HCSO

The Feds? That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Originally Posted by boardman

I thought it was all about you - you sexy kitten............Here I'm incidental and still getting fan mail...............You're falling behind ally kat. .

I thought it was all about you - you sexy kitten............Here I'm incidental and still getting fan mail...............You're falling behind ally kat. . Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

It's always about me...even when it's not.

The Feds? That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Originally Posted by boardman

That's probably because you are unaware of the net being cast these days.

But you asked.

The Feds? That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Originally Posted by boardman

Cursory look .... not so funny ....

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vincent J. BRUNO, Russell Camardelle, a/k/a "Moose," and Rodney Camardelle, Defendants-Appellants
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
809 F.2d 1097; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 2146

Bribe offered to get person released on bond….Judge among other defendants.
“Wire fraud” includes scheme to bribe a public official … a prosecutor is a “public official”

Nothing new … 25 years ago! Now for the state side of "not prosecuting their own"??





§ 36.02. Bribery
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
(1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;
(2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding;
(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official; or
(4) any benefit that is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or that is an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code, if the benefit was offered, conferred, solicited, accepted, or agreed to pursuant to an express agreement to take or withhold a specific exercise of official discretion if such exercise of official discretion would not have been taken or withheld but for the benefit; notwithstanding any rule of evidence or jury instruction allowing factual inferences in the absence of certain evidence, direct evidence of the express agreement shall be required in any prosecution under this subdivision.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.
(c) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit is not offered or conferred or that the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after:
(1) the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or
(2) the public servant ceases to be a public servant.
(d) It is an exception to the application of Subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of Subsection (a) that the benefit is a political contribution as defined by Title 15, Election Code, or an expenditure made and reported in accordance with Chapter 305, Government Code.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.


330 S.W.3d 633, *; 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1287, **
ALFRED ISASSI, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
330 S.W.3d 633; 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1287
October 6, 2010, Delivered
County Attorney who just made a phone call to ask for prosecution to be dropped.
No quid-pro-quo or benefit offered in return

Tex. Penal Code § 36.04 (2012)
§ 36.04. Improper Influence
(a) A person commits an offense if he privately addresses a representation, entreaty, argument, or other communication to any public servant who exercises or will exercise official discretion in an adjudicatory proceeding with an intent to influence the outcome of the proceeding on the basis of considerations other than those authorized by law.
(b) For purposes of this section, "adjudicatory proceeding" means any proceeding before a court or any other agency of government in which the legal rights, powers, duties, or privileges of specified parties are determined.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.


Jimmy Doyle BUSH, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee, No. 080-87
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
773 S.W.2d 297; 1989 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 102
Bribery of an employee of DA’s office to “help out” in a pending criminal case.


BRENT ANDREW DORNBURG, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT, BEAUMONT
2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 10014
Assistant DA agreeing to dismiss a criminal case

Just to show you the “pettiness” of the activity prosecuted …
CHUKWUEMEKA FELIX IROH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, HOUSTON
2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 889
Defendant offered to pay $500 to school records clerk for a blank transcript form.

Now if a poster wants to admit lying about a "scenario" as a retraction of the poster's support of his dislike for the cjs .... so be it.

.......to "get er done" to your liking! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Again, I guess you missed the point of the "good ol' boys scenario" as merely a play on words to your original "get er done" statement......It looks as though some people have waayyyy too much time on their hands to dig up and regurgitate 25yr old court documents.

Looks like the State should worry more about protecting themselves from "themselves"
http://www.click2houston.com/news/Re...a/-/index.html

Even better...ijs.

It's always about me...even when it's not.

Originally Posted by boardman

LOL..................I'll bet you're even cuter when you're purring.

I purr when I lick pussy!
Some lady cats even say I have a talented tongue.

Again, I guess you missed the point of the "good ol' boys scenario" as merely a play on words to your original "get er done" statement......It looks as though some people have waayyyy too much time on their hands to dig up and regurgitate 25yr old court documents.
Originally Posted by Russ38

Or 1 and 2 year old appellate opinions. You just don't like the message, when your wrong and have to fabricate scenarios to "make a point" ... but don't worry. You have plenty of "company" on the board and in this thread.

Did Boardman start this one as an "alert"? I'd rather talk about eating pussy, also.

......It looks as though some people have waayyyy too much time on their hands to dig up and regurgitate 25yr old court documents. Originally Posted by Russ38

Took all of 30 minutes while sipping coffee ...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. WILLIAM CAMPBELL.
CRIMINAL ACTION NO: 1:04-CR-424-RWS-ECS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, ATLANTA DIVISION
2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47051
City Mayor

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS MANZO,
Civil Action No.: 09-759 (JLL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
851 F. Supp. 2d 797; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20529
February 17, 2012, Decided
Mayoral Candidate

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. MARK ALFISI,
Docket No. 01-1152
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
308 F.3d 144; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21082
October 26, 2001, Argued
October 8, 2002, Decided

Sting Operation with Agricultural Inspector

I thought you might like this one …. Since it has to do with the carbon business …. And thought you might be more familiar with it …

“The “vast majority” of the honest-services cases involved offenders who, in violation of a fiduciary duty, participated in bribery or kickback schemes. see Brief for United States 42, and n. 4 (citing dozens of examples). Indeed, the McNally case [*2931] itself, which spurred Congress to enact § 1346 presented a paradigmatic kickback fact pattern. McNally.
JEFFREY K. SKILLING, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES
No. 08-1394
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
130 S. Ct. 2896; 177 L. Ed. 2d 619; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 5259; 78 U.S.L.W. 4735; Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) P95,808; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 550
March 1, 2010, Argued
June 24, 2010, Decided

Well, it’s almost 3 years old. The Feds prosecute BRIBERY.

Now, would you all rather brag about eating pussy well?

Perhaps Jr. Bird Man Russ ought to mind the fort since towns, schools, old folks homes, and public servants are at risk these days from plant inattention .... "West, Texas" ....

or do you have a lot of time on your hands?

Wouldn't want another Texas City to endure.

Or 1 and 2 year old appellate opinions. You just don't like the message, when your wrong and have to fabricate scenarios to "make a point" ... but don't worry. You have plenty of "company" on the board and in this thread. Originally Posted by LexusLover

For me personally, it has very little to do with "like" or "dislike" or even "right" or "wrong".....I've just learned to accept the fact that some things "are what they are"......but with so many narcissistic personalities in one place, what else would you expect?

I'd rather talk about eating pussy, also. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Now your talking LL !!!!!....Best thing I've heard you say so far!!!

"West, Texas" ....

Wouldn't want another Texas City to endure. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Just galvanizes my point about the seriousness of job hazards some endure.....quite a different level of intensity in comparison to the couple of "Blackcats" popped off in Boston the other day.