Oh what a tangled web we weave

[Res Ipsa]

Your reaction isn't surprising. You've already decided that Archer is dirty, so of course you'll decide close questions against him.

His arguments on that point are contained in his appellate brief. What he told the banks didn't cause harm to the tribe. If
Archer believed what Galanis was telling him, the only thing that really mattered was that the proceeds ended up in the annuity. The bank was simply a conduit for the bond proceeds to get to the annuity company. It may have been nothing more than pressure to get the transaction closed in a timely fashion. If Archer was not aware of the fraud, it's a no harm, no foul situation as long as the money gets to the annuity company.

From my perspective, the important thing is that the case was close enough that the trial judge ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals "clarified" it's earlier holdings to require a trial judge on a motion for new trial to give more deference to the jury. Under the clarified standard, I have no problem with the outcome.

The evidence against Galanis showed him to be more what you label "corrupt" and "dirty." He lied to the tribe, stole some its money, and destroyed the market value the bonds would have had. And he successfully concealed it from the other board members who were viewed as insiders, as opposed to Archer, who was treated as an outside investor. Galanis brought the tribal bonds to the roll up and sold the investment plan to the tribes. Given the very few e-mails that Archer received or was copied on in reference to the bond issues, it's pretty clear that Galanis was handling the bond issue and Archer paid little attention to it. Archer was focussed on making the roll up succeed -- not stealing money from the tribe. And, again, when the other board members discovered the fraud, they didn't tell Archer. Instead, they concocted a scheme involving a fake company and back-dated documents so that they didn't have to ask Archer to sign anything.

Archer was sentenced to 13 months. Galanis was sentenced to 189 months plus three years supervision after release.

[Markk]

Your reaction isn't surprising. You've already decided that Archer is dirty, so of course you'll decide close questions against him.

His arguments on that point are contained in his appellate brief. What he told the banks didn't cause harm to the tribe. If
Archer believed what Galanis was telling him, the only thing that really mattered was that the proceeds ended up in the annuity. The bank was simply a conduit for the bond proceeds to get to the annuity company. It may have been nothing more than pressure to get the transaction closed in a timely fashion. If Archer was not aware of the fraud, it's a no harm, no foul situation as long as the money gets to the annuity company.

From my perspective, the important thing is that the case was close enough that the trial judge ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals "clarified" it's earlier holdings to require a trial judge on a motion for new trial to give more deference to the jury. Under the clarified standard, I have no problem with the outcome.

The evidence against Galanis showed him to be more what you label "corrupt" and "dirty." He lied to the tribe, stole some its money, and destroyed the market value the bonds would have had. And he successfully concealed it from the other board members who were viewed as insiders, as opposed to Archer, who was treated as an outside investor. Galanis brought the tribal bonds to the roll up and sold the investment plan to the tribes. Given the very few e-mails that Archer received or was copied on in reference to the bond issues, it's pretty clear that Galanis was handling the bond issue and Archer paid little attention to it. Archer was focussed on making the roll up succeed -- not stealing money from the tribe. And, again, when the other board members discovered the fraud, they didn't tell Archer. Instead, they concocted a scheme involving a fake company and back-dated documents so that they didn't have to ask Archer to sign anything.

Archer was sentenced to 13 months. Galanis was sentenced to 189 months plus three years supervision after release.

Res, he was found guilty by a Jury. His lying showed that he was not telling the truth about where the money came from, which shows that he was hiding the source of the money because he knew it was gotten in the fraud he was part of. That is what the prosecution brought top the Jury, and what the jury bought, among other thing. Archers defense was that he,, along with the tribe, was the victim, the jury agreed with the prosecution.

Your argument is now like saying as a example if this was murder trial.

Archer only murdered one person while Galanis murder 3 people, therefore he is not a bad killer.

The judge was bias here, and after reading the government brief it is clear she overstepped her role.

Yes Galanis was given more time…by another judge Res! He pleaded guilty, and was the ring leader. Archer getting less time only means he got less time…it does not make him less of a criminal. Ring leaders often get a worse sentence.That is a very poor argument to make.

Devon Archer is a convicted felon, and in prison this is just a fact

Let’s move on.

Let’s go back a bit and see just who MZ really is and lets seee itf the words corrupt, thug and other such names fit.

[Markk]

Your reaction isn't surprising. You've already decided that Archer is dirty, so of course you'll decide close questions against him.

His arguments on that point are contained in his appellate brief. What he told the banks didn't cause harm to the tribe. If
Archer believed what Galanis was telling him, the only thing that really mattered was that the proceeds ended up in the annuity. The bank was simply a conduit for the bond proceeds to get to the annuity company. It may have been nothing more than pressure to get the transaction closed in a timely fashion. If Archer was not aware of the fraud, it's a no harm, no foul situation as long as the money gets to the annuity company.

From my perspective, the important thing is that the case was close enough that the trial judge ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals "clarified" it's earlier holdings to require a trial judge on a motion for new trial to give more deference to the jury. Under the clarified standard, I have no problem with the outcome.

The evidence against Galanis showed him to be more what you label "corrupt" and "dirty." He lied to the tribe, stole some its money, and destroyed the market value the bonds would have had. And he successfully concealed it from the other board members who were viewed as insiders, as opposed to Archer, who was treated as an outside investor. Galanis brought the tribal bonds to the roll up and sold the investment plan to the tribes. Given the very few e-mails that Archer received or was copied on in reference to the bond issues, it's pretty clear that Galanis was handling the bond issue and Archer paid little attention to it. Archer was focussed on making the roll up succeed -- not stealing money from the tribe. And, again, when the other board members discovered the fraud, they didn't tell Archer. Instead, they concocted a scheme involving a fake company and back-dated documents so that they didn't have to ask Archer to sign anything.

Archer was sentenced to 13 months. Galanis was sentenced to 189 months plus three years supervision after release.

Let me add a couple of things here…

Yes I believe he is dirty, I have stated that before. What I want to make clear is that it is not because of our conversation, but because of quit a bit of reading and research (via mostly google)

Also, Archer was not convicted of lying, or even accused of lying in the criminal sense. What his lying did, was show the jury, and the appeals court that he did in fact know that the bonds were dirty. The defense stated there were other reasons for his lying, but in the end the Jury did not buy it, and the appeals court upheld the jury’s decision as sound.

[Res Ipsa]

Your reaction isn't surprising. You've already decided that Archer is dirty, so of course you'll decide close questions against him.

His arguments on that point are contained in his appellate brief. What he told the banks didn't cause harm to the tribe. If
Archer believed what Galanis was telling him, the only thing that really mattered was that the proceeds ended up in the annuity. The bank was simply a conduit for the bond proceeds to get to the annuity company. It may have been nothing more than pressure to get the transaction closed in a timely fashion. If Archer was not aware of the fraud, it's a no harm, no foul situation as long as the money gets to the annuity company.

From my perspective, the important thing is that the case was close enough that the trial judge ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals "clarified" it's earlier holdings to require a trial judge on a motion for new trial to give more deference to the jury. Under the clarified standard, I have no problem with the outcome.

The evidence against Galanis showed him to be more what you label "corrupt" and "dirty." He lied to the tribe, stole some its money, and destroyed the market value the bonds would have had. And he successfully concealed it from the other board members who were viewed as insiders, as opposed to Archer, who was treated as an outside investor. Galanis brought the tribal bonds to the roll up and sold the investment plan to the tribes. Given the very few e-mails that Archer received or was copied on in reference to the bond issues, it's pretty clear that Galanis was handling the bond issue and Archer paid little attention to it. Archer was focussed on making the roll up succeed -- not stealing money from the tribe. And, again, when the other board members discovered the fraud, they didn't tell Archer. Instead, they concocted a scheme involving a fake company and back-dated documents so that they didn't have to ask Archer to sign anything.

Archer was sentenced to 13 months. Galanis was sentenced to 189 months plus three years supervision after release.

Let me add a couple of things here…

Yes I believe he is dirty, I have stated that before. What I want to make clear is that it is not because of our conversation, but because of quit a bit of reading and research (via mostly google)

Also, Archer was not convicted of lying, or even accused of lying in the criminal sense. What his lying did, was show the jury, and the appeals court that he did in fact know that the bonds were dirty. The defense stated there were other reasons for his lying, but in the end the Jury did not buy it, and the appeals court upheld the jury’s decision as sound.

I understand. No, the appeals court didn’t decide that. They modified the standard and found that the case didn’t meet the standard. They didn’t do what the trial judge did and review the evidence to see if an injustice has been done. It was a close case, based on very circumstantial evidence. It certainly isn’ta basis to conclude that every deal he did was corrupt.

[Res Ipsa]

Your reaction isn't surprising. You've already decided that Archer is dirty, so of course you'll decide close questions against him.

His arguments on that point are contained in his appellate brief. What he told the banks didn't cause harm to the tribe. If
Archer believed what Galanis was telling him, the only thing that really mattered was that the proceeds ended up in the annuity. The bank was simply a conduit for the bond proceeds to get to the annuity company. It may have been nothing more than pressure to get the transaction closed in a timely fashion. If Archer was not aware of the fraud, it's a no harm, no foul situation as long as the money gets to the annuity company.

From my perspective, the important thing is that the case was close enough that the trial judge ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals "clarified" it's earlier holdings to require a trial judge on a motion for new trial to give more deference to the jury. Under the clarified standard, I have no problem with the outcome.

The evidence against Galanis showed him to be more what you label "corrupt" and "dirty." He lied to the tribe, stole some its money, and destroyed the market value the bonds would have had. And he successfully concealed it from the other board members who were viewed as insiders, as opposed to Archer, who was treated as an outside investor. Galanis brought the tribal bonds to the roll up and sold the investment plan to the tribes. Given the very few e-mails that Archer received or was copied on in reference to the bond issues, it's pretty clear that Galanis was handling the bond issue and Archer paid little attention to it. Archer was focussed on making the roll up succeed -- not stealing money from the tribe. And, again, when the other board members discovered the fraud, they didn't tell Archer. Instead, they concocted a scheme involving a fake company and back-dated documents so that they didn't have to ask Archer to sign anything.

Archer was sentenced to 13 months. Galanis was sentenced to 189 months plus three years supervision after release.

Res, he was found guilty by a Jury. His lying showed that he was not telling the truth about where the money came from, which shows that he was hiding the source of the money because he knew it was gotten in the fraud he was part of. That is what the prosecution brought top the Jury, and what the jury bought, among other thing. Archers defense was that he,, along with the tribe, was the victim, the jury agreed with the prosecution.

Your argument is now like saying as a example if this was murder trial.

Archer only murdered one person while Galanis murder 3 people, therefore he is not a bad killer.

The judge was bias here, and after reading the government brief it is clear she overstepped her role.

Yes Galanis was given more time…by another judge Res! He pleaded guilty, and was the ring leader. Archer getting less time only means he got less time…it does not make him less of a criminal. Ring leaders often get a worse sentence.That is a very poor argument to make.

Devon Archer is a convicted felon, and in prison this is just a fact

Let’s move on.

Let’s go back a bit and see just who MZ really is and lets seee itf the words corrupt, thug and other such names fit.

Never going to happen, Markk. It is logically fallacious to label the person and reason from the label. I don’t care what label you want to put on anyone. Reasoning from a label is pure 100% bias. You show me evidence, I’ll follow it. Not labels.

[Res Ipsa]

Your reaction isn't surprising. You've already decided that Archer is dirty, so of course you'll decide close questions against him.

His arguments on that point are contained in his appellate brief. What he told the banks didn't cause harm to the tribe. If
Archer believed what Galanis was telling him, the only thing that really mattered was that the proceeds ended up in the annuity. The bank was simply a conduit for the bond proceeds to get to the annuity company. It may have been nothing more than pressure to get the transaction closed in a timely fashion. If Archer was not aware of the fraud, it's a no harm, no foul situation as long as the money gets to the annuity company.

From my perspective, the important thing is that the case was close enough that the trial judge ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals "clarified" it's earlier holdings to require a trial judge on a motion for new trial to give more deference to the jury. Under the clarified standard, I have no problem with the outcome.

The evidence against Galanis showed him to be more what you label "corrupt" and "dirty." He lied to the tribe, stole some its money, and destroyed the market value the bonds would have had. And he successfully concealed it from the other board members who were viewed as insiders, as opposed to Archer, who was treated as an outside investor. Galanis brought the tribal bonds to the roll up and sold the investment plan to the tribes. Given the very few e-mails that Archer received or was copied on in reference to the bond issues, it's pretty clear that Galanis was handling the bond issue and Archer paid little attention to it. Archer was focussed on making the roll up succeed -- not stealing money from the tribe. And, again, when the other board members discovered the fraud, they didn't tell Archer. Instead, they concocted a scheme involving a fake company and back-dated documents so that they didn't have to ask Archer to sign anything.

Archer was sentenced to 13 months. Galanis was sentenced to 189 months plus three years supervision after release.

Res, he was found guilty by a Jury. His lying showed that he was not telling the truth about where the money came from, which shows that he was hiding the source of the money because he knew it was gotten in the fraud he was part of. That is what the prosecution brought top the Jury, and what the jury bought, among other thing. Archers defense was that he,, along with the tribe, was the victim, the jury agreed with the prosecution.

Your argument is now like saying as a example if this was murder trial.

Archer only murdered one person while Galanis murder 3 people, therefore he is not a bad killer.

The judge was bias here, and after reading the government brief it is clear she overstepped her role.

Yes Galanis was given more time…by another judge Res! He pleaded guilty, and was the ring leader. Archer getting less time only means he got less time…it does not make him less of a criminal. Ring leaders often get a worse sentence.That is a very poor argument to make.

Devon Archer is a convicted felon, and in prison this is just a fact

Let’s move on.

Let’s go back a bit and see just who MZ really is and lets seee itf the words corrupt, thug and other such names fit.

The judge was biased?? You, the guy who has already decided he was dirty. LOL!

There is zero motive for the judge to be biased. Unlike a jury, who has to process all the evidence in real time, the judge can take her time and put it all together. I’m not saying she was right. I’m saying the fact that she granted a new trial is a good indication that it was a very close case. That’s all.

I’m not the judge, so I don’t have to defer to the jury. Both opinions go over the important evidence in detail. All I’m saying is that it was a close case that I would have had a tough time with had I been a juror. And it makes you waving it around like it’s proof he did anything writing on the Burials matter look incredibly biased.

[canpakes]

I’ve described a different motive that is just as fact based as your own. Not only that, I think my WAG for motive makes much more sense than yours. Do you think asset forfeiture as a consequence of a criminal conviction isn’t a real thing?

This.

Regardless of what one thinks about Zlochevsky being corrupt, he doesn’t seem to have been stupid. Hunter was (and in some respects, still legally is) a hot mess during his time on the board, and I don’t see Zlochevsky entrusting any new schemes to Biden. It would be far better to use Biden as cover, merely parking him onto the board and simply having the name lend legitimacy to Burisma and Zlochevsky if the latter felt endangered by any possible investigations. That would have been the safest bet.

But, Hunter - for being a hot mess - was his own hot mess. I’ll be amazed if all of this attention down through the past several years doesn’t end up with some sort of indictment being issued. I don’t think that Joe Biden can then be assumed to be guilty by association, though. His financials and record are far more transparent than his son’s, and it would seem unlikely that the right-wing media establishment just hasn’t been able to connect any dots on anything because of how incredibly well hidden those dots supposedly are.

[Res Ipsa]

Here’s a question. What’s odd about the amount that Hunter and Devon were paid during at least their first few months on the board?

[Markk]

Here’s a question. What’s odd about the amount that Hunter and Devon were paid during at least their first few months on the board?

??? What?

[Markk]

I’ve described a different motive that is just as fact based as your own. Not only that, I think my WAG for motive makes much more sense than yours. Do you think asset forfeiture as a consequence of a criminal conviction isn’t a real thing?

This.

Regardless of what one thinks about Zlochevsky being corrupt, he doesn’t seem to have been stupid. Hunter was (and in some respects, still legally is) a hot mess during his time on the board, and I don’t see Zlochevsky entrusting any new schemes to Biden. It would be far better to use Biden as cover, merely parking him onto the board and simply having the name lend legitimacy to Burisma and Zlochevsky if the latter felt endangered by any possible investigations. That would have been the safest bet.

But, Hunter - for being a hot mess - was his own hot mess. I’ll be amazed if all of this attention down through the past several years doesn’t end up with some sort of indictment being issued. I don’t think that Joe Biden can then be assumed to be guilty by association, though. His financials and record are far more transparent than his son’s, and it would seem unlikely that the right-wing media establishment just hasn’t been able to connect any dots on anything because of how incredibly well hidden those dots supposedly are.

Cash is cash if he is indeed dirty, so I’m sure Joe was smart enough to to just take cash, again if he is dirty. Hunter Biden is protected and unless the media turns on him, which might be starting to happen, it will be really hard to get a conviction unless they find something really clear and over the top.

But he could be the first son of a sitting president pardoned?