My wife just loves it when you guys call me gay! “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

… Don’t forget to mention I’m also a Tuesday-night-cross-dressing Marxist, Facebook-Friend-of-Hugo Chavez-, Lindsey Graham-Fan-Club-President-, hot-pink-ascot-donning troglodyte who is believed to sell electronic medical records systems to doctors’ offices as a representative of Bobby Harrell’s newest business venture. (At least some Republicans stand to benefit financially from Obamacare becoming law, Bobby! Can’t wait for Sanford to go after you for this one, Mr. Speaker.)

MICHAEL S. SMITH II

WATCH THE VIDEO AWSOME, CALLING THEM IDIOTS LIKE THEY ARE NAMELY HARRISON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HE CALLLED THEIR FUCKING ASSES OUT!!!

Smith, your run to get Sanford out and Bauer in has come to an end. You can only do your cause and candidate harm by continuing.

Drop the man crush on Bauer and the dependence of Mallory Factor money and prestige for advancement. There are larger issues to worry about; pick one, and begin anew.

Sorry, here’s the link to the full WSJ law blog posting by Ashby Jones, “Should the Feds Be Looking at Governor Sanford”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/12/01/should-the-feds-be-looking-at-governor-sanford/

MICHAEL S. SMITH II

“Should the Feds Be Looking at Governor Sanford”
The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog (December 1, 2009)
By Ashby Jones
(Link to full piece:

Pulled text:

“A recent Law Blog post discussed the problem facing South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster as he considers whether to charge Governor Mark Sanford for misuse of public funds stemming from Sanford’s jaunts down to Argentina. McMaster is running for Governor against Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, and filing charges against Sanford might elevate Bauer to the very office McMaster seeks, giving his opponent a boost. The AG has rejected calls for a special prosecutor, asserting that “Law enforcement and politics do not mix.”

“While he’s right about that, it is the public perception that is just as important. This is a problem that state and local prosecutors face when called upon to consider charges against other elected officials. Most AGs and local district attorney’s are elected themselves, and many harbor ambitions for higher office. Sorting out the many potential conflicts that can arise makes it difficult for the public to believe the justice is being done an investigation of other elected officials is pursued – or dropped.

“The U.S. Department of Justice can step in to take over an investigation when the potential conflicts are just too great for state and local elected prosecutors to handle. While the United States attorneys are political appointees themselves, they are usually at least a few steps removed from local electoral politics. Unlike a sitting AG campaigning for higher office while acting as the state’s chief prosecutor, a U.S. Attorney can’t run for anything while in office.

“An arm of the Department of Justice that investigates corruption is the Public Integrity Section, which is staffed by career prosecutors who have no ties to local elected officials. Their involvement is no panacea, of course, as the flawed prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens shows. But federal prosecutors from Main Justice are much less subject to claims that they are seeking to advance their own personal political agendas.

“If the Department of Justice were to look at Sanford, there are at least two federal criminal statutes that could be used if charges are appropriate. First, 18 U.S.C. § 666 prohibits misapplication of government funds. Federal jurisdiction hinges on whether the state or local government receiving $10,000 in federal money over a 12-month period, something easily met by South Carolina.

“Sanford’s side trip to Argentina to visit his paramour while on a trade mission could well constitute a misapplication of state money, even though he subsequently reimbursed the state for the added costs. An ethics investigation of Sanford also shows that he and his family used a state airplane for personal or political trips, which again could constitute a misuse of state resources.”

Use the above link to read the rest of this entry.

MICHAEL S. SMITH II

-health or safety of a person; or the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business;

GONNA BE PROVEN – HANG ON PEOPLE

Serious misconduct:

If dismissal is for serious misconduct, the employee may be dismissed immediately and no notice or payment in lieu of notice is required – Payment of the employee is only required up to the moment of dismissal. The Workplace Relations Regulations provide a non-exhaustive definition of serious misconduct which includes:

-wilful or deliberate behaviour by an employee that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment; and
conduct that causes imminent and serious risk to:

-health or safety of a person; or the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business;

the employee, in the course of the employee’s employment, engaging in:

i.theft; or
ii.fraud; or
iii. assault; or

the employee refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is consistent with the employee’s contract of employment.

************************************************************

THEFT or FRAUD IS SERIOUS MISCONDUCT.

In Sanfraud’s case, it’s Theft AND Fraud.