatly at the outset that nothing in the charges against Libby should be a violation of the law anyway. He didn’t hurt anyone.

As far as I’m concerned, lying to a government prosecutor-man is a virtue, but I’ll settle for simply not being illegal — save perhaps for an instance were one lies in order to further perpetuate ongoing harm to other people.

Probably not the answer you were expecting, right?

 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
Moreover, Does Hsu and his victims have any choice about being members of your SOCIETY
D’uh Dick, his actions say, YES" because he chose to flee!? As can anyone else in this society, so by remaining here we are saying we tolerate the social contract! Is that too difficult to grasp?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
I think my blog is up to around 1,000 posts now, or something like that going back to ’03. I know it’s a lot to ask, but if you could pop through there and add a comment here or there as to how I might have made more sense I’ll be entirely in your debt.

Thanks in advance.
Dick, Rosie O’Donell and Alex Jones have a lot of blogging and postings, too...doesn’t make them sane....But thank you for saying you’ve been around for 4 years, and you’re improving every day.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
To whose benefit? Yours? "The People’s?" Did he do anything to you, "The People," or anyone you know? If not, how is it in any way yours or their business?
And the subsequent screed about society and opting out.
Aside from joe’s example, Hsu could agree to do all his business in barter for starters, but he, um, accepts money it seems, thereby buying into at least part of the social contract most of the rest of us labor under.

I’m confused though, one would think this was none of your business, you know, that the rest of us are excercised about his 2nd bail breaking flight from justice and that we would like to see him incarcerated and forced to pay restitution. Not YOUR business under the rules you outlined.

I gather you think Liberatarian ought to = Anarchist or something akin to it.

Thanks for running so many ’disregard my posts from now on’ flags up the mast so we can understand your intentions.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well Dick

Since you asked.

My business is when he donates ILLEGALLY to people who hold public office.

Since they hold PUBLIC OFFICE their actions affect me.

And Yes he can opt out of my society by going to live somewhere else but in the country and society in which I reside. So he does have a choice.

Your other statements are remarkably naive about just how things work in a civilized world. Without laws you have anarchy and chaos, whether you agree with the laws or not. Fortunately in the SOCIETY of the US you can work to change laws LEGALLY.

I leave you with a paraphrase from the movie "Billy Jack"

"Show me where this place is where there is no violence, no hate, no crime, and I will go with you there today"

Unfortunately no such place exists. That is a fact unlike your rose colored glasses world.





 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
RM - he just seems to have a thing about the term "Libertarian" and has been brandishing it like a blunt weapon all over the place.

Quite intent on making our views his business while declaring the things we have views on are really none of our business.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
D’uh Dick, his actions say, YES" because he chose to flee!? As can anyone else in this society, so by remaining here we are saying we tolerate the social contract! Is that too difficult to grasp?
D’uh Joe F*uckface. Actually, let’s see if I can help you restate that to some level of comprehensibility....

...Hmmm

Oh, never mind. I wasn’t referring to the practical sense of he and his victims physically leaving. I was — obviously — referring to the legal/ethical claim that they belong to us (which claim would follow them wherever).

Therefore, the question remains. Does everyone consider this 15-yr old affair, along with his skipping out on it, so much their business that they would deny Hsu and his victims getting together and working it out to everyone’s mutual satisfaction, i.e., to a point the victims are satisfied?

That’s a pointed question, and from what I’m seeing, most of you will either answer in the affirmative (deny restitution in favor of "your" business) or be too ashamed to admit it.

looker writes:
...social contract...
Oh, you have no idea. ....Nope, not even going to get stated. Go to Google groups, or something, and start looking in archives going back about 10-15 years and, well, get tuned in to the absurdity of that.

I really haven’t got time.

I’m confused though, one would think this was none of your business, you know

Oh, it’s certainly not; not beyond the context of this debate and discussion. Have I gone and taken it beyond that? Please stop me if I do.

Onward...
Well Dick
Yes, retired military F*ckface? Oh, and that’s LT Dick, USN (former), to you.
Since you asked...My business is when he donates...
Actually, I didn’t, and you’re changing the subject. But no matter. No, neither is it my or your business who anyone gives their money to, or in what amount or under what circumstance (so long as it’s their money). My God. Have you people completely lost any and all sense of morality concerning property rights and the right to dispose of it as one sees fit? Are you blinded by the law. Are you unaware that the law ought to be upholding the right of people to do as they please with their own money?
Your other statements are remarkably naive about just how things work in a civilized world.
On the contrary. I am identifying the precise nature of how they operate, which is to say I am identifying the underlying force and violence by which they operate, and everyone here is up in arms because it makes them feel uncomfortable. There’s no real difference between you and the lefties, or even the commies. I happen to hold more values in common with you folks, but in the end, you all are just at war, and the war is over who gets to force their will on whom, through violence, if necessary.

It’s really a sad commentary on the values you all claim to hold (truth, justice, responsibility, honor, and so on). What does it say about them when such values must be enforced at the point of a gun, with threat of jail time?

 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
Therefore, the question remains. Does everyone consider this 15-yr old affair, along with his skipping out on it, so much their business that they would deny Hsu and his victims getting together and working it out to everyone’s mutual satisfaction, i.e., to a point the victims are satisfied?
I consider myself a libertarian, not an anarchist. I believe that a criminal court system is a legitimate function of government. Further, I consider it legitimate to criminalize fraud. Therefore, it follows that, if the state has reasonable cause to believe that Hsu is guilty of fraud, it may legitimately detain and prosecute him for that crime in a court of law.

I would not deny Hsu and his victims the opportunity to voluntarily settle their claims among themselves, but the state may still have a legitimate interest in pursuing its criminal case against him. There are two issues here: the interest of the victims in being made whole for their losses, and the interest of the state in specifically deterring Norman Hsu, and generally deterring others, from running fraud schemes.
No, neither is it my or your business who anyone gives their money to, or in what amount or under what circumstance (so long as it’s their money). My God. Have you people completely lost any and all sense of morality concerning property rights and the right to dispose of it as one sees fit?
I believe that Norman Hsu has a perfect right to give his own money to Hillary Clinton. I also believe that it is legitimate for the bureaucracy that is charged with running Presidential elections to prohibit Norman Hsu from giving Hillary money which the PRC gave to him, and then reporting to the voters that the money was donated by Winkle Paw.

To require that candidates for the POTUS accurately disclose the sources of their campaign funding does not seem to violate any libertarian principles.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Aldo:
I would not deny Hsu and his victims the opportunity to voluntarily settle their claims among themselves, but the state may still have a legitimate interest in pursuing its criminal case against him. There are two issues here: the interest of the victims in being made whole for their losses, and the interest of the state in specifically deterring Norman Hsu, and generally deterring others, from running fraud schemes.
That’s reasonable enough for me not to complain too much. I don’t care that much about the state’s interest, and I would certainly stipulate that restitution to victims take priority, but otherwise you present a reasonable case in my opinion.

Regarding election financing, I will simply point out that I’m arguing from a pure position of property rights. So long as the money being given is owned by those giving it, i.e., voluntarily, I can’t see how it’s anybody’s business where it came from or for what purpose or to whom it’s given. If a libertarian principle held otherwise, I’d have to count myself in principle opposition to it.


 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
" Did he do anything to you, "The People," or anyone you know? If not, how is it in any way yours or their business?"

So why is the reaction of the rest of us any of your business? for that matter, since noone on this site has done anything to you, why are you here?


" Does everyone consider this 15-yr old affair, along with his skipping out on it, so much their business that they would deny Hsu and his victims getting together and working it out to everyone’s mutual satisfaction, i.e., to a point the victims are satisfied?"

Gee, perhaps they could sue? Perhaps they need more time.


"I really haven’t got time."

Yet you seem to have plenty of time to tell people who have done nothing to you what and how they should think.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Hey, Q, how many posts do you have on Hsu? Why don’t you try one on this? You know, while we’re holding presidential candidates accountable for the actions of their contributors? Let’s judge people on consistent standards, regardless of party, right?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/052489.php
A top Utah fund-raiser for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign - who has links to an organization facing a civil lawsuit alleging child abuse - is no longer part of Romney’s state finance team.

Robert Lichfield of La Verkin, who founded the umbrella group called the Worldwide Association of Specialty Schools, brought in some $300,000 earlier this year for Romney during a single Utah event and has donated tens of thousands to the former Massachusetts governor and other Republicans in recent years.

Lichfield is named in a federal lawsuit charging that students of the "behavior modification" schools with ties to WWASPS were subjected to "physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse." The suit had 140 defendants at last count.

...

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah, alleges brazen acts of child abuse, including that students of the various programs had been forced to eat their own vomit, clean toilets with a toothbrush and brush their teeth afterward, were chained or locked in dog cages, kicked, beaten, thrown and slammed to the ground and forced into sexual acts.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Of course, glassy, your quote contains all we need to know:"facing a lawsuit" as opposed to "found guilty 15 years ago". I guess indictment = conviction in the glasnost gulag. I’ll wait to deal with the difference between "civil" and "criminal" when you learn to tie your shoes.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Well LT Dick

It is nice to see how you seem to know EVERYONE’s Business and what everyone should consider their business. Talk about being a libertarian and then force your views on folks of "I will tell you what you should think". Hypocrite thy name is Dick.

" To whose benefit? Yours? "The People’s?" Did he do anything to you, "The People," or anyone you know? If not, how is it in any way yours or their business?"

"Since you asked...My business is when he donates...

" Actually, I didn’t, and you’re changing the subject"

Actually YOU DID ASK. See the above statement that starts out with "Did he do anything to you?"

But since you can’t read what you wrote (or else don’t remember it) and your grasp on reality is so skewed I think I shall follow that old saying and not argue with an idiot. Go back to those drugs you have obviously been using since the 60’s and let them fry that last 2 brain cells you have.

And BTW I respect the rank but in this case not the person who wore it.
 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
Hey, Q, how many posts do you have on Hsu?
One, this one, and it’s about letting a guy who jumped bail previously have the opportunity to do it again. I find that, well, not bright on the judge’s part.

But you assume I have more don’t you ’nost?

I don’t normally cover political corruption that closely because, well, it’s fairly rampant and fairly evenly spread and others enjoy covering it much more than I do.

Your incorrect assumption, on the other hand, is both interesting and telling.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I can’t see how it’s anybody’s business where it came from or for what purpose or to whom it’s given.
Information about the financial backers of the candidates helps the voters make a more informed decision. We are, after all, choosing the titular leader of a country of 300 million people with the world’s largest economy and most powerful military, not the captain of the neighborhood soccer league.

I share your interest in limited government, but I do not believe that it is too intrusive to require that the candidates make their funding sources publicly available. I do think, though, that the candidates themselves need to be held more accountable for misrepresentations. Instead of charging Hsu with a crime, the FEC should penalize the candidates who accepted his money by requiring that all donations from that source be returned, or placed into a special trust to be used for financing the elections.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Heh - Hillary could return the money by proportion lost to Hsu’s victims. Half the loaf and what not.

Don’t suppose that’s going to happen though, a million in questionably donated money can do so much good (for the candidate) when properly donated to other places.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
timactual:
So why is the reaction of the rest of us any of your business? for that matter, since noone on this site has done anything to you, why are you here?
I believe I answered that above...oh, I see I didn’t block quote what I was answering, so perhaps it slipped notice. This debate and discussion is the business of you, me, and anyone else who cares to participate. It’s my position that beyond discussing it or rendering our own judgment as to the behavior of the various parties, it’s none of our business. What I’m hearing from others amounts to the implicit presumption that if it was up to them, they would act or cause to have others act to have things done outside the context of this discussion, i.e., to meddle in the affairs of others by force, whether any of the victims want you to or not — and even if they had an opportunity for restitution they find satisfactory.

See the difference?
Gee, perhaps they could sue? Perhaps they need more time.
Sure they could sue. That’s not the point. The question is whether you or anyone would deny them the opportunity and right to settle amongst themselves to their satisfaction, instead to pursue your wishes as to what ought to happen. For instance, Hsu cheated them out of a million. He skipped bail the first time, forfeiting whatever amount he posted, and then a second time for two million. The county is richer by more than two mil and the victims still have nothing. Do you think that’s right? Suppose the victims were to say: "if the sate were to give us the forfeited bail money, we’ll be satisfied and we’ll be happy for the state to drop charges." That would be the right thing, in my view, but the sate is not even going to give up that money and continue to pursue charges (2nd best alternative), and that’s because they are pursuing your wishes over those of the actual victims. That’s what you want, and what you’re calling for; so go ahead: revel in the moment and fell real good about it.

Retired military f*ckface:
Talk about being a libertarian and then force your views on folks of "I will tell you what you should think".
You’re just making that up. Anyway, see above as to the proper distinction between discussion and action. Furthermore, in any discussion where one party (me) is thinking more broadly and applying principles of liberty more consistently, it’s going to seem as though I’m instructing those thinking less carefully and consistently how to think. I can offer you no solution other than to think more carefully.
Actually YOU DID ASK..."Did he do anything to you?"
And you answered that he donated money to someone other than you. So he didn’t do anything to you, positive or negative. But don’t let me stop you from fantasies of how you’re a victim. It’s not only lefties and commies who play that game, you know.
I shall follow that old saying and not argue with an idiot.
Suit yourself, man. You’re beaten, but feel free to believe otherwise. I haven’t observed a lot of consistent discipline to principles, either from you or most others, so to find you embracing made up "explanations" for why you’ve faired so poorly in this discussion is hardly surprising to me.

Aldo:
Information about the financial backers of the candidates helps the voters make a more informed decision.
That’s probably true, but to take that to the point of justifying coercion that would prevent or punish those who trade or grant money and other property in any way mutually agreeable to them is to justify coercion and potential brutality (means) with ends that happen to appeal to you and others.

Couldn’t we come up with a pretty big list of things that would "help voters make more informed decisions," yet would violate people’s right to their own life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness through voluntary action?
I do not believe that it is too intrusive to require that the candidates make their funding sources publicly available.
But that’s not what we’re really talking about, is it? The whole point of that information is less to see who is financing someone that it is to limit the amount of contributions by force.

At any rate, Aldo, even though we disagree, it’s nice to conduct a discussion with someone who at minimum grasps the principles and their implications.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
"The question is whether you or anyone would deny them the opportunity and right to settle amongst themselves to their satisfaction"

They have had 15 years to do so. Who has denied them the opportunity?

"they are pursuing your wishes over those of the actual victims"

And what are those wishes?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
timactual:
They have had 15 years to do so. Who has denied them the opportunity?
It’s a hypothetical, in order to ascertain how you and others view justice, i.e., ought justice to be primarily about restitution to victims, or ought that take a back seat to prosecutorial adventure in the name of "the people?"

On the other hand, it’s not wholly hypothetical, in the sense that the state has collected $2 million, plus whatever was forfeit the first time he skipped.
And what are those wishes?
I’m using "your" in the general sense, i.e., the general position of my several opponents in this discussion who wish primarily to put Hsu away; whereas, I am using that to shed light on a principle of justice where unless you’re a party to the fraud (or whatever offense), you have no standing — whether or not prosecutors invoke your name as among "the people."

If you have wishes distinct from that, then I’m not particularly aware of them — though that could be my fault if you’ve stated them and I don’t recall.


 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
Well it’s all moot. The FBI, which seems interested in sticking their nose into the business between Hsu and his victims, has arrested him in his hospital room.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
and even if they had an opportunity for restitution they find satisfactory
Since that’s the self declared winning theme for the moment, perhaps it will be to explained how that restitution will be attained without some coercive method to force Hsu to do other than he’d like to do. He keeps demonstrating what he will do if given the chance, to whit he makes himself absent from the presence of those he has defrauded, thereby demonstrating that he doesn’t feel remunieration for frauds past is a satisfactory answer.

As for our involvement, I think ’we’ pay the police and the FBI to administer and enforce the laws. So, we do have skin in the game in the form of our taxes.
Play on.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker:
Since that’s the self declared winning theme for the moment, perhaps it will be to explained how that restitution will be attained without some coercive method to force Hsu to do other than he’d like to do.
They could start with the $2+ million he has already given over. Then see where they’re at.

The state coercion in the name of you all (the people) has already taken place, so there’s really nothing that could be done at this point to attain a non-coercive environment.

Also, mind you: I have not argued against any coercion. I’ve argued against people in this thread advocating coercion on the basis of their presumed victimhood as members of a society that asserts its dominion over Hsu and his victims. I don’t mind his victims coercing him to make restitution, or even appealing to the state to do so. But that’s not what’s happening. The state is prosecuting, alright, but not in the name of the victims, but in the name of you, "the people."

It collects fines in excess of double the original fraud and the victims go empty handed.

That’s wrong, in my view.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
I wonder if Hsu covered it through a bond rather than his own money. Screwing someone ELSE out of even more cash.

If you don’t mind them applying to the state to do so, then the argument seems moot, that’s what happened, the victims and their heirs are part of "the people".
The fact that the state doesn’t specifically name them as litigants against him doesn’t mean they don’t constitute part of the class "the people".
As a criminal procedure in it’s current form, it’s always charged under the aegis of the collective body composed of the people, "the state".
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker:
I wonder if Hsu covered it through a bond rather than his own money. Screwing someone ELSE out of even more cash.
But that’s different. The bondsmen are voluntarily taking on the risk. Moreover, they do retain civil redress as it’s a bond, not insurance. I’d be surprised if he was able to obtain a $2 million bond for anything less than a fee of about $1.9 million, given that he skipped the first time.

If you don’t mind them applying to the state to do so, then the argument seems moot,

No, the distinction is important. They are applying to the state most probably because they understand that is their only option. If they were given the choice: lock him up, or get your money back (or if both, get money FIRST), what do you think the victims would choose.

That’s the essence of thrust of the whole argument, if you want a nutshell:

Nobody; not the state, and none of you have the right (we the people, or not) to jump in the line of justice ahead of the victims.

 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
Regarding the bail - yes, one would think a bondsman worthy of the title would have laughed at anything less than pretty much all of the cash for the bond given Hsu’s record.

"the state" is not an entity, though it operates like one as a legal fiction.
We are the state, the victims as an element of ’we’, are the state.
"justice" only really applies in the context of some collective body in the first place.

No one here has jumped into line ahead of anybody by making a suggestion as to what ought to happen to Hsu. Merely saying they wanted to see him incarcerated doesn’t preclude restitution, it’s simply an expression of one of the things they’d like to see happen to him during the dispensation of justice.

It’s a desire reflecting acceptance of the system as it stands, not discussing a theoretical system which operates under "libertarian" principles, for all the fact that this may be a pro-libertarian site.
In short, this post is akin to casual conversation in the break room, not a meeting on the floor of a constitutional convention.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker:
No one here has jumped into line ahead of anybody by making a suggestion as to what ought to happen to Hsu. Merely saying they wanted to see him incarcerated doesn’t preclude restitution, it’s simply an expression of one of the things they’d like to see happen to him during the dispensation of justice.
Well, the state has, and they have more than $2 million to prove it. And now they’ve caught him, they’ll lock him up making it potentially harder for victims to get restitution, unless perhaps he has assets they can go after or business entities that continue to produce while he’s locked away. In any case, the victims are definitely second in line behind "the people."

Also, if what you say is true, this is the first time I’ve read anyone making such a distinction or clarification since I began this line of argument.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
Suppose the victims were to say: "if the sate were to give us the forfeited bail money, we’ll be satisfied and we’ll be happy for the state to drop charges." That would be the right thing, in my view — Richard Nikoley
Say this wasn’t a white collar crime of bilking investors, but a violent assault whose victim stated for whatever reason that he did not wish the perp to be prosecuted. Apart from that victim, who, if anyone, would you consider to have a say in the matter?

And back to the actual case at hand:
Well, the state has [jumped in line ahead of the victims], and they have more than $2 million to prove it. And now they’ve caught him, they’ll lock him up making it potentially harder for victims to get restitution...
But at least they’ve got him, right? I mean, that’s more than the victims were apparently able to accomplish on their own. Hasn’t the state already benefitted the victims by bringing the guy in so that things can procede from here? And for the record, I think restitution to the victims should be the first order of business, if guilt is established. Really, it makes sense doesn’t it to at least try and get that matter squared away before handing Hsu or his money over to the victims. If I were in Hsu’s shoes, that’d probably be my preference.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Linda:
Say this wasn’t a white collar crime of bilking investors, but a violent assault whose victim stated for whatever reason that he did not wish the perp to be prosecuted. Apart from that victim, who, if anyone, would you consider to have a say in the matter?
I’d need more details, like, for example, is he dropping charges because of fear of retribution from allies of the accused. Very complicated, I’d say, and every case needs to be looked at individually.

On principle, ideally, only the victim has standing and so only the victim is owed anything. I fully understand that meeting such an idea will be difficult at best and sometimes moreso. But criminal prosecutions are a sticky tricky business anyway, so nothing new. Just a new focus.
I think restitution to the victims should be the first order of business, if guilt is established.
The reports I’ve read say he plead no contest and was sentenced. While not guilty, he wasn’t willing to put up a fight.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
"It’s a hypothetical,"

If you want to use a hypothetical, create one. Using an actual case is NOT a hypothetical, by definition.

And you didn’t answer my questions, but don’t bother now. This is ridiculous.




 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I’d need more details, like, for example, is he dropping charges because of fear of retribution from allies of the accused. — Richard Nikoley
Well — to apply what seems to be your thinking — if no one assaulted you, then why are the details any of your business?
Very complicated, I’d say, and every case needs to be looked at individually.
By whom? Obviously, somebody apart from the alleged or apparent victims and perpetrators have to mediate in some fashion in such cases, which are subject to occur at any time anywhere. And of course somebody does, in the guise of the state on behalf of people who, though personally uninvolved in a given, specific crime, nonetheless have justifiable interest in the way justice is meted out. I’d consider it my business if someone beat the living hell out of someone else, but walked because the victim, say, had religious qualms about incarceration. Same deal frankly for nonviolent crimes. Application of justice shouldn’t be the sole, arbitrary preogative — or responsibility — of victims.
The reports I’ve read say he [Hsu] plead no contest and was sentenced. While not guilty, he wasn’t willing to put up a fight.
Right you are, and so much for my keeping up with the 15-year-old details. But had he not copped a plea, he would have been tried, right? Are you cool with the state — in our real world, or some more palatable body of disinterested persons in the better world to come — conducting trials to establish guilt or innocence? Determining whether a crime occurred and establishing details if one did is theoretically the business of persons not party to the alleged crime. Right?
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
"had he not copped a plea" should be "had he not pled no contest"

Danged details. And, as I’m making corrections, prerogative.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
timactual:
If you want to use a hypothetical, create one. Using an actual case is NOT a hypothetical, by definition.


Oh quit blustering and being silly. It is perfectly appropriate to pose hypothetical questions pertaining to an actual situation in order to explore the depths and bounds of thinking, not to mention allegiance to whatever principles have been stated.

It happens all the time, if you’ll look around.

You all are just upset that this wasn’t the slam dunk you thought it would be, so just be men and let it drop until the next time.
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com
Linda:
Well — to apply what seems to be your thinking — if no one assaulted you, then why are the details any of your business?
Please. You were asking me a hypothetical question about whether I think others ought to drop charges, or do whatever. I’m telling you how I might approach it if it were my business, meaning, I had some connection with the victim and had reason to believe the victim wanted protection. I was simply pointing out that in matters of implicit duress, this can be difficult — that is, if you are certain the victim would like your protection but is acting in a strange way that suggests implicit duress. Part of really protecting someone is trying to get to the bottom of that.
By whom?
By those the victim (or heirs for an incapacitated or dead person) has asked or charged to assist them, i.e., charged with authority in the matter, i.e., made it their business.
I’d consider it my business if someone beat the living hell out of someone else, but walked because the victim, say, had religious qualms about incarceration.
Fine, Linda, then go do something about it (yourself) and tell me it’s none of mine or anyone’s business; but don’t tell me it is in my interest to do something about it, and don’t then use that to justify stealing from me — which is a brief sketch as to how things operate in the large.
Are you cool with the state — in our real world, or some more palatable body of disinterested persons in the better world to come — conducting trials to establish guilt or innocence? Determining whether a crime occurred and establishing details if one did is theoretically the business of persons not party to the alleged crime. Right?
All I can really say is that I don’t really care what happens to bad people; lots of what happens to many people is none of my business or concern; I don’t want to be forced to pay for anything; and I wouldn’t voluntarily pay for anything I didn’t think was just.

I do not buy the notion that the state is in any way "objective" in the conduct of so-called "justice." I think a small circle of good men and women familiar with a group or community norms would do a far better job in the main, and it would signal to inhabitants whether they wish to remain of find a place more to their liking.

So see if you can derive some answer out of that, because I just don’t care that much. I’m an individual. I don’t require that others create a "safe society" for me. I wish to associate and trade with those I choose, nobody else, and the rest of the world can go to hell as far as I’m concerned; and I’ll take my chances.

Clear enough?
 
Written By: Richard Nikoley
URL: http://www.uncsense.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider