Comments on: Do you feel safer now?

by: NotThatImportant

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:56:03 +0000

No problem but now you know where the handle came from.

by: In The Arena

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:35:00 +0000

Don’t dive in. It’s not that deep. Just an otherwise gentle stab at humor on an otherwise sleepy day. Really, it’s not that important.

by: NotThatImportant

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:55:36 +0000

Arena,

Can you expound? I’m a little slow and I’m not sure I get your point. Are you suggesting there shouldn’t be criminal defense attorneys or anyone to defend the alleged bad guys? Or is it something to do with keeping cash at home?

by: 773H HO

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:11:47 +0000

He must have read “Prosecution And Ethics In Contemporary America” by Mike Nifong.

by: In The Arena

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:56:47 +0000

Dog fighting is wrong, even if your dog isn’t fighting. I believe that was where you erred GD.

by: G.D. Gearino

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:48:13 +0000

NTI, fret not. The dateline/byline mistake is minor. You debate vigorously and fairly, so you’ve got much goodwill on deposit here at WAW. (I just hope the feds don’t notice that those deposits are made in many small increments.)

by: NotThatImportant

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:27:04 +0000

just noticed that comment should have said “dateline” not byline. Of course that was after I realized I was reading my own comment. Still trying to figure out which is more pathetic…

by: Bill Anderson

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:34:57 +0000

I agree with you 100 percent! This was payback and nothing else.

These “derivative crimes” are supposed to have an UNDERLYING crime that triggers the charge for what we would call an ancillary crime.

I can guarantee you that had he put the money in the bank in deposits of over $10K, the feds would have tried to frame him with money laundering. The federal criminal system is out of control, period. It is evil.

by: NotThatImportant

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:10:47 +0000

Can’t say I always agree with you GD but I’m with you 100% on this one. I actually read this story several times because I felt certain there was some paragraph I glossed over which contained the meat of the case against this gent. Next I thought perhaps I read the byline wrong — do they mean Raleigh, NC… the one in the United States?

Dude took his own money (the legitimacy of the earnings was never in question) and put it in the bank. I realize one can make the argument that structuring the transactions the way he did is technically a crime, but when the authorities use technicalities to punish someone who isn’t even guilty of the crime the law was created to uncover, aren’t they simply proving the unfairness of the law and risking it’s undoing?

I’m no fan of attorneys (especially after receiving the latest bill from my own) but the fact that this guy is losing his livelihood and, potentially his freedom, for depositing some of his own cash is outrageous.

by: John

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:11:41 +0000

Bless Gaskins - and all sharp defense attorneys.

What’s worse; acquittal of every guilty defendant on the docket or the conviction of one innocent person? The State gets their turn at the plate too. And they hold every advantage in court except burden of proof. If they can’t get a conviction, who’s fault is that?

I agree, Gaskins’ legal predicament smells a little like malicious prosecution. On the other hand, his money is insured by the FDIC (assuming they have any money left). What does he care if a crooked teller embezzles funds from his accounts? It’s just a number on his monthly statements anyway until he demands its withdrawal.

It seems far more likely that the guy was squirelling away his money in small piles to avoid the added scrutiny of transacting his bank business in chunks in excess of $10,000.