Poll: Daniel Perry - Should he have been pardoned?

[Josh]

Except the actual crime and the sentencing are different. That was the entire point.

I think lawyers should not get lenient sentencing. Particularly lawyers who are prosecutors.

Do you think she got lenient sentencing? What is the average sentence for someone who lies on their 401(k) early withdrawal form to avoid the 10% penalty?

Who cares? She didn’t have a 401k at all.

[Ken]

Except the actual crime and the sentencing are different. That was the entire point.

I think lawyers should not get lenient sentencing. Particularly lawyers who are prosecutors.

Do you think she got lenient sentencing? What is the average sentence for someone who lies on their 401(k) early withdrawal form to avoid the 10% penalty?

Who cares? She didn’t have a 401k at all.

The law she violated applied equally to every form of defined contribution retirement account that allows early withdrawals: 457 plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs, and 401(k) plans alike. So the story would be no different had her withdrawals been from an IRA or 401(k) plan and not a 457(b) plan. It is the exact same law and exact same circumstances.

It is like getting caught speeding while driving a Toyota. Just because the next person is driving a Ford doesn't mean the speed limit applies differently to them or not at all. It is the same speed limit regardless of what brand of car you are driving. This situation is no different from that.

Again, how is this remotely like pardoning an unrepentant racist murderer? What is the "both sides do it" argument that makes these cases comparable?

[Moses]

Do you think she got lenient sentencing? What is the average sentence for someone who lies on their 401(k) early withdrawal form to avoid the 10% penalty?

Who cares? She didn’t have a 401k at all.

The law she violated applied equally to every form of defined contribution retirement account that allows early withdrawals: 457 plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs, and 401(k) plans alike. So the story would be no different had her withdrawals been from an IRA or 401(k) plan and not a 457(b) plan. It is the exact same law and exact same circumstances.

It is like getting caught speeding while driving a Toyota. Just because the next person is driving a Ford doesn't mean the speed limit applies differently to them or not at all. It is the same speed limit regardless of what brand of car you are driving. This situation is no different from that.

Maybe, maybe not.
In this case, it appears that what happened was she used that false affidavit to steal city money. Which might be a very different thing from stealing from a private sector employer. See, the thing with "deferred compensation" is, it's been deferred. It's not the employee's money yet. It only belongs to the employee after certain requirements have been met, such as retirement, an unforeseeable emergency, or some other qualifying circumstance. In some ways it's a bit like if I were to steal cash from my employer and try to claim "Oh, I'm not actually stealing - I'm just taking my pay early."

Also (I understand you are not an attorney and so might not be expected to realize this) the rules for distributions from a 457(b) plan are more restrictive than those for a 401(k) plan. For instance, an early distribution from a 401(k) plan can be used to purchase a primary residence or for various other non-emergency expenses for which it is illegal to pay using early distributions from a 457(b) plan.

This Mosby lady seems like a real corker. She can be glad she didn't do all her shenanigans in NY. What with lying on loan applications to obtain preferential interest rates, lying about sources of funds so that the bank would even allow her to close on the loan, and using a fake business to write off personal expenses and vacation travel as business expenses - AG James and DA Bragg would have a field day!

[Ken]

Who cares? She didn’t have a 401k at all.

The law she violated applied equally to every form of defined contribution retirement account that allows early withdrawals: 457 plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs, and 401(k) plans alike. So the story would be no different had her withdrawals been from an IRA or 401(k) plan and not a 457(b) plan. It is the exact same law and exact same circumstances.

It is like getting caught speeding while driving a Toyota. Just because the next person is driving a Ford doesn't mean the speed limit applies differently to them or not at all. It is the same speed limit regardless of what brand of car you are driving. This situation is no different from that.

Maybe, maybe not.
In this case, it appears that what happened was she used that false affidavit to steal city money. Which might be a very different thing from stealing from a private sector employer. See, the thing with "deferred compensation" is, it's been deferred. It's not the employee's money yet. It only belongs to the employee after certain requirements have been met, such as retirement, an unforeseeable emergency, or some other qualifying circumstance. In some ways it's a bit like if I were to steal cash from my employer and try to claim "Oh, I'm not actually stealing - I'm just taking my pay early."

Also (I understand you are not an attorney and so might not be expected to realize this) the rules for distributions from a 457(b) plan are more restrictive than those for a 401(k) plan. For instance, an early distribution from a 401(k) plan can be used to purchase a primary residence or for various other non-emergency expenses for which it is illegal to pay using early distributions from a 457(b) plan.

This Mosby lady seems like a real corker. She can be glad she didn't do all her shenanigans in NY. What with lying on loan applications to obtain preferential interest rates, lying about sources of funds so that the bank would even allow her to close on the loan, and using a fake business to write off personal expenses and vacation travel as business expenses - AG James and DA Bragg would have a field day!

I don't think your description is accurate.

The money in deferred compensation accounts is your own money. No different from a 401(k). I know this because I have two of them and my wife has one. The deferred part is simply in reference to taxes. Every IRA and 401(k) plan is also a deferred compensation plan in that you are deferring declaration of the income (and taxes owed) until you are retired. That doesn't mean the money you put into your IRA isn't your own money. It is your own earnings that you are depositing away in a special account and "deferring" the declaration of it as income until after you retire. Let's see what the IRS says about it. I highlighted the relevant text: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc424#:~: ... ax%20basis.



The rules governing 401(k) plans and 457(b) plans are somewhat different in detail because 457(b) plans are not governed by ERISA. And in some ways 457(b) plans are more flexible. For example, you can withdraw from them without penalty any time you leave your job. Or cash the thing out entirely. Whereas with 401(k) plans you have to wait until age 59.5.

In this case she lied about the reasons for making a hardship withdrawal. It would be equally illegal to do the same thing with a 401(k) plan.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Who cares? She didn’t have a 401k at all.

The law she violated applied equally to every form of defined contribution retirement account that allows early withdrawals: 457 plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs, and 401(k) plans alike. So the story would be no different had her withdrawals been from an IRA or 401(k) plan and not a 457(b) plan. It is the exact same law and exact same circumstances.

It is like getting caught speeding while driving a Toyota. Just because the next person is driving a Ford doesn't mean the speed limit applies differently to them or not at all. It is the same speed limit regardless of what brand of car you are driving. This situation is no different from that.

Maybe, maybe not.
In this case, it appears that what happened was she used that false affidavit to steal city money. Which might be a very different thing from stealing from a private sector employer. See, the thing with "deferred compensation" is, it's been deferred. It's not the employee's money yet. It only belongs to the employee after certain requirements have been met, such as retirement, an unforeseeable emergency, or some other qualifying circumstance. In some ways it's a bit like if I were to steal cash from my employer and try to claim "Oh, I'm not actually stealing - I'm just taking my pay early."

Also (I understand you are not an attorney and so might not be expected to realize this) the rules for distributions from a 457(b) plan are more restrictive than those for a 401(k) plan. For instance, an early distribution from a 401(k) plan can be used to purchase a primary residence or for various other non-emergency expenses for which it is illegal to pay using early distributions from a 457(b) plan.

This Mosby lady seems like a real corker. She can be glad she didn't do all her shenanigans in NY. What with lying on loan applications to obtain preferential interest rates, lying about sources of funds so that the bank would even allow her to close on the loan, and using a fake business to write off personal expenses and vacation travel as business expenses - AG James and DA Bragg would have a field day!

This is the understanding we were given by both the federal prosecutor and the better half of the news media, meaning the Daily Record.

And yes, she is what we call in Baltimore "A piece of work." She was the States Attorney who prosecuted the cops that put Freddy Grey in the van. They did not restrain him properly, and he managed to emerge with a c-spine fracture. Dos she go after the cops for civil rights violations or even negligent homocide? No, she fishes up "Depraved Heart Murder" from the books, and did not include lesser charges in the indictment. First cop requests a bench trial, she goes ballistic, and starts spouting to the media that "He has no right not to have a jury trial." Maryland constitution says otherwise. (All the way back to the Maryland Charter of Right, August 1776) , is found not guilty, rinse and repeat X3. My guess is she thought she could stack the jury.

They did not put her in jail, largely pulled the motherhood card. Her ex-husband, now the lame duck chairman of the city council admitted on the witness stand that he filed a fraudulent tax return. Likely that will be a civil matter.

She makes a point that she will not prosecute "low level crimes" which includes Carjacking, auto theft and shoplifting. She stated she does not want to fill the jail with "Black and Brown people."

[Jazman]

She makes a point that she will not prosecute "low level crimes" which includes Carjacking, auto theft and shoplifting. She stated she does not want to fill the jail with "Black and Brown people."

But what she "says" doesn't rise to the level of shooting someone dead... nor does she say anything about pardoning convicted murderers... she hasn't done it, like Abbott, and I suspect she wouldn't... but the red team WANTS to believe she might/would... WANTS to believe these words and case somehow rise to the level of what THEY themselves have already DONE! (Abbott pardoning a convicted murderer... or rooting for / excusing other similar killers) It almost feels like there's some kind of guilty conscience to assuage or distract from... some deep need to project...

The way of righteousness, truth and justice doesn't needs to do all of that moral/ethical/legal/partisan gymnastics...
What Daniel Perry did was wrong; he was convicted by a jury through due process, or ie one of the most humanly just processes on the planet. He murdered someone and should be sitting in jail for the crime. Who cares what the different 'teams' think or 'believe' or WANT to believe...

[Josh]

She makes a point that she will not prosecute "low level crimes" which includes Carjacking, auto theft and shoplifting. She stated she does not want to fill the jail with "Black and Brown people."

But what she "says" doesn't rise to the level of shooting someone dead... nor does she say anything about pardoning convicted murderers... she hasn't done it, like Abbott, and I suspect she wouldn't... but the red team WANTS to believe she might/would... WANTS to believe these words and case somehow rise to the level of what THEY themselves have already DONE! (Abbott pardoning a convicted murderer... or rooting for / excusing other similar killers) It almost feels like there's some kind of guilty conscience to assuage or distract from... some deep need to project...

The way of righteousness, truth and justice doesn't needs to do all of that moral/ethical/legal/partisan gymnastics...
What Daniel Perry did was wrong; he was convicted by a jury through due process, or ie one of the most humanly just processes on the planet. He murdered someone and should be sitting in jail for the crime. Who cares what the different 'teams' think or 'believe' or WANT to believe...

Would you mind educating us on how many murders there were in Baltimore under Mosby’s tenure?

[Judas Maccabeus]

She makes a point that she will not prosecute "low level crimes" which includes Carjacking, auto theft and shoplifting. She stated she does not want to fill the jail with "Black and Brown people."

But what she "says" doesn't rise to the level of shooting someone dead... nor does she say anything about pardoning convicted murderers... she hasn't done it, like Abbott, and I suspect she wouldn't... but the red team WANTS to believe she might/would... WANTS to believe these words and case somehow rise to the level of what THEY themselves have already DONE! (Abbott pardoning a convicted murderer... or rooting for / excusing other similar killers) It almost feels like there's some kind of guilty conscience to assuage or distract from... some deep need to project...

The way of righteousness, truth and justice doesn't needs to do all of that moral/ethical/legal/partisan gymnastics...
What Daniel Perry did was wrong; he was convicted by a jury through due process, or ie one of the most humanly just processes on the planet. He murdered someone and should be sitting in jail for the crime. Who cares what the different 'teams' think or 'believe' or WANT to believe...

Would you mind educating us on how many murders there were in Baltimore under Mosby’s tenure?

Well over 300. The Maryland Public Policy institute published a report on this. Her “early releases and non prosecute disicions resulted in many of these killings:

https://www.mdpolicy.org/library/doclib ... 022-01.pdf

This from city journal sums it up:

“Nothing could be further from the truth. Mosby’s legacy in Baltimore is one of chaos, death, and destruction—with black people suffering disproportionately as crime victims. As a George Soros-backed prosecutor, Mosby deliberately subverted the rule of law in Baltimore for eight years in the name of racial equity. She refused to prosecute quality of life crimes. As a result of her dropping or refusing to prosecute gun and violent-crime cases, the number of murders and shootings exploded. Her shameful plea deals put the most violent criminals back on the street, enabling them to reoffend.

Communities felt the devastating impact of these policies. In 2014, the year before Mosby’s election, Baltimore recorded 211 murders. Only a year into her tenure, the murder total shot up to 342, an unprecedented 62 percent increase. From 2015 to 2022, Baltimore averaged 333 murders annually, adding up to a grim total of 2,666. The vast majority of these victims were black.

We now know that Mosby’s non-prosecution, de-prosecution, and early-release policies may have resulted in as much as 79 percent of Baltimore’s murder wave. A bombshell 2022 study determined that, if “homicide defendants had received and served their eligible sentences for previous offenses, a majority” of those studied “would not have been free to commit their alleged homicides.” In other words, Mosby could have prevented as many as eight out of ten murders if she had incapacitated these offenders for their earlier crimes. Hundreds of young black men might still be alive today.”

https://www.city-journal.org/article/ye ... -baltimore

So, in short, she unleashed a wave of murder and chaos that has permeated this city. We have grocery stores closing large because this policy of not prosecuting thieves,that loot stores has gotten into public policy. Mayor has directed the police to follow Mosby’s policy. In spite of the new States Attorney begging the police to arrest them, so he can prosecute them in what is now called the citation docket.

Result is grocery stores closing, creating “food deserts”, we lost a giant and a Walmart in the past month. Another giant has instuted a “no bags” policy, people were loading up duffel bags and walking out of the store. If this store closes, the entire waverly-greenmont neighborhood will have no grocery story. I could go on and on.

In short, our immediate neighborhood around church is like an island. I hope it continues to hold. I can’t afford to live near church, because of the astronomical city property taxes, more than double that of the surrounding county.

[Josh]

With that in mind... if Perry kills again, it will show the governor's decision to pardon to be as foolish as Mosby's decisions to be lenient on people who didn't need leniency, but rather needed a firm hand.

Mosby's governance reminds me somewhat of a group of libertarians who moved to New Hampshire and tried to take over a town there. They set about enacting the policies they liked, such as avoiding government regulation (at the local level) of absolutely anything, and enjoying laxness of no zoning laws, etc.

Due to improper disposal of kitchen garbage, the area started to attract bears. There hadn't been a bear attack on a human in over a century in New Hampshire, yet this region has suffered 3 since the libertarians came.

Good intentions of things like de-regulating excessive local government intrusion, no zoning, etc. can have unintended consequences.

[Moses]

In this case she lied about the reasons for making a hardship withdrawal. It would be equally illegal to do the same thing with a 401(k) plan.

But a 401(k) plan it would have been legal to withdraw as long as she paid the 10% penalty. A 457(b) plan it wasn't legal to make the withdrawal.

Are you claiming that the prosecutors lied to the court when they said in legal filings that the funds in the 457(b) belonged to Baltimore City and not to Mosby?

Attorneys can’t knowingly submit false information to court as part of a lawsuit. They sign every submission that they make under penalty of perjury.