More fraud

[braves121]

15 minutes ago, mspart said:

He is not the one that laid the guy off.   It was the outfit he quit my son for.   They laid him off.   But the state targeted my son as liable for more taxes because the guy got laid off by some one else.  How is that the way it is supposed to work?

Let's say you get laid off.   The state will impose higher unemployment taxes on your ex company's competitor?  How is that right?

mspart

If your son’s premiums went up so did everyone’s else’s. That’s literally how it works. You aren’t paying the premiums just to pay the people you lay off that’s never how it was designed 

[mspart]

You are conflating the issue here.   When someone gets laid off, the state goes to that employer and changes his/her unemployment rating.   If the rating goes down, the tax goes up.   They do not go to some random biz due to some unrelated biz laying off someone.   The state directly contacted my son because this guy got laid off by someone else and they were jacking his rates because of it.   I think I was quite clear but you are trying to confuse this and make it seem like everything is correct.  

If you think this is correct, lets assume you own a grocery biz.   You have a worker that quits with no advance notice and goes to your competitor.   Then the other biz has to lay him off.   The State comes to you and says they notice this guy got laid off and your unemployment rating is getting lowered as a result of this guy getting laid off at some other business.   Oh and your taxes you have to pay are going up as a result of this guy getting laid off and lowering your score by X amount.  So now your costs have gone up, your ability to make money is lower because someone else laid this guy off.   That is fair how?

mspart

[braves121]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

You are conflating the issue here.   When someone gets laid off, the state goes to that employer and changes his/her unemployment rating.   If the rating goes down, the tax goes up.   They do not go to some random biz due to some unrelated biz laying off someone.   The state directly contacted my son because this guy got laid off by someone else and they were jacking his rates because of it.   I think I was quite clear but you are trying to confuse this and make it seem like everything is correct.  

If you think this is correct, lets assume you own a grocery biz.   You have a worker that quits with no advance notice and goes to your competitor.   Then the other biz has to lay him off.   The State comes to you and says they notice this guy got laid off and your unemployment rating is getting lowered as a result of this guy getting laid off at some other business.   Oh and your taxes you have to pay are going up as a result of this guy getting laid off and lowering your score by X amount.  So now your costs have gone up, your ability to make money is lower because someone else laid this guy off.   That is fair how?

mspart

If that’s how it works for everyone i mean that’s the definition of fair.  If he’s being honest about not firing the guy he should have filed a law suit since you guys are worked up about it 

[1032004]

2 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Again, Rick Scott wasn’t charged nor fined personally. It’s over. Case closed. How hard is that to understand???  

So no charges = innocent then?

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

So no charges = innocent then?

It was thoroughly investigated 29 years ago.   It’s almost as old as the Kennedy assassination.   It’s prolly older than you 
 

why are you still beating this clearly dead horse  

Edited April 6 by Caveira

[1032004]

2 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Fraud was committed. Their acts allowed the fraud to happen.  Do the math skippy. 

We don’t know if fraud was committed within the program those allegations were about.  So far, there have been no charges 

[JimmySpeaks]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

We don’t know if fraud was committed within the program those allegations were about.  So far, there have been no charges 

The governor has said fraud was committed.  Good grief. 

[headshuck]

[emoji1782]

[1032004]

5 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

The governor has said fraud was committed.  Good grief. 

Where?  In the state?  Yes, obviously there was as there have been charges.  But to my knowledge there have not been charges related to the programs where the state employees were accused of falsifying documents.  So assuming any alleged falsifying of documents was for the purpose of covering up fraud would be jumping to conclusions.

Edited April 7 by 1032004

[JimmySpeaks]

7 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Where?  In the state?  Yes, obviously there was as there have been charges.  But to my knowledge there have not been charges related to the programs where the state employees were accused of falsifying documents.  So assuming any alleged falsifying of documents was for the purpose of covering up fraud would be jumping to conclusions.

Walz in Minnesota admitted fraud has taken place.  As far as you don’t know anyway. 

[JimmySpeaks]

9 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Where?  In the state?  Yes, obviously there was as there have been charges.  But to my knowledge there have not been charges related to the programs where the state employees were accused of falsifying documents.  So assuming any alleged falsifying of documents was for the purpose of covering up fraud would be jumping to conclusions.

You’ve already said it was a crime either way. Cant back out now. 

[1032004]

31 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Walz in Minnesota admitted fraud has taken place.  As far as you don’t know anyway. 

Yes I never said there wasn’t.  I was referring to the programs the state employees who were accused of falsifying documents were working on.

29 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

You’ve already said it was a crime either way. Cant back out now. 

Yes it is a crime.  But we don’t know if it’s fraud 

[JimmySpeaks]

33 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yes I never said there wasn’t.  I was referring to the programs the state employees who were accused of falsifying documents were working on.

Yes it is a crime.  But we don’t know if it’s fraud 

There was fraud. Those people enabled it. Good grief. 

[JimmySpeaks]

36 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Yes I never said there wasn’t.  I was referring to the programs the state employees who were accused of falsifying documents were working on.

Yes it is a crime.  But we don’t know if it’s fraud 

Look up how many quit on their own or have been “separated” from their jobs.  Walz claims he fired them but there’s no proof he did.  

[1032004]

7 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Look up how many quit on their own or have been “separated” from their jobs.  Walz claims he fired them but there’s no proof he did.  

Not sure what you’re referring to.  Link?

[red viking]

7 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Look up how many quit on their own or have been “separated” from their jobs.  Walz claims he fired them but there’s no proof he did.  

You idiot. What "proof" do u need? Should we illegally release the HR files? 

[WrestlingRasta]

14 hours ago, wrestlingguy said:

WTH? They can trespass people from businesses but for personal property they need a no trespassing sign?

Some people won't be so nice about it when they ask them to leave either.

Yeah that’s the problem, one of those things where something really bad has to happen before there’s intervention.  Bad things that could be prevent with a little common sense. 

[JimmySpeaks]

3 hours ago, red viking said:

You idiot. What "proof" do u need? Should we illegally release the HR files? 

They have all the proof already you dumb f u k 

[JimmySpeaks]

4 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Not sure what you’re referring to.  Link?

Many of the workers involved in the ignoring, supporting, negligence have quit.  

[Interviewed_at_Weehawken]

5 hours ago, red viking said:

You idiot. What "proof" do u need? Should we illegally release the HR files? 

I thought you wanted all files released; illegally or otherwise?

[Offthemat]

On 4/1/2026 at 3:14 PM, WrestlingRasta said:

Just a small sampling:

Tell me, Rafta, given the circumstances, the personnel involved, and the high likelihood that these cases will be overturned, deemed as frivolity, didn’t you feel a bit slimy when you hit the submit button?

You may have noticed that Steve Bannon’s contempt conviction was thrown out by the Supreme Court the other day.  Long after he’d already served the four month prison sentence.  Don’t you think the prosecutor and judge feel proud today?  

The cases you listed above all involved some level of legal novelty to them and are still winding their way through the courts.  Leaning on them now as some means of supporting your personal evaluation of Trump may not age well. 

[mspart]

22 hours ago, braves121 said:

If that’s how it works for everyone i mean that’s the definition of fair.  If he’s being honest about not firing the guy he should have filed a law suit since you guys are worked up about it 

I'm the one worked up about it because my son did not fire nor lay off this guy.   The guy quit.   You don't get unemployment for quitting.   My son received a letter from the state letting him know that this guy was laid off and will be receiving unemployment and as a result my son's rating goes down and his payments go up.  He wrote them back with his explanation and received nothing back.  My son shrugs his shoulders.  But are you seriously trying to say that every employer in the state got a letter from the state saying this particular guy was laid off and as a result everyone will be paying higher unemployment insurance as a result?   I really hope you are not trying to say that.   

I get upset went there is injustice like this and the state who is supposed to not do that does that.   Just like fraud.   Fraud happens.   WA refuses to look into fraud here.   Since 2021, fraud is at least over 1.2 billion dollars.  Another $500 million is estimated for last year.   But it is racist to look into fraud so the state will not.   The State's Auditor office says that this amount that is not auditable.   They have no idea where that money went.  That is wrong.   It is not justice.  All I want is justice.   But even with such clearcut cases, justice is too hard to obtain.   It shouldn't take a lawsuit to get this kind of justice when the state is clearly wrong.   The state takes our money, the least they can do is tell us where it went.  Apparently that is not in their job description. 

mspart

[mspart]

9 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Yeah that’s the problem, one of those things where something really bad has to happen before there’s intervention.  Bad things that could be prevent with a little common sense. 

Makes one almost yearn for old western justice.   I don't think a squatter would last long in the old west.  Even if he did decide to leave.   But we don't behave that way in a civilized society.   But a civilized society has laws that prevent this or should.  It should not take longer than 3 days to get them out.   This is another of the injustices I have a visceral reaction to.   Not enough for the ultimate penalty, but I can see where it could come to that in some people's minds.   If the state reimbursed the property holder the rent that he/she should have received while they, the state, allow this miscreant to trespass and live, and pay for any damages the miscreant creates, there would not be much of an issue.  At least that would be justice.   But to put all those bills on the property owner and then extend the time that the situation continues is wrong on all sorts of levels.  

mspart

Edited April 7 by mspart

[Lipdrag]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

Makes one almost yearn for old western justice.   I don't think a squatter would last long in the old west.  Even if he did decide to leave.   But we don't behave that way in a civilized society.   But a civilized society has laws that prevent this or should.  It should not take longer than 3 days to get them out.   This is another of the injustices I have a visceral reaction to.   

When the citizens who have ceded power to the courts to administer justice (criminal and civil) then justice must be perceived to have happened.  If the court system fails or delays unjustly in delivering justice then the citizenship must revoke the temporarily granted and rescindible powers ceded voluntarily to the courts and administer justice. Vigilantism is the responsibility of the courts to avoid by quickly and competently administering the due process - which is for the victim and society as much as it is for those justly and unjustly charged or sued.

[mspart]

On 4/7/2026 at 7:35 PM, Lipdrag said:

When the citizens who have ceded power to the courts to administer justice (criminal and civil) then justice must be perceived to have happened.  If the court system fails or delays unjustly in delivering justice then the citizenship must revoke the temporarily granted and rescindible powers ceded voluntarily to the courts and administer justice. Vigilantism is the responsibility of the courts to avoid by quickly and competently administering the due process - which is for the victim and society as much as it is for those justly and unjustly charged or sued.

Yes.   The justice system is broken.   The courts let felons go.  Prosecutors do not prosecute dangerous felons.   There will come a time when vigilantism will become a thing because justice is not being served.  And that will be a dangerous day.  It will go against the judges and prosecutors as much as against the perps.  

mspart