Utopia Talk / Politics / Hot Rod The Molester

Trolly McGoFukUrSelf Member	Tue Oct 12 21:40:01 Fines and resistutions are not the same according to you, right?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Oct 12 21:46:31 HR - Your link is to Federal Definitions, her problems were all with The State of Alaska. The Feds had nothing to do with it. HR - I am saying you are applying Federal definitions to State law. Are they the same definition? If so then prove it.
Trolly McGoFukUrSelf Member	Tue Oct 12 21:51:09 Wait, hold the phone, fines/restitutions are different in the criminal justice system? That's your inference now?
Trolly McGoFukUrSelf Member	Tue Oct 12 21:52:00 Let me rephrase. Are different in state and federal cjs?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Oct 12 21:53:45 No dickwad, I am asking a question. That is why there is a question mark. Are you capable of answering that question?
Trolly Member	Tue Oct 12 21:56:15 Apparently you are incapable to realize that fines, fee, sanctions, or resitutions are use the same in the cjs, state or federal. You inferring that they do not mean the same. Come on, stop making me laugh, I can't breathe now!!
Trolly McAwesome Member	Tue Oct 12 21:58:04 I'm sorry okay, what law was I appllying. The focus is on fines/restitutions which you have said are not the same. You wanted an example how they are the same it was provided. Now you want say its an exclusive federal term in the cjs? LOL!!!!!!!
Hot Rod Member	Tue Oct 12 22:02:01 So you are indeed incapable of answering the question. Thought so.
Trolly Member	Tue Oct 12 22:06:26 Like how you are incapable of answering that you are defending Palin? LOL! No it was answer from my end. And I am saying that you are stupid for you to infer that fines/restitution have a completely different meaning and usage between state and federal levels. So, are you saying those terms are only exclusive to federal?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Oct 12 22:10:45 I don't know. The link you gave says federal. Do they apply to States too? I'm asking.
Trolly Member	Tue Oct 12 22:20:50 The link was an example to show fines/restitutions used the same because you are claiming that fines/restitutions do not mean the same. A conviction in a federal isn't different than having a convicition in a state court. Conviction means the same. Do they apply to States too? What's with the stupid question or do you forget that federal law trumps state laws. And again we aren't talking about laws, we are talking about the usage of lawful terms that you are so insistent to claim that they do not mean the same. God damn man you are fucking retarded.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Oct 12 22:33:04 Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. If you can't prove it STFU and stop wasting every ones time.
Trolly Member	Tue Oct 12 22:34:42 It was proven. It was proven that you're a dumbass and cannot accept the fact that fines/resitution are the same and that Palin, ordered by the court in your words was penalizes as in to make a "restitution" YOUR WORDS, that you are not stating does not mean the same as a fine. Yep, here you are again, caught in another display of stupidity.
Trolly Member	Tue Oct 12 22:35:18 Hey, I guess offense has a different connotation too in state and federal levels huh?
Hot Rod Member	Tue Oct 12 22:40:44 Yadda, Yadda, Yadda. If you cannot prove it then please STFU and stop wasting every ones time.
Trolly Member	Tue Oct 12 22:43:52 I accept that as your concession.
Hot Rod Member	Tue Oct 12 23:06:12 "Gubernatorial expenditures Palin lived in Juneau during the legislative session and lived in Wasilla and worked out of offices in Anchorage the rest of the year. Since the office in Anchorage is 565 miles from Juneau, while she worked there, state officials said she was permitted to claim a $58 per diem travel allowance, which she took (a total of $16,951), and to reimbursement for hotels, which she did not, choosing instead to drive about 50 miles to her home in Wasilla.[108] She also chose not to use the former governor's private chef.[109] Republicans and Democrats have criticized Palin for taking the per diem and $43,490 in travel expenses for the times her family accompanied her on state business.[110][111] In response, Palin's staffers said that these practices were in line with state policy, that her gubernatorial expenses are 80% below those of her predecessor, Frank Murkowski,[110] and that "many of the hundreds of invitations Palin receives include requests for her to bring her family, placing the definition of 'state business' with the party extending the invitation."[108] In February 2009, the State of Alaska, reversing a policy that had treated the payments as legitimate business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code, decided that per diems paid to state employees for stays in their own homes will be treated as taxable income and will be included in employees' gross income on their W-2 forms.[112] Palin herself had ordered the review of the tax policy.[113] In December 2008, an Alaska state commission recommended increasing the Governor's annual salary from $125,000 to $150,000. Palin stated that she would not accept the pay raise.[114] In response, the commission dropped the recommendation.[115]" "State Personnel Board investigation The State Personnel Board (SPB) reviewed the matter at Palin's request.[164] On September 15, the Anchorage law firm of Clapp, Peterson, Van Flein, Tiemessen & Thorsness filed arguments of "no probable cause" with the SPB on behalf of Palin.[165][166] The SPB hired independent counsel Timothy Petumenos, a Democrat, as an investigator. On October 24, Palin gave three hours of depositions with the Board in St. Louis, Missouri.[167] On November 3, Petumenos found that there was no probable cause to believe Palin or any other state official had violated state ethical standards.[168][169][170][171] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin The end.
Trolly Member	Tue Oct 12 23:21:36 Palin Guilty of Major Ethics Act Violation: Must Return $386,000 in Contributions The. End.
miltonfriedman Member	Wed Oct 13 00:12:47 lulz. So predictable. Here is what I said earlier today: Pedo Rod's strategy for "finding" evidence: 1. Make an unsubstantiated claim 2. Got called out 3. Enter key words into google. For example, when he got cornered for making an unsubstantiated claim that CRA caused recession by financing more sub-prime mortgages, Pedo Rod would enter keywords CRA, subprime, and recession into google 4. Copy and paste all wiki entries with those keywords in them without first reading all the entries 5. When people who read the entries and found that those entries actually argue against Pedophile Rod's assertions, Pedo Rod will "call it a night" or "gtg for lunch." 6. Surface again the next day to make another unsubstantiated claim. 7. Rinse and repeat
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:07:16 Fines and restitution's ARE different things ya dumb fuck.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:25:22 Incorrect.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:26:10 Both are penalties assessed, HR doesn't believe that.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:32:18 http://www.../docs/Adult_Offender_Guide.pdf
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:37:02 http://dic...4896df6e927ebd2c6dae9aebbc0d97 3: an amount to be paid for the purpose of restitution Example: ordered to pay restitution to the victim of his crime (compare fine)
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:47:02 Look, son. Restitution is when you are made to pay for someone else's shit that you fucked up, like a broken window. A fine would be what you pay the court for breaking said window in your conviction for vandalism.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:50:32 Look, son. Both fines and restitution can also be court order for the crime comitted to the state. Read the defintions, look at the links. Have a nice day.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 20:54:38 FINDLAW: RESTITUTION: ['res-te-'tü-shen, -'tyü-] 1 a: a restoration of something to its rightful owner b: a making good of or giving an equivalent for some injury 2 a: the equitable remedy of restoring to an aggrieved party that which was obtained in unjust enrichment b: a remedy for breach of contract that consists of restoring the aggrieved party to the status quo that existed before the contract was made 3: an amount to be paid for the purpose of restitution Example: ordered to pay restitution to the victim of his crime (compare fine) FINE: Anglo-French fin fine & Medieval Latin finis end, boundary, agreement, payment for release or privilege, monetary penalty, from Latin finis end, boundary 1: a sum imposed as punishment for an offense (compare restitution) 2: a forfeiture or penalty paid to an injured party in a civil action MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY Definition of RESTITUTION 1 : an act of restoring or a condition of being restored: as a : a restoration of something to its rightful owner b : a making good of or giving an equivalent for some injury 2 : a legal action serving to cause restoration of a previous state Examples of RESTITUTION 1. the restitution of her stolen property 2. He was ordered to make restitution to the victim. FINE: NOUN: a : a sum imposed as punishment for an offense b : a forfeiture or penalty paid to an injured party in a civil action INTRANSITIVE VERB:
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:54:49 Q. Are there different types of restitution? A. There are three different types of restitution: restitution fines, parole revocation fines, and direct orders. The court can order all three types of restitution in the same case. If you are found guilty in multiple cases, the court can order all three types of restitution in each case.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 20:54:52 : to impose a fine on : punish by a fine
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:57:12 Q. Are there different types of restitution? A. There are three different types of restitution: restitution fines, parole revocation fines, and direct orders. The court can order all three types of restitution in the same case. If you are found guilty in multiple cases, the court can order all three types of restitution in each case.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 20:57:35 Palin Guilty of Major Ethics Act Violation: Must Return $386,000 in Contributions
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:03:09 I was ordered by the Court to pay a fine or restitution. I was awarded restitution paid to me by the Court. Can you help? The Attorney Generalâ??s Office acts as the collection agency for the Alaska Court system. The collections unit collects unsecured debts owed to the state. The majority of these debts are criminal judgments (fines, judgments for the cost of appointed counsel, and judgments for the cost of incarceration on DWI charges). In addition, the collections unit collects various civil judgments, including attorney fee awards, and civil penalties. Currently, our office accepts payment in the form of check, money orders, cash, Visa, or MasterCard. Credit cards are only accepted in person or over the phone. Otherwise you may pay in person or mail your payment to: 1031 West 4th Ave, Ste 200, Anchorage, AK 99501. Our office is open Monday-Friday 8:00 â?? 5:00, expect major state and federal holidays. If you have questions about the status of your restitution or collections account, please contact our Collections unit at (907) 269-5205 or toll free within Alaska 1-800-580-5205. If you would like a copy of the Court ordered judgment or you dispute the judgment, please refer to the court website for information http://www.state.ak.us/courts/. http://www.law.state.ak.us/department/faq.html#restitution
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:05:25 http://tou...tle12/Chapter55/Section051.htm Alaska Statutes. Title 12. Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 55. Sentencing and Probation Section 51. Enforcement of Fines and Restitution. previous: Section 50. Increased Punishment For Persons Convicted of More Than One Felony. [Repealed, Sec. 21 Ch 166 SLA 1978. For Sentences of Imprisonment For Felonies, See AS 12.55.125 next: Section 55. Community Work. AS 12.55.051. Enforcement of Fines and Restitution. (a) If the defendant defaults in the payment of a fine or any installment or of restitution or any installment, the court may order the defendant to show cause why the defendant should not be sentenced to imprisonment for nonpayment and, if the payment was made a condition of the defendant's probation, may revoke the probation of the defendant. In a contempt or probation revocation proceeding brought as a result of failure to pay a fine or restitution, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant was unable to pay despite having made continuing good faith efforts to pay the fine or restitution. If the court finds that the defendant was unable to pay despite having made continuing good faith efforts, the defendant may not be imprisoned solely because of the inability to pay. If the court does not find that the default was attributable to the defendant's inability to pay despite having made continuing good faith efforts to pay the fine or restitution, the court may order the defendant imprisoned until the order of the court is satisfied. A term of imprisonment imposed under this section may not exceed one day for each $50 of the unpaid portion of the fine or restitution or one year, whichever is shorter. Credit shall be given toward satisfaction of the order of the court for every day a person is incarcerated for nonpayment of a fine or restitution. (b) When a fine or restitution is imposed on an organization, the person authorized to make disbursements from the assets of the organization shall pay the fine or restitution from those assets. A person required to pay a fine or restitution under this subsection who intentionally refuses or fails to make a good faith effort to pay is punishable under (a) of this section. (c) A defendant who has been sentenced to pay a fine or restitution may request a hearing regarding the defendant's ability to pay the fine or restitution at any time that the defendant is required to pay all or a portion of the fine or restitution. The court may deny the request if it has previously considered the defendant's ability to pay and the defendant's request does not allege changed circumstances. If, at a hearing under this subsection, the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant will be unable through good faith efforts to satisfy the order requiring payment of the fine or restitution, the court shall modify the order so that the defendant can pay the fine or restitution through good faith efforts. The court may reduce the fine ordered, change the payment schedule, or otherwise modify the order. The court may not reduce an order of restitution but may change the payment schedule. (d) The state may enforce payment of a fine against a defendant under AS 09.35 as if the order were a civil judgment enforceable by execution. This subsection does not limit the authority of the court to enforce fines. (e) The Department of Law is authorized to collect restitution on behalf of the recipient unless (1) the recipient elects as provided in (f) of this section to enforce the order of restitution without the assistance of the Department of Law; or (2) the order requires restitution to be made in a form other than payment of a specific dollar amount. (f) The court shall forward a copy of an order of restitution to the Department of Law when the judgment is entered. Along with the copy of the order, the court shall provide the name, date of birth, social security number, and current address of the recipient of the restitution and the defendant, to the extent that the court has that information in its possession. Upon receipt of the order and other information from the court, the Department of Law shall send a notice to the recipient regarding the recipient's rights under this section, including the right to elect to enforce the order of restitution without the assistance of the Department of Law. The information provided to the Department of Law under this subsection is confidential and is not open to inspection as a public record under AS 40.25.110 . The Department of Law or its agents may not disclose the information except as necessary to collect on the restitution. (g) The Department of Law may not begin collection procedures on the order of restitution until the recipient has been given notice and has been given 30 days after receipt of notice to elect to collect the restitution without the assistance of the Department of Law. A recipient may inform the Department of Law at a later time of the recipient's election to collect the restitution without the assistance of the Department of Law; upon receipt of that information, the Department of Law may no longer proceed with collection efforts on behalf of the recipient. A recipient who has elected under this section to collect restitution without the assistance of the Department of Law may not later request the services of that department to collect the restitution. (h) If the Department of Law or its agents proceed to collect restitution on behalf of a recipient under (g) of this section, the actions of the Department of Law or an agent of the Department of Law on behalf of the recipient do not create an attorney-client relationship between the Department of Law and the recipient. The Department of Law or its agents may not settle a judgment for restitution without the consent of the recipient of the restitution. (i) An action for damages may not be brought against the state or any of its agents, officers, or employees based on an action or omission under this section. (j) The Department of Law may enter into contracts on behalf of the state to carry out the collection procedures of this section. The Department of Law may adopt regulations necessary to carry out the collection procedures of this section, including the reimbursement of attorney fees and costs in appropriate cases.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 21:09:06 In Palin's case there was no trial. She was ordered to return the money she collected in error. i.e.: To make restitution. If you are caught doing 50 mph in a 25 mph zone and are given a speeding ticket does the judge 'fine' you or order restitution? Yes, I can see that in a court of law the two terms can overlap in certain circumstances, but Governor Palin was *NOT* fined. Had she refused to return the money and she was taken to court chances are she would have been forced to return the money (make restitution) *AND* be fined. In that case the fine would have not gone to the donors, but been kept by the State to help defray Court Costs. Please stop with the hair splitting semantics and just accept the common usage of the two words. Thank you.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:14:20 In the context of Criminal Law, state programs under which an offender is required, as a condition of his or her sentence, to repay money or donate services to the victim or society; with respect to maritime law, the restoration of articles lost by jettison, done when the remainder of the cargo has been saved, at the general charge of the owners of the cargo; in the law of torts, or civil wrongs, a measure of damages; in regard to contract law, the restoration of a party injured by a breach of contract to the position that party occupied before she or he entered the contract. The general term restitution describes the act of restoration. The term is used in different areas of the law but carries the same meaning throughout. The basic purpose of restitution is to achieve fairness and prevent the Unjust Enrichment of a party. Restitution is used in contractual situations where one party has conferred a benefit on another party but cannot collect payment because the contract is defective or no contract exists. For instance, assume that a person builds a barn on the property of another person. Assume further that the structure is not erected pursuant to a contract or agreement and that the owner of the property on which the barn sits refuses to pay the builder for the barn. Despite the absence of a contract, a court can order the owner to pay the builder the cost of the labor and materials under the doctrine of restitution. Courts in seventeenth century England first developed the doctrine of restitution as a contractual remedy. The concept migrated to courts in the United States, and it has since expanded beyond its original contractual roots. Courts now apply restitution in the areas of maritime or admiralty law, criminal law, and torts. In admiralty law restitution may be ordered when a shipping crew must throw goods overboard to keep the ship afloat. In such a case the owner of the jettisoned goods may gain some recovery for the goods from the owners of the other cargo under the doctrine of restitution. In criminal law restitution is a regular feature in the sentences of criminal defendants. Restitution in the criminal arena refers to an affirmative performance by the defendant that benefits either the victim of the crime or the general public. If a victim can be identified, a judge will order the defendant to make restitution to the victim. For example, if a defendant is convicted of stealing a person's stereo, the defendant may be sentenced to reimburse the victim for the value of the stereo, in addition to punishment such as jail time and monetary fines. Courts try to fashion the restitution of a criminal defendant according to the crime committed. For example, a defendant convicted of solicitation of prostitution may be ordered to perform work for a local shelter for battered women as a form of restitution to the general public. In tort law restitution applies to the measure of damages required to restore the plaintiff to the position he or she held prior to the commission of the tort. For example, if a person is injured by another person, the injured party may collect medical expenses and lost wages as restitutionary damages. Other civil damages are distinct from restitutionary damages because they are not based on the amount required to restore the injured party to his or her former status. Punitive Damages, for example, are damages assessed against a civil defendant for the purpose of punishing the defendant's conduct, not to provide restitution. Further readings Knapp, Charles L. 1987. Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials. Boston: Little, Brown. Shoben, Elaine W., and William Murray Tabb. 1989. Remedies: Cases and Problems. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press. Cross-references Admiralty and Maritime Law; Sentencing. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- restitution n. 1) returning to the proper owner property or the monetary value of loss. Sometimes restitution is made part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases. 2) in criminal cases, one of the penalties imposed is return of stolen goods to the victim or payment to the victim for harm caused. Restitution may be a condition of granting defendant probation or giving him/her a shorter sentence than normal.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:15:39 Monetary charges imposed upon individuals who have been convicted of a crime or a lesser offense. A fine is a criminal sanction. A civil sanction, by contrast, is called a penalty. The term fine is sometimes used to describe a penalty, but the terms fine and penalty should be kept separate because the consequences are different: nonpayment of a criminal fine can result in incarceration, whereas nonpayment of a civil penalty cannot. Federal and state criminal statutes authorize fines for certain offenses. Depending on the crime, a fine may be imposed in addition to incarceration, restitution, community service, or Probation. The amount of a fine varies with the severity of the offense. State and federal criminal codes generally break down felonies and misdemeanors into classes or degrees. In Kentucky, for example, the fine for a violation or a class B misdemeanor may not exceed $250. For a class A misdemeanor, the fine may not exceed $500 (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 534.040). For a felony conviction, Kentucky courts are bound by statute to fine the defendant not less than $1,000, and not more than $10,000 or double the gain from the commission of the offense, whichever is greater (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §534.030). Two or more felonies committed through a single act may be fined separately in Kentucky, but the aggregate may not exceed $10,000 or double the amount of the illicit gain, whichever is greater. In federal court, a felony is subject to a fine of not more than $250,000. A fine of $250,000 is also authorized for a misdemeanor resulting in death. Fines for class A misdemeanors not resulting in death may reach $100,000, and similar class B and C misdemeanors may result in a fine of up to $5,000 (18 U.S.C.A. § 3571). Federal law also allows a court to fine a defendant who has financially benefited from a crime, an amount twice that illicitly gained. Federal and state laws authorize fines of similarly scaled amounts for organizations. The maximum fine for organizations is much higher than that for individuals. For instance, under 18U.S.C.A. § 3571, an organization guilty of a felony may be fined as much as $500,000. Kentucky also doubles the fine limit for organizations. For example, an organization in Kentucky that commits a felony may be fined $20,000, up from $10,000 for an individual (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 534.050). States also authorize fines for specific crimes. In Kentucky, for example, a fine of not more than $2,500 and not less than $1,000 is required for the illegal sale of tobacco to a minor (§ 438.313). Statutes fix the maximum fine for a given offense, and statutes can be changed, so fine amounts can change. In state courts, sentencing is usually left to the discretion of the judge. If a defendant is found by a court to be indigent, the court generally will not impose a fine (see, e.g., Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 534.030, 534.040). A determination of indigence generally involves an examination of several factors, including income, earning capacity, financial resources, the burden the fine may impose on persons dependent on the defendant, and the need to deprive the defendant of any illegally obtained gains. Where an indigent defendant is convicted of an offense that calls for incarceration, the court generally will not impose a fine in addition to the incarceration. Federal courts must sometimes follow prison sentences mandated by federal statute, but the decision of whether to impose a fine in addition to any sentence is generally within the judge's discretion. Both state and federal courts may later reduce the amount of a fine. The statutory repayment period of a fine may be extended upon request of the court, and payments may be allowed in installments. The U.S. Supreme Court has placed limits on incarceration for nonpayment of fines. In Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S. Ct. 2018, 26 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1970), the defendant, Willie E. Williams, was convicted of petty theft and sentenced to one year in prison and a $500 fine, the maximum sentence allowed under the applicable statute. When Williams was unable to pay the fine upon completing his year in jail, he was kept incarcerated to "work off" the fine at a rate of $5 a day. Williams appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no state may increase the sentence of a defendant beyond the maximum period specified by statute for failure to pay a fine. Shortly after the Williams case, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not convert a fine into incarceration if the conviction warrants only a fine. In Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S. Ct. 668, 28 L. Ed. 2d 130 (1971), the defendant, Preston A. Tate, was unable to pay $425 in fines for traffic offenses and was committed to prison to work off his fine at a rate of $5 a day. The Supreme Court ruled that a state may not "impos[e] a fine as a sentence and then automatically conver[t] it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full." Neither the Williams ruling nor the Tate ruling prevents a court from imprisoning a defendant who is able, but refuses, to pay a fine. The court may do so after finding that the defendant was somehow responsible for the failure to pay and that alternative forms of punishment would be inadequate to meet the state's interest in punishment and deterrence (Beardenv. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S. Ct. 2064, 76 L. Ed. 2d 221 [1983]). In a case of willful nonpayment, the court may order incarceration for a period of time specified under statute. In Kentucky, a prison term of up to six months may be ordered if the unpaid fine was imposed for the conviction of a felony. Nonpayment of a misdemeanor fine may result in a prison term of up to one-third the maximum authorized term for the offense committed. For a violation, the maximum term is ten days. This amount can be cumulative. For example, if a person refuses to pay the fines for ten violations, that person can be incarcerated for one hundred days (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 534.060). Fines are often used to pay for incarceration and other sentencing costs. In 1984, Congress passed the Comprehensive crime control act (codified in scattered sections of 5, 8, 29, 41, 42, and 50 App. U.S.C.A.), which established the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Commission. According to section 5E1.2 of the act, a federal court shall impose a fine that is at least sufficient to pay the costs of imprisonment, probation, or supervised release order. Many states have followed suit, and fines are increasingly used to defray the costs of punishment.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 21:17:14 Alaska Statute is clearly distinguishing between the two. AS 12.55.051. Enforcement of Fines and Restitution. (a) If the defendant defaults in the payment of a fine or any installment or of restitution or any installment... (b) When a fine or restitution is imposed on an organization... (c) A defendant who has been sentenced to pay a fine or restitution... (d) The state may enforce payment of a fine against a defendant under AS 09.35 as if the order were a civil judgment enforceable by execution. (e) The Department of Law is authorized to collect restitution on behalf of the recipient unless (1) the recipient elects as provided in (f) of this section to enforce the order of restitution without the assistance of the Department of Law; or (2) the order requires restitution to be made in a form other than payment of a specific dollar amount. The operative word there is 'or'. I think you get the idea.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:19:49 â??/É?r; unstressed É?r/ Show Spelled [awr; unstressed er] Show IPA â??conjunction 1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be. 2. (used to connect alternative terms for the same thing): the Hawaiian, or Sandwich, Islands. 3. (used in correlation): either â?¦ or; or â?¦ or; whether â?¦ or. 4. (used to correct or rephrase what was previously said): His autobiography, or rather memoirs, will soon be ready for publication. 5. otherwise; or else: Be here on time, or we'll leave without you. 6. Logic . the connective used in disjunction.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 21:20:18 MB, no need to post more. Those two posts support what I said in the beginning. Thank you.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:22:25 Nope, you made the assertion that fines and restitution are not the same, now you are saying they are the same in conjuction use of the word "or".
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:25:08 RESITUTION AND PUNISHMENT http://www.jstor.org/pss/2380241
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:31:26 The law of restitution is the law of gains-based recovery. It is to be contrasted with the law of compensation, which is the law of loss-based recovery. Obligations to make restitution and obligations to pay compensation are each a type of legal response to events in the real world. When a court orders restitution it orders the defendant to give up his gains to the claimant. When a court orders compensation it orders the defendant to compensate the claimant for his or her loss. The orthodox view suggests that there is only one principle on which the law of restitution is dependent, namely the principle of unjust enrichment.[1][2] However, the view that restitution, like other legal responses, can be triggered by any one of a variety of causative events is increasingly prevalent. These are events in the real world which trigger a legal response. It is beyond doubt that unjust enrichment and wrongs can trigger an obligation to make restitution. Certain commentators propose that there is a third basis for restitution, namely the vindication of property rights with which the defendant has interfered.[3] It is arguable that other types of causative event can also trigger an obligation to make restitution. Contents [hide] 1 Restitution for wrongs 2 Restitution to reverse unjust enrichment 3 See also 4 Notes 5 References [edit] Restitution for wrongs Judicial remedies Legal remedies (Damages) Compensatory damages Punitive damages Incidental damages Consequential damages Liquidated damages Reliance damages Nominal damages Statutory damages Treble damages Equitable remedies Specific performance Account of profits Constructive trust Injunction · Restitution Rescission · Rectification Declaratory relief Related issues Adequate remedy Election of remedies Provisional remedy Tracing · Legal costs v â?¢ d â?¢ e Imagine that A commits a wrong against B and B sues in respect of that wrong. A will certainly be liable to pay compensation to B. If B seeks compensation then the court award will be measured by reference to the loss that B has suffered as a result of Aâ??s wrongful act. However, in certain circumstances it will be open to B to seek restitution rather than compensation. It will be in his interest to do so if the profit that A made by his wrongful act is greater than the loss suffered by B. Whether or not a claimant can seek restitution for a wrong depends to a large extent on the particular wrong in question. For example, in English law, restitution for breach of fiduciary duty is widely available but restitution for breach of contract is fairly exceptional. The wrong could be of any one of the following types: A statutory tort A common law tort An equitable wrong A breach of contract Criminal offences Notice that (1)-(5) are all causative events (see above). The law responds to each of them by imposing an obligation to pay compensatory damages. Restitution for wrongs is the subject which deals with the issue of when exactly the law also responds by imposing an obligation to make restitution. Example. In Attorney General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268, an English court found itself faced with the following claim. The defendant had made a profit somewhere in the region of £60,000 as a direct result of breaching his contract with the claimant. The claimant was undoubtedly entitled to claim compensatory damages but had suffered little or no identifiable loss. It therefore decided to seek restitution for the wrong of breach of contract. The claimant won the case and the defendant was ordered to pay over his profits to the claimant. However, the court was careful to point out that the normal legal response to a breach of contract is to award compensation. An order to make restitution was said to be available only in exceptional circumstances. [edit] Restitution to reverse unjust enrichment Main article: Unjust enrichment Cases of intentional torts or breaches of fiduciary duty often allow for claims of unjust enrichment, as well as cases of statutory torts and breaches of contract. A plaintiff can even have a claim in unjust enrichment when there is no other substantive claim. The Uniform Commercial Code ("UCC") entitles a buyer who defaults restitution of the buyer's deposit to the extent it exceeds reasonable liquidated damages or actual damages.[4] If the contract does not have a liquidated damages clause, the UCC provides a statutory sum: 20% of the price or $500, whichever is less, and the buyer who defaulted is entitled to restitution of any excess. [edit] See also Quasi-contract Restitution (theology) Equity (law) Blood money
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 21:34:07 'OR" is also a preposition Rudolph.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 21:38:56 When you went hunting did you see any lions or elephants. Come on now dip shit, tell us that the two words lions and/or elephants can be used interchangeably in a court of law.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:40:56 You're also an idiot.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 21:42:43 As usual you always fail understanding context.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 21:52:54 No, you fail to understand sentence structure. The word 'OR' has one meaning when used as a conjunction, and an entirely different meaning when used as a preposition. AND THAT DEPENDS ON THE FUCKING CONTEXT. Now, do you concede that it is not being used as a conjunction or will you *INSIST* "that the two words lions and/or elephants can be used interchangeably in a court of law."
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 22:12:24 As usual you always fail understanding context.
Milton Bradley Member	Wed Oct 13 22:12:47 Apples and oranges rod, apples and oranges.
Hot Rod Member	Wed Oct 13 23:31:32 Fucking ignorant foreigners.
Milton Bradley Member	Thu Oct 14 16:38:06 Bad teeth too.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: