rampant business fraud

[moralist]

New Report Shows Many U.S. Businesses Actually Just Fronts For Moneymaking Operations

News in Brief News Dec 2, 2013

WASHINGTONDealing in millions of paper bills and electronic payments every year, often in plain sight, thousands of U.S. businesses that provide clothing, food services, home goods, and more are actually operating as elaborate moneymaking fronts, federal prosecutors discovered this week.

Though appearing from the exterior to be legitimate operations, thousands of businesses in local communities across the nation are actually covering for organized rings of moneymakers whose whole purpose is to earn profits, U.S. Attorney Office spokesman Martin Langler said following the successful raid of a front organization in Virginia, a so-called quality home furnishings outlet that was found to have thousands of dollars of paper bills in registers throughout the store as well as a large supply of cash procured through the storefront and then deposited into a private bank account.

These are major moneymaking schemes involving multiple employees who are taking money from sold goods and services and then counting them as profits for the store. Even a place as innocent as a restaurant, for example, can be operating as an intricate front in which food is exchanged for money, with the owners and staff of this establishment receiving a cut of the earnings for themselves. This is happening all over America. Langler went on to confirm that a special prosecutor is currently investigating reports that the federal government may itself be receiving a cut of the profits from these businesses via taxes.

[Selene]

New Report Shows Many U.S. Businesses Actually Just Fronts For Moneymaking Operations

News in Brief News Dec 2, 2013

WASHINGTONDealing in millions of paper bills and electronic payments every year, often in plain sight, thousands of U.S. businesses that provide clothing, food services, home goods, and more are actually operating as elaborate moneymaking fronts, federal prosecutors discovered this week.

Though appearing from the exterior to be legitimate operations, thousands of businesses in local communities across the nation are actually covering for organized rings of moneymakers whose whole purpose is to earn profits, U.S. Attorney Office spokesman Martin Langler said following the successful raid of a front organization in Virginia, a so-called quality home furnishings outlet that was found to have thousands of dollars of paper bills in registers throughout the storrge supply of cash procured through the storefront and then deposited into a private bank account.

These are major moneymaking schemes involving multiple employees who are taking money from sold goods and services and then counting them as profits for the store. Even a place as innocent as a restaurant, for example, can be operating as an intricate front in which food is exchanged for money, with the owners and staff of this establishment receiving a cut of the earnings for themselves. This is happening all over America. Langler went on to confirm that a special prosecutor is currently investigating reports that the federal government may itself be receiving a cut of the profits from these businesses via taxes.

Ah yes, the Onion story ...nice try Greg...

[moralist]

New Report Shows Many U.S. Businesses Actually Just Fronts For Moneymaking Operations

News in Brief News Dec 2, 2013

WASHINGTONDealing in millions of paper bills and electronic payments every year, often in plain sight, thousands of U.S. businesses that provide clothing, food services, home goods, and more are actually operating as elaborate moneymaking fronts, federal prosecutors discovered this week.

Though appearing from the exterior to be legitimate operations, thousands of businesses in local communities across the nation are actually covering for organized rings of moneymakers whose whole purpose is to earn profits, U.S. Attorney Office spokesman Martin Langler said following the successful raid of a front organization in Virginia, a so-called quality home furnishings outlet that was found to have thousands of dollars of paper bills in registers throughout the storrge supply of cash procured through the storefront and then deposited into a private bank account.

These are major moneymaking schemes involving multiple employees who are taking money from sold goods and services and then counting them as profits for the store. Even a place as innocent as a restaurant, for example, can be operating as an intricate front in which food is exchanged for money, with the owners and staff of this establishment receiving a cut of the earnings for themselves. This is happening all over America. Langler went on to confirm that a special prosecutor is currently investigating reports that the federal government may itself be receiving a cut of the profits from these businesses via taxes.

Ah yes, the Onion story ...nice try Greg...

Sorry you didn't think it was funny.

I thought it was hilarious! (lol)

Greg

[syrakusos]

It was cute from the Onion, but a crime when posted by you without attribution.

You stole someone's work, Moralist.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-report-shows-many-us-businesses-actually-just,34723/

Mike M.

[Selene]

It was cute from the Onion, but a crime when posted by you without attribution.

You stole someone's work, Moralist.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-report-shows-many-us-businesses-actually-just,34723/

Mike M.

Now, Greg will probably have an answer about you chosing your position before you posted this and that his choice was to share, and, he, being above the rest of us in moral purity, need not have to source, or, give proper attribution to the authors.

Or, some such quicksand justification...

[moralist]

It was cute from the Onion, but a crime when posted by you without attribution.

You stole someone's work, Moralist.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-report-shows-many-us-businesses-actually-just,34723/

Mike M.

Thanks Michael. That's even funnier!

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

It was cute from the Onion, but a crime when posted by you without attribution.

You stole someone's work, Moralist.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-report-shows-many-us-businesses-actually-just,34723/

Mike M.

Thanks Michael. That's even funnier!

Greg

You don't take lack of attribution seriously?

Would I buy a used car from you?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[PDS]

If you think about it, this behavior is not unlike secretly video-recording some minor celebrity without his permission.

[Selene]

If you think about it, this behavior is not unlike secretly video-recording some minor celebrity without his permission.

Precisely.

When I mentioned that he is lucky he did not get shot by his female guard, what was his instant response?

"They weren't packing heat."

I thought that was either an extremely ill advised assumption, or he had penetrated the group at a much more intimate level.

No puns please...lol.

A..

[syrakusos]

If you think about it, this behavior is not unlike secretly video-recording some minor celebrity without his permission.

No it is not.

I do think about it, seriously and deeply, and often.

See my write-up of Austin's "South by Southwest" on my blog here:

http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2013/03/sxsw-2013.html

When you leave your home, you lose your expectation of privacy. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that if your home is visible from the air, then it is open to view. Read Florida versus Riley (488 US 445 1989). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley

The courts have ruled often, consistently, and correctly, that anyone who seeks notoriety loses more privacy than the average citizen. This mostly applies to politicians, movie stars, and others when they are denigrated in the news media for their foibles. You and I are nobodies. If we stagger out of a bar and Fox puts us on TV, our reputations have been damaged unnecessarily and in many states, we can sue for damages. If John Boehner and Miley Cyrus are holding each other up while searching for the car, well, that's another matter entirely.

[PDS]

If you think about it, this behavior is not unlike secretly video-recording some minor celebrity without his permission.

No it is not.

I do think about it, seriously and deeply, and often.

See my write-up of Austin's "South by Southwest" on my blog here:

http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2013/03/sxsw-2013.html

When you leave your home, you lose your expectation of privacy. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that if your home is visible from the air, then it is open to view. Read Florida versus Riley (488 US 445 1989). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley

The courts have ruled often, consistently, and correctly, that anyone who seeks notoriety loses more privacy than the average citizen. This mostly applies to politicians, movie stars, and others when they are denigrated in the news media for their foibles. You and I are nobodies. If we stagger out of a bar and Fox puts us on TV, our reputations have been damaged unnecessarily and in many states, we can sue for damages. If John Boehner and Miley Cyrus are holding each other up while searching for the car, well, that's another matter entirely.

How often do you have to keep walking into clotheslines before you learn to duck, or at least watch for them more closely?

Go take a look at the Carlos Castanada thread, take a deep breath, and then you might see why my comment was so God-damned funny (!), even for the radar-broken and humorless among us.

But thanks for schooling me on the law. I have only been a lawyer for 27 years, so every little tip helps. Goodness gracious...

[syrakusos]

"But thanks for schooling me on the law. I have only been a lawyer for 27 years, so every little tip helps. "

Less than half a lifetime to me. Happy to help, kid. I earned a college certificate in transportation regulation. One more class and I could have practiced before the Supreme Court, but it was less than interesting at that point.

The Carlos thread quickly became boring. Sorry to have missed your insights.

[PDS]

"But thanks for schooling me on the law. I have only been a lawyer for 27 years, so every little tip helps. "

Less than half a lifetime to me. Happy to help, kid. I earned a college certificate in transportation regulation. One more class and I could have practiced before the Supreme Court, but it was less than interesting at that point.

The Carlos thread quickly became boring. Sorry to have missed your insights.

I didn't actually say I had insights on that thread.

But, as you know, one key part of lawyering is reading comprehension. [Couldn't resist...]

[moralist]

It was cute from the Onion, but a crime when posted by you without attribution.

You stole someone's work, Moralist.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-report-shows-many-us-businesses-actually-just,34723/

Mike M.

Thanks Michael. That's even funnier!

Greg

You don't take lack of attribution seriously?

It's obviously satire. I mistakenly assumed that at least some of the people here had a sense of humor and would enjoy it as much as I did. Guess I was wrong.

edit: Ok. It's clear now... lawyers.

Greg

[moralist]

If you think about it, this behavior is not unlike secretly video-recording some minor celebrity without his permission.

Precisely.

When I mentioned that he is lucky he did not get shot by his female guard, what was his instant response?

"They weren't packing heat."

I thought that was either an extremely ill advised assumption, or he had penetrated the group at a much more intimate level.

You're trying much too hard to create a false sense of drama when the reality was actually quite mundane. Cult members who held the narcissistic fantasy that they had magical powers didn't need to carry guns.

Greg

[Selene]

members individuals who held hold the narcissistic fantasy that they had magical [moral] powers didn't need [to give attributions either]?

Greg:

Can you at least just take responsibility for not giving the source of what you posted as an error?

It is the correct, decent choice to make.

A...

Post Script: This is a particularly sensitive issue for this forum and it additionally exposes Kat and Michael to potential problems.

[moralist]

members individuals who held hold the narcissistic fantasy that they had magical [moral] powers didn't need [to give attributions either]?

Greg:

Can you at least just take responsibility for not giving the source of what you posted as an error?

Sure I can.

I had no idea until now that you folks were so hypersensitive about such a harmless informality. And now that you've made it clear that this is a sore spot, I'll take care to formally announce the source of every onion joke even if it sucks the humor out of it by knowing in advance what you're reading.

straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

Let's step outside the emotional dynamic for a second--the "I'm right and you're wrong" thing. I'm arriving in this discussion by parachute. Besides, I believe Adam is on your case partially because he had to learn this himself a while back.

I have had issues on OL before from angry copyright owners. Obviously the Internet is still the Wild West, so there is a huge amount of flexibility. To keep the peace, here is what we do.

We do not to copy/paste whole articles. Sometimes something gets through and it's no biggy, but in general, we give an excerpt from the original article (usually a teaser or a section that makes our point) and link to the original for people who want to read the whole thing. This creates a backlink to source's site, they feel a little luv from the Google monster, and that keeps complaints way down. (Backlinking to the source also applies to video and other media when copyright is involved, and even when it's not.)

As a moral issue, it's a good idea to source where things come from. They are not your words and you lose nothing by saying whose they are. In fact, you gain credibility. (I don't mean "you" Greg, I mean "you" everybody.) Attribution is not a hard and fast rule in online life. For the main part, it's more of a best practice. Only in specific instances is it a deal-killer-like demand.

In fact, it's impossible to attribute the source for everything since, if you want to be a nitpicker, we learned all of our words from someone else. But when there is a big chunk of text you use, or if there is an iconic saying that actually has an author, or you got a passage from a recent article somewhere else, or things like that, it's good to attribute the source.

And it makes you look learned and well-read.

So, without the drama and merely as information, I personally would appreciate it if you would adopt attribution as your default habit when posting quotes on OL. If you slip at times, OK. (The Fair Use provision is as vague as it can be.) But the norm is to attribute.

Thanks.

Michael

[tmj]

MSK

Thanks for the reiminder. Morality is what you do, even if you think no one is lookin'

[moralist]

Greg,

Let's step outside the emotional dynamic for a second--the "I'm right and you're wrong" thing. I'm arriving in this discussion by parachute. Besides, I believe Adam is on your case partially because he had to learn this himself a while back.

I have had issues on OL before from angry copyright owners. Obviously the Internet is still the Wild West, so there is a huge amount of flexibility. To keep the peace, here is what we do.

We do not to copy/paste whole articles. Sometimes something gets through and it's no biggy, but in general, we give an excerpt from the original article (usually a teaser or a section that makes our point) and link to the original for people who want to read the whole thing. This creates a backlink to source's site, they feel a little luv from the Google monster, and that keeps complaints way down. (Backlinking to the source also applies to video and other media when copyright is involved, and even when it's not.)

As a moral issue, it's a good idea to source where things come from. They are not your words and you lose nothing by saying whose they are. In fact, you gain credibility. (I don't mean "you" Greg, I mean "you" everybody.) Attribution is not a hard and fast rule in online life. For the main part, it's more of a best practice. Only in specific instances is it a deal-killer-like demand.

In fact, it's impossible to attribute the source for everything since, if you want to be a nitpicker, we learned all of our words from someone else. But when there is a big chunk of text you use, or if there is an iconic saying that actually has an author, or you got a passage from a recent article somewhere else, or things like that, it's good to attribute the source.

And it makes you look learned and well-read.

So, without the drama and merely as information, I personally would appreciate it if you would adopt attribution as your default habit when posting quotes on OL. If you slip at times, OK. (The Fair Use provision is as vague as it can be.) But the norm is to attribute.

Thanks.

Michael

Ok. I will, Michael.

Greg

[PDS]

With all attribution issues aside, the Onion article is quite hilarious.

[moralist]

With all attribution issues aside, the Onion article is quite hilarious.

I thought so, too. And there is great prescience in that humor, because before long an article just like that will be read as a straight news story.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Seemed pretty obvious to me from the get-go that it was an Onion story. That it explicitly came out in the comments was a de facto attribution. What remains is the question of whether it is right to do this with Onion material? Unless this kind of thing is okay with Onion, I don't think so. Too much was quoted.

--Brant

[moralist]

Seemed pretty obvious to me from the get-go that it was an Onion story. That it explicitly came out in the comments was a de facto attribution. What remains is the question of whether it is right to do this with Onion material? Unless this kind of thing is okay with Onion, I don't think so. Too much was quoted.

--Brant

...but was it funny?

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Seemed pretty obvious to me from the get-go that it was an Onion story. That it explicitly came out in the comments was a de facto attribution. What remains is the question of whether it is right to do this with Onion material? Unless this kind of thing is okay with Onion, I don't think so. Too much was quoted.

--Brant

...but was it funny?

Greg

You don't know?

--Brant

the Shadow knows