'Mrs. Dino' gets prison

[Rufus_1611]

You're right, that does seem a bit low...

The sentence or the fact that you would say such a thing?

 

[npc]

From the article I read, I can't see what exactly she did wrong. The article said she was a "tax protester." What was HER crime? Obviously if she disobeyed the law, she should be punished, but it looks to me like she's being punished for her husband's wrongdoing, not her own.

It says right in the article that her crime was structuring. She's convicted of attempting to use a loophole to avoid her bank reporting deposits to the federal government.

 

[James_Newman]

Thats a thought crime.

 

[Analgesic]

The sentence or the fact that you would say such a thing?

Oh the sentence. But then again, if we criminalized stupidity, there'd be so few people left...

 

[Rufus_1611]

It says right in the article that her crime was structuring. She's convicted of attempting to use a loophole to avoid her bank reporting deposits to the federal government.

Yeah, we're on topic!

What is the amount of a cash transaction that one must engage in before they are required to report the transaction (Note: I'm giving a big hint here -->) "Form 8300 - Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business"? What is the loophole that you believe she avoided? Her transactions were $9,500 and $9,600 all on different days. If she had performed transactions for $9,499 should she have filled out the form? What about $8,499, $7,499, $6,499 etc? Perhaps, she should have filled out the form each time she made a transaction greater than $0.01 to be on the safe side even though the form is for "Cash Payments Over $10,000"?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Oh the sentence. But then again, if we criminalized stupidity, there'd be so few people left...

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." - Matthew 5:22​

 

[npc]

Thats a thought crime.

I thought it's Poncho's job to complain about how Orwellian our government is. Structuring refers to an action.

What is the amount of a cash transaction that one must engage in before they are required to report the transaction (Note: I'm giving a big hint here -->) "Form 8300 - Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business"? What is the loophole that you believe she avoided? Her transactions were $9,500 and $9,600 all on different days. If she had performed transactions for $9,499 should she have filled out the form? What about $8,499, $7,499, $6,499 etc? Perhaps, she should have filled out the form each time she made a transaction greater than $0.01 to be on the safe side even though the form is for "Cash Payments Over $10,000"?

So it's coincidence that, although her transactions had a wide distribution and frequently approached $10,000, they never happened to cross over that boundary. That's what you believe?

 

[James_Newman]

Yeah, we're on topic!

What is the amount of a cash transaction that one must engage in before they are required to report the transaction (Note: I'm giving a big hint here -->) "Form 8300 - Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business"? What is the loophole that you believe she avoided? Her transactions were $9,500 and $9,600 all on different days. If she had performed transactions for $9,499 should she have filled out the form? What about $8,499, $7,499, $6,499 etc? Perhaps, she should have filled out the form each time she made a transaction greater than $0.01 to be on the safe side even though the form is for "Cash Payments Over $10,000"?

I don't see any reason why she would have had to fill out that form.

Who must file. Each person engaged in
a trade or business who, in the course
of that trade or business, receives more
than $10,000 in cash in one transaction
or in two or more related transactions,
must file Form 8300. Any transactions
conducted between a payer (or its
agent) and the recipient in a 24-hour
period are related transactions.
Transactions are considered related even
if they occur over a period of more than
24 hours if the recipient knows, or has
reason to know, that each transaction is
one of a series of connected
transactions.

 

[James_Newman]

I thought it's Poncho's job to complain about how Orwellian our government is. Structuring refers to an action.


So it's coincidence that, although her transactions had a wide distribution and frequently approached $10,000, they never happened to cross over that boundary. That's what you believe?

The action is legal without the intent. It is only because they allege she did it on purpose that it is a crime.

 

[npc]

So considering intent with an action is the same as thoughtcrime? Can you think of any absurdities that would follow from eliminating the concept of intent from our justice system?

I don't see any reason why she would have had to fill out that form.

Except she's not convicted of ignoring the form; she's convicted of structuring.

 

[James_Newman]

Define structuring, and then show me how she is guilty of it.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Yup. All I get is glee that she's put away, when I ask. I'm not going to assign guilt, until I understand exactly what the both of them did.

And I will always be thankful for the creation lectures I heard from him, and will always cherish the memories of meeting him. I'd rather spend an hour listening to him over just about every real preacher I've ever had to suffer through....

(sorry 'bout that dangled preposition)

 

[LadyEagle]

Thread closing warning. This thread will be closed no sooner than 11:30 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle

 

[npc]

Define structuring

This took me 15 seconds to find.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005324----000-.html

then show me how she is guilty of it.

Why am I responsible for that? Her prosecutors managed to convince 12 jurors that she was guilty of it, and I don't have the information or motivation that they do.

Are we still arguing whether structuring should be illegal, whether it is illegal, or just whether Mrs. Hovind is guilty of it?

 

[Rufus_1611]

I thought it's Poncho's job to complain about how Orwellian our government is. Structuring refers to an action.

Poncho isn't the only one taking on that job and more are taken on the job each day.

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell​

So it's coincidence that, although her transactions had a wide distribution and frequently approached $10,000, they never happened to cross over that boundary. That's what you believe?

Do you know her thoughts? It doesn't matter what I believe I think she was thinking, it doesn't matter what you think she was thinking and it doesn't matter what the courts think she was thinking. How do we legislate thought crimes without a precog majority report? She says she didn't know, the courts say she willfully didn't report, the courts know her mind better than she does?

 

[James_Newman]

This took me 15 seconds to find.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00005324----000-.html


Why am I responsible for that? Her prosecutors managed to convince 12 jurors that she was guilty of it, and I don't have the information or motivation that they do.

Are we still arguing whether structuring should be illegal, whether it is illegal, or just whether Mrs. Hovind is guilty of it?

We can argue either or. You said:

She's convicted of attempting to use a loophole to avoid her bank reporting deposits to the federal government.

I don't think that is accurate. I'm trying to figure out what it is you think she is guilty of.

 

[npc]

I don't think that is accurate. I'm trying to figure out what it is you think she is guilty of.

Wonder no more. I just posted a definition of structuring.

She says she didn't know, the courts say she willfully didn't report, the courts know her mind better than she does?

I expect she knows what she was thinking and just lied about it. And the prosecutors were able to show that by pointing to the patterns of how she deposited.

Did you know she would sometimes make two separate deposits, once before 2:00 and once after, so that they would be on different financial days?

 

[Filmproducer]

Do you know her thoughts? It doesn't matter what I believe I think she was thinking, it doesn't matter what you think she was thinking and it doesn't matter what the courts think she was thinking. How do we legislate thought crimes without a precog majority report? She says she didn't know, the courts say she willfully didn't report, the courts know her mind better than she does?

Ummm...Yes it does matter what the courts think she was thinking. What do you think intent means? And Again it must be asked, what exactly do you think would happen to our judicial system if intent was not a factor in the commission of crimes? She's guilty, he's guilty, and they both deserve everything they have coming to them. I do not take well to uppity, holier-than-thou Christians who willingly BREAK the law in the name of Christ. (not to mention God's law, you know the whole "render unto Ceasar" thing) It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Wonder no more. I just posted a definition of structuring.

I expect she knows what she was thinking and just lied about it. And the prosecutors were able to show that by pointing to the patterns of how she deposited.

Did you know she would sometimes make two separate deposits, once before 2:00 and once after, so that they would be on different financial days?

According to the indictment the only consecutive transaction dates where your scenario could possibly apply, would be September 18, 2001 and September 19, 2001 (I know it is uncommon for Christians to be charitable and give fellow Christians the benefit of the doubt but just maybe something else was going on during that week and she had other things on her mind besides filling out a transaction form).

Also, do you have a source for this 2:00 transaction thing or is that just something you heard and are passing along?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Ummm...Yes it does matter what the courts think she was thinking. What do you think intent means? And Again it must be asked, what exactly do you think would happen to our judicial system if intent was not a factor in the commission of crimes? She's guilty, he's guilty, and they both deserve everything they have coming to them. I do not take well to uppity, holier-than-thou Christians who willingly BREAK the law in the name of Christ. (not to mention God's law, you know the whole "render unto Ceasar" thing) It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Once again, this thread is not about Kent Hovind. Jo Hovind was not accused of your misunderstood quote about Caesar. She was accused, convicted and sentenced of not filling out boxes on pieces of paper properly, and doing it willfully.