Poll: Daniel Perry - Should he have been pardoned?

[RZehr]

A pardon does not mean that the person is innocent, or that he didn’t do what he was convicted of, or that the jury got it wrong. In fact, (I think) a pardon is an act of mercy extended, and one of the conditions of a pardon is that the person excepts his conviction and receives a pardon from the consequences of that conviction.
It’s my understanding that a pardon is impossible without a conviction and a drop of all appeals, and a drop of claims of innocence. A person has to legally accept his conviction to receive a pardon. Because an innocent person has. Nothing to be pardoned of, it is legally impossible to be both pardoned and claim innocence.

So Daniel Perry, by accepting this pardon, accepts that his conviction is legally legitimate.

[barnhart]

This is a good observation. I think most mistake a pardon for acquittal.

[Jazman]

A pardon does not mean that the person is innocent, or that he didn’t do what he was convicted of, or that the jury got it wrong. In fact, (I think) a pardon is an act of mercy extended, and one of the conditions of a pardon is that the person excepts his conviction and receives a pardon from the consequences of that conviction.
It’s my understanding that a pardon is impossible without a conviction and a drop of all appeals, and a drop of claims of innocence. A person has to legally accept his conviction to receive a pardon. Because an innocent person has. Nothing to be pardoned of, it is legally impossible to be both pardoned and claim innocence.

So Daniel Perry, by accepting this pardon, accepts that his conviction is legally legitimate.

Interesting point... so why would any Jesus follower support or excuse him unless they have a tribal/he's-on-my-team, therefore... mindset? (Or, the team I think is my team is championing him... therefore...)

[Ken]

A pardon does not mean that the person is innocent, or that he didn’t do what he was convicted of, or that the jury got it wrong. In fact, (I think) a pardon is an act of mercy extended, and one of the conditions of a pardon is that the person excepts his conviction and receives a pardon from the consequences of that conviction.
It’s my understanding that a pardon is impossible without a conviction and a drop of all appeals, and a drop of claims of innocence. A person has to legally accept his conviction to receive a pardon. Because an innocent person has. Nothing to be pardoned of, it is legally impossible to be both pardoned and claim innocence.

So Daniel Perry, by accepting this pardon, accepts that his conviction is legally legitimate.

Well, most states as well as the Federal government have guidelines for the issuing of pardons. Every state has a pardon office and published guidelines and that sort of thing. But the pardon power of most governors and the president is pretty absolute so neither governors nor the president are really bound by those standards if they don't want to be.

Whether Daniel Perry actually met the criteria for issuing a pardon in Texas, or whether Governor Abbott just issued it anyway in defiance of the standards is an open question. From the coverage it appears that the later is true.

But yes, a pardon is not a reversal of the conviction. For someone to be claim innocence they would need to go back to court and actually have the conviction reversed by a court of law. That is a whole different process and sometimes happens with or without a pardon.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I'm not claiming she should be pardoned and as far as I know, she hasn't been pardoned.

But seriously, she took out some of HER OWN MONEY from a 403(b) retirement plan and avoided paying the normal penalty for doing that? For which she hasn't actually been pardoned. We are putting that in the same category as pardoning a unrepentant racially-motivated murderer? That is your "both sides do it" example?

You clearly do not understand how a municipal pension in Maryland works. That pension money is not hers until she retires, period. I had one too, and mine was structured the same way. It is NOT your money, and it belongs to the trustees until you retire. You can borrow against it, and the only way you can get cash from it is to prove hardship or retire. It is not self directed as a typical 403b is. The trustees choose the investment method. That it is “just a 403b “ is what her defense would like you to believe. The federal court verdict basically says no, you can’t withdraw without proving hardship. That is why she was convicted in both cases.

She didn't withdraw from the state pension. She withdrew her own funds from the city's supplementary deferred compensation plan which technically is a 457(b) plan not a 403(b) plan but operates very similar to a 401(k) or 403(b). https://www.bcers.org/deferred-compensation-plan/

I'm not arguing that she should be pardoned. I couldn't care less. I just disagree with the notion that someone who fraudulently withdrew her own funds from a deferred comp plan and hasn't actually been pardoned for it is the same thing as Abbott pardoning a racist murderer and demonstrates that "both sides do it"

It is a deferred compensation part of her city pension. You elect to DEFER your wages until you retire, they are placed in the custody of the trustee of the pension system until you retire. Than the compensation that you deferred becomes yours, but not until. It appears they changed that from my time, but for mine the trustees invested, and you got a fixed return. You can't get to the money until you retire, you can take a lump sum or annuitize it. Since it is deferred compensation, she could not get it without claiming hardship. In most plans you are paid the money, put it in the plan, and the money is not taxed, the TAX is deferred. In this one, you never get the money, the COMPENSATION is deferred, and normally you get it, in any of several forms when you retire or claim hardship.

The IRS is talking about taxes with her husband, who admitted he had "misstated" his income on his federal taxes. Under oath and on the witness stand, in her second trial, you do know there were two separate sets of charges, and two trials, right? As to taxes, that will be civil.

No, I am not suggesting that there is an equlivence here. But both sides do it.

[Josh]

I once was a partner in a partnership and had non-qualified deferred compensation. For various reasons, the company ran out of money, and that money went *poof*. It was not available for "early withdrawal", but if it had been, I would have to pay taxes on it.

[Ken]

You clearly do not understand how a municipal pension in Maryland works. That pension money is not hers until she retires, period. I had one too, and mine was structured the same way. It is NOT your money, and it belongs to the trustees until you retire. You can borrow against it, and the only way you can get cash from it is to prove hardship or retire. It is not self directed as a typical 403b is. The trustees choose the investment method. That it is “just a 403b “ is what her defense would like you to believe. The federal court verdict basically says no, you can’t withdraw without proving hardship. That is why she was convicted in both cases.

She didn't withdraw from the state pension. She withdrew her own funds from the city's supplementary deferred compensation plan which technically is a 457(b) plan not a 403(b) plan but operates very similar to a 401(k) or 403(b). https://www.bcers.org/deferred-compensation-plan/

I'm not arguing that she should be pardoned. I couldn't care less. I just disagree with the notion that someone who fraudulently withdrew her own funds from a deferred comp plan and hasn't actually been pardoned for it is the same thing as Abbott pardoning a racist murderer and demonstrates that "both sides do it"

It is a deferred compensation part of her city pension. You elect to DEFER your wages until you retire, they are placed in the custody of the trustee of the pension system until you retire. Than the compensation that you deferred becomes yours, but not until. It appears they changed that from my time, but for mine the trustees invested, and you got a fixed return. You can't get to the money until you retire, you can take a lump sum or annuitize it. Since it is deferred compensation, she could not get it without claiming hardship. In most plans you are paid the money, put it in the plan, and the money is not taxed, the TAX is deferred. In this one, you never get the money, the COMPENSATION is deferred, and normally you get it, in any of several forms when you retire or claim hardship.

The IRS is talking about taxes with her husband, who admitted he had "misstated" his income on his federal taxes. Under oath and on the witness stand, in her second trial, you do know there were two separate sets of charges, and two trials, right? As to taxes, that will be civil.

No, I am not suggesting that there is an equlivence here. But both sides do it.

Again, the violation involved was no different from anyone pulling money out of their 401(k) plan on fraudulent grounds. The call it "Deferred Compensation" but it is just an ordinary 457(b) plan where you put your pre-tax dollars in and choose from a suite of investment options in various mutual funds. Just like any ordinary 401(k) plan. There is no pooled money managed by the pension managers. It is operated by Nationwide Insurance which is a big manager of 401(k) and 403(b) plans. Here is their actual web site with their myriad of investment options: https://www.retirewithbmore.com/rsc-web ... ment-types

Legally they operate pretty much like 401(k) and 403(b) plans. The main differences?

401(k) plans: For private sector employers
403(b) plans: For non-profit employers
457(b) plans: For government employers

It is not a pension plan with pooled money. It operates like any other 401(k) plan managed by an outside finance company.

Baltimore also has an actual public employees pension plan. But this is not that. This is an optional voluntary supplemental retirement savings plan.

[Josh]

Ken, with respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about with regard to Nationwide Retirement Solutions’ special plans for government employees. They are effectively a hybrid of an IRA and a traditional pension. They are not an actual IRA and are not fully funded.

Citation: used to work at Nationwide and my ex girlfriend used to work at NRS. She is now an expert on defined benefit plans and works for a consultancy that serves employers who still have pensioners on those type of plans.

[Ken]

Ken, with respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about with regard to Nationwide Retirement Solutions’ special plans for government employees. They are effectively a hybrid of an IRA and a traditional pension. They are not an actual IRA and are not fully funded.

Citation: used to work at Nationwide and my ex girlfriend used to work at NRS. She is now an expert on defined benefit plans and works for a consultancy that serves employers who still have pensioners on those type of plans.

No, with respect, you don't know what you are talking about. I have a 457(b) plan as does my wife. They operate exactly like a 401(k) plan but with slightly more flexible options for withdrawal. You divert a portion of your paycheck tax-free into the plan for retirement and then owe taxes upon withdrawal just like any 401(k) plan. They also have a Roth option. This is the optional supplementary plan that Baltimore offers SEPARATE from the regular public employee pension program. Nationwide is the company that administers the plan. Nationwide has a bunch of different subsidiaries that administer various public and private 401(k), 403(b) and 454(b) plans. My wife's employer used them back in Texas. School districts offer the same exact plans as supplements to their normal state pension programs. I know exactly what they are. They are called "deferred compensation" plans because you are deferring a portion of your earnings until you retire for tax purposes, just like with a 401(k) plan.

What Marilyn Mosby did was make early withdrawals from this 457(b) plan during COVID just like hundreds of thousands of other Americans who did exactly the same thing with their 401(k) plans and she used the language in the CARES act to claim hardship in order to waive the normal 10% penalty like tens of thousands of other Americans who did the same thing. From the reporting it looks like there were separate $50k and $40k withdrawals so by doing so she evaded $9,000 in fees. That is it. It was her own money. She just lied on the forms to evade the normal early withdrawal fees. Is that worthy of a Federal prosecution? I don't know. How many other Americans who did the same thing are being similarly prosecuted? I have no idea. I suspect the answer is very few.

None of this has anything to do with pension programs or anything else. A 457(b) plan isn't a pension. It is just an ordinary retirement account like an IRA or 401(k) that tens of millions of Americans have. And which hundreds of thousands of Americans make early withdrawals from every year. Many claiming hardship reasons for which they probably don't qualify.

Is she being more harshly prosecuted for political reasons? I have no idea and don't really care. The fact of the matter is that she hasn't been pardoned by Biden. Unlike Daniel Perry's pardon for racially-motivated murder. So if this is the best example of "both sides do it" that Republicans can come up with then it pretty much proves the point that both sides don't, in fact, do it.

And if what she did merits any prison time then that vastly more substantial financial crimes of Donald Trump most certainly merit vastly more prison time. You can't argue that she deserves prison time for this sort of penny ante fraud and then turn around and claim that Trump does not. When his crimes involved vastly larger sums of money and more egregious forms of fraud.

[Bootstrap]

As a general rule, if you don't have left-wing politics, you'd better fear for your life if you are in a blue city (like Austin) and you find yourself stuck in a violent protest.

The guy sends a text message that says "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters." He goes to Dallas. He shoots a protester who is not threatening him in any way.

If you don't want to "fear for your life", you probably don't want people doing this. No matter what their politics are. Political violence does not make us safer.

According to court documents, Perry began searching for the locations of Black Lives Matter protests weeks before the shooting and messaged friends on social media, comparing protesters to "a bunch of monkeys flinging [expletive] at a zoo".

In May 2020, shortly after Floyd's death, he sent a text message saying: "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters."

He also sent messages about "hunting Muslims" and about killing a daughter if she had a crush on "a little negro boy".