Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Nannie Bloomberg may be in legal trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 9:51:40 AM

Under Florida law it is illegal to directly or indirectly compensate someone to get them to vote.  By paying off the debts of felons Bloomberg is in violation of Florida law and it doesn't matter who the felon votes for, only that they vote.  It would no different if he agreed to pay off my mortgage to get me to vote, or my car or whatever.  He can't do that and if he did he is in serious legal jeopardy.

Bad idea Little Mike, very bad idea.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Rittenhouse sure is in trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 10:09:00 AM (updated 9/23/2020 10:17:27 AM)

Scroll down down down

Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Nannie Bloomberg may be in legal trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 10:48:45 AM

Here is the actual law...

(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

For a felony of the third degree, by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years.  

$5,000, when the conviction is of a felony of the third degree

My interpretation as a juror....

One could argue if the fine was paid directly to the state then he did not give anything to the person to become a registered voter. It doesn't state to any person or on their behalf.... I read it that the money must pass through the hands to be a violation. The money that was paid was not redeemable in cash to the individual. The felon can not obtain any cash as it is a fine due to the state. If the money was paid to the felon who then paid the fine, that would fall under the law.

If someone paid your mortgage or car payment, that could be argued it is redeemable in cash because you could sell the house or car and keep the cash from the sale. You would get the total sale price with no mortgae or car payment to pay.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Nannie Bloomberg may be in legal trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 11:07:35 AM

Interesting and undoubtedly a self serving interpretation.  So let's parse this out and see how your view holds up.

(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

"gives anything of value" - clearly paying off the debt of a felon using cash falls under anything of value.

"redeemable in cash to any person" - in my view eliminating someone's debt amounts to being redeemable in cash as it increases their net worth and access to additional capital.  But for sure this is where they will likely argue it is not a felony.

"consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter" - this is clearly the case that it is consideration to allow them to become a registered voter.

So of all the language in the statute the only out would be the middle part.  But I suspect that this would be something to argue in a trial and will not be germane to a grand jury.  If they bring this to a grand jury I strongly suspect there will be indictments.

Name:	PTClakefan -	Reply
Subject:	Nannie Bloomberg may be in legal trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 11:40:30 AM

I think I have to agree with Fishy on this one.  The highlighted verbiage "(1) Any person who gives anything of value that is redeemable in cash to any person in consideration for his or her becoming a registered voter commits a felony of the third degree..." suggests that the item of value must be given directly to the individual ("his or her"), as opposed to a third-party such as a governmental entity.  Now, if the statute said "to or on behalf of..." that would be a different matter.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Nannie Bloomberg may be in legal trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 12:04:29 PM

Well that interpretation would fly in the face of lots of legal precedence.  Lots of people are in prison for having accepted compensation illegally through a third party.  Otherwise all anyone would need to do to avoid legal jeopardy is to use a cutout.  But we all know that doesn't work.  But again, it is not entirely clear that they committed a felony.....that would be the job of the jury to decide.  But for sure there is enough to present to a grand jury and as is famously said, a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Nannie Bloomberg may be in legal trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 12:18:28 PM

All depends on the district it is filed in - liberal leaning courts would look the other way, center might take a longer look at it and make a decision one way or the other, and right leaning  might think he looks like a ham sammich and push to let a jury decide his fate.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Nannie Bloomberg may be in legal trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 1:04:23 PM

The real issue is whether a district attorney (prosecutor) will present the complaint to a grand jury to see if they will hand down an indictment.  The courts will come into play if they are indicted.  And again, whether they are convicted is a matter for the jury (or trial judge if they waive the right to a jury trial).  So the initial play is whether a DA will ask for an indictment.

But the argument made above makes no sense in legal terms.....otherwise people would get away with all sorts of crimes by using a cutout.  It doesn't work that way in the real world.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Nannie Bloomberg may be in legal trouble
Date:	9/23/2020 1:31:27 PM (updated 9/23/2020 1:54:14 PM)

Oh I agree - and why even need someoen else, chances are you never actually would handle the cash, it is routed through banks.

With the theory floated above - At that point prostitution could become legal if they setup direct deposit and do not handle the money personally - guess the pimp should also count as a cutout.

Almost decided to change that direct deposit statment but felt someone might get a good laugh.