Where's The Potential Fraud?

Appearance of Impropriety

Fraud Defined - In the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain, although it has a more specific legal meaning, the exact details varying between jurisdictions. Many hoaxes are fraudulent, although those not made for personal gain are not best described in this way. Not all frauds are hoaxes - electoral fraud, for example. In the broad legal sense a fraud is any crime or civil wrong for gain that utilizes some deception practiced on the victim as its principal method.

In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.

Campaign Expenditure Disclosure Discussed

Instructions on Reporting Campaign Expenditure Form. - The complete name and address of each payee, as well as the purpose and amount of the expenditure(s) must be listed here. The purpose of an expenditure must be a specific description (e.g., meals, advertising, travel, etc.). General phrases, such as "expenses" or "miscellaneous" shall not be sufficient for providing a purpose.

Why do you think we require candidates or officeholders to disclose the disbursement of their campaign funds with specific descriptions that provides a brief description of why the disbursement(s) were made, which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure?

Wasn’t the Disclosure Act of 1980 the results of the politicians playing fast and loose with their tax-free ‘campaign’ contributions and using them for taxable non-politically related purposes. At that time I believe there were court cases that said in general that this, in fact, was a potential deception made for personal gain and was therefore unlawful. IRS said so, too.

By failing to review the statements filed by the politicians and officeholders to any degree of certainty and allowing these folks to file, unchallenged, insufficient and illegal descriptions of the purpose of the expenditures, the Registry has failed in their statutory purpose. The Registry has failed to ensure compliance or to enforce this part of the Disclosure Act. A violation of their oath of office and the laws of the state.

In fact, the Registry, with only the passage of 180 days from the date of filing of the statement, now deems them sufficient, even for the investigative purpose of a Sworn Complaint that establishes the clear and unequivocal fact, the insufficiency of the statements and therefore potentially deceptive with it’s obvious appearance of impropriety.

Without further disclosure or description, these are the very type of disclosure descriptions that the Disclosure Act was intended to outlaw. And they did. What assurances do we, the citizens, have that an ‘American Express - Monthly Bill’ description is not a deception made for personal gain, a "theft by deception," a "larceny by trick," a "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.

By all means, no one should conclude that there has been any showing of fraud and none was alleged in the Sworn Complaint, nor should there have been. NO citizen, or even our representatives , is guilty of anything, just because of some allegations. Just not being done where you can tell, oneway or the other.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

Uncle Ted