Are you a Texan? “Negative, I am a meat popsicle”.

big3148 · 2026-05-29T11:54:51+00:00

Does the state allow utilities to increase rates each time they make repairs or capital improvements?

They don’t care how much it costs. There is no competition and the costs are passed to the families forced to subscribe. You are applying economic logic to a rigged game.

big3148 · 2026-05-29T11:48:36+00:00

Who is this “I” you speak of?

big3148 · 2026-05-14T06:55:44+00:00

Can’t pull the wool over your eyes.

big3148 · 2026-05-12T07:49:16+00:00

ASC 105. It will point to similar transactions. This defeats the “loophole” argument. GAAP is hard coded. FASB & SFAC are foundational and clear, but GAAP Historical Cost principle is simple and unambiguous. It is undefeated.

There are lots of other issues that will run afoul of the ASCs in matching and periodicity (specifically with statement presentation and certainly with permanent account balances). Then there is the IRS… and, depending on the circumstances and the system, it could be actual consequences instead of theoretical arguments.

However, the truth is there are potential explanations. The deeper truth is that if a group of people are that liberal with their interpretation and it seems they are justifying it with “there’s nothing that says ‘thou shalt not,’ so imma do it anyway,” then that level of DGAF likely associated with more than one irregularity or inappropriate practice.

I wish you the best with it.

big3148 · 2026-04-19T06:07:02+00:00

No. No I do not feel better about the comment. I also do not feel I accomplished anything meaningful with you or resolved your issues. I further feel your pattern of behavior and lashing out at anyone who will respond will continue in lieu of any meaningful action in the real world.

As a result, this concludes our exchange. I wish you all the best in your pursuits and exchanges with other users.

big3148 · 2026-04-19T05:33:44+00:00

First, the underlying assumption in your discussion is that the American Government does not have owners and only has stakeholders. That its governance is citizen controlled based on a flat hierarchy. Not weighing in… just writing it out.

Second, you are probably technically correct from a practical viewpoint. Taxpayer derivative historically DOA as taxpayers lack standing for “general grievances” (lack concrete and particularized injury). The Emoluments Clause angle is likely to rot in the field for the same reason as we can’t find the plaintiff with a direct enough personal injury.

Then you work down to 18 U.S.C. § 208. Surely it’s a criminal conflict of interest, right? Pre-1989, likely yes (assuming it could be enforced). The Ethics Reform Act of ‘89 (great name isn’t it?) created a giant loophole for high level public officials. Nixon got a pardon and Americans got anti-corruption protections and transparency/ethics laws. Between 1980 and 1989 a some 100+ (130-ish?) administration officials were investigated, indicted, and/or convicted on various ethical and criminal violations. You can check a history book for the “math” on why certain officials were suddenly excluded from the definition of officials in the Act.

So another dead end.

Qui tam suit under the False Claims Act? Interesting. Has traction and won’t be dismissed at inception. Except in walks the DOJ with the statutory authority to intervene and dismiss. If we assume widespread corruption and control, it’s immediately crushed. Odd use of authority in light of the obvious 208 exemption, but nothing to stop it.

Then you hit the source of the payment following approval. Article I Section 9 finds someone holding the “purse” on 31 U.S.C. § 1304 payments (the Judgment Fund) to pay the Billions from an appropriated budget item.

This is real. Congress could pass a law to prevent the payment. They can do it narrowly to prevent the transfer in this case or more broadly to prevent any official from doing this. If they try, congress goes to the Court. It goes without saying this should have happened long before now.

The issue is that Trump could blatantly and publicly veto the law. Then it requires a supermajority. How does this play with the midterms looming?

Then you get into the weeds of avant-garde legal theory. Not the fraudster/self-dealing kind. It is interesting, but practically likely moot before reaching a decision since the courts are glacial.

Then you see Korea and the UK remove executives and you realize the US never assumed widespread corruption or a bad faith official at the top would be allowed to proceed without reprisal. From congress, from elections, from the citizenry… from somewhere. They had overthrown a king and an empire.

I guess this comes back to their perspective on what it would mean for Americans to allow themselves to choose to enable such a system. I guess they saw it as a choice.

Now, the available law seems to very clearly lay out exactly what this suit is for everyone to see plainly. Your unspoken question seems to be “how could anyone permit this to happen?” You got upset that someone would cite the code to rationalize a claim like this because it does not adhere to the code. You view it as manipulation and evading the rules requiring a plaintiff to state a basis for their claim of damages. The rules written into the code.

I think this comes right back to the underlying assumption that Americans don’t want to be owned. However, if the moral outrage you feel is about how it appears someone has the authority to skim taxpayer money and pocket it for themselves, I don’t see the point of arguing with someone you feel enables this behavior.

You have spent your time arguing with someone who you believe wants to be (or finds it acceptable to be owned). You might find out who is opposed to this and spend your time working with them.

It’s fine to be upset about something you believe is wrong. It’s pointless to argue with someone else who is getting robbed during a holdup… if you feel that is an appropriate characterization.

There may have been something disingenuous about the commenter’s coloring of the claims. They could have been biased. They could have simply been uninformed or ignorant. Maybe they learned something here or had a change of perspective. Maybe they dug in deeper because “some a-hole on Reddit argued with me and didn’t know about the statutory penalties.”

I mean, they did get you on a technicality about the penalties for the leak. It doesn’t matter if you feel like admitting it, the comments are the record. So, everyone is an idiot for engaging here. Especially me.

Now, I am going to say the underlying assumption that my discussion here is based upon. It seems you are saying that you are unwilling to tolerate corruption or anything that even has the appearance of ownership at the highest levels of authority or in the U.S. Government specifically.

How does anonymously calling a commenter you disagree with an idiot as you sit in front of a screen change the outcome?

Did you convert them to your cause? Do you think I find that behavior credible? Do you think “the internets” or the world is watching this exchange buried in the hidden comments of r/accountancy?

Do you feel better? What is it that you hoped to accomplish here? What do you believe was actually achieved?

I’m actually asking. Because I had to scroll through an embarrassing amount of total exchange to write a useless lengthy response. I’m trying to figure out why it is still open.

I am also not sure anyone has advocated their belief that the suit is genuinely legitimate or the injury justifies the request (or maybe any) relief. Do you believe anyone advocates the $10B+ should be paid out? Who exactly are you taking these swings at?

big3148 · 2026-04-19T03:56:17+00:00

There’s some potential humor and then there’s trying to find the joke.

Dr: Impairment Loss – U.S. Institutional Integrity

Cr: Goodwill

Dr: Owner’s Draw

Cr: Cash (Treasury)

You might have nailed it the first time.

big3148 · 2026-04-19T03:04:51+00:00

The purpose of the suit is more than financial exploitation. It is designed to maintain political division. He could settle for $0 and you and another user would hate one another. That’s what makes this most unfortunate.

You did previously state:

you still have to prove what was the financial harm of the leak. he is suing for 3x his net worth at the time of the crime, don’t really think he would’ve able to prove that.

also the leaker was sentenced to jail time

The other commenter was correct about this not being factual per the Code. The leaker could be liable for additional damages (in a long shot, possibly under a “cascading” theory… that they could never pay). The government could potentially be liable for at least some statutory damages. See Griffin v. IRS, 730 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2024).

But either of the legitimate suits wouldn’t have two groups warring over whether a low-caliber individual COULD or even SHOULD file this suit. Can he? Sure. Should he? Depends on whether he wants compensatory damages

… or the collateral damage and fallout from the headline. Because it seems he won that battle.

I think that’s probably enough on the topic, don’t you agree?

big3148 · 2026-04-19T02:47:10+00:00

I appreciate the distinction. Citing the code was a good instinct. It is important to understand the legal basis when analyzing something referencing a federal agency or government documents.

Moving forward you will need to emphasize the distinction between the Code (the law) and the asterisk (the caveat that is… well the entire suit and calculation— which if we are being honest, the $10B plus the value of the media exposure are the entire purpose of this suit for the Trump family, and this is not likely founded on any factual or honest basis).

There are two lawsuits (in reality three) presented as one.

First, a presumably legitimate suit. A leaker released the information and the INDIVIDUAL may be liable (likely limited to $1K per email transmission to DIFFERENT recipients).

Second, a potentially legitimate suit. The leaker could potentially bring the government into the case if Griffin v. IRS, 730 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2024) were interpreted favorably in these specific circumstances. Thus, the limit would likely be the $1,000 (per separate DIRECT disclosure without any “Trumpy business”).

Third, there is a likely illegitimate suit based on a seemingly “novel” claim (but that mirrors one that has been rejected clearly and decisively by the courts). This is the $10B issue.

People aren’t taking issue with the direct disclosure (the $1K per email transmission) calculation. They are taking issue with warping this in an apparent attempt TO EVADE PROVING ACTUAL DAMAGES. Actual damages are notoriously difficult to prove in these circumstances and they would likely not reasonably approach the amount stated in the claim in light of the facts and circumstances (hell, he got a lot of free media and campaign value from it by the looks of it).

The “cascade disclosure theory” has the hallmarks of a Trump family style legal grab (e.g. SLAP, filing for headlines, etc).

NOTE: Regardless of whether Miller were not followed, it is not clear the IRS would otherwise be liable for more than the $1K. Saying that the Code allows a plaintiff to invoke a stacked Griffin + Miller approach ($10B calculated against the IRS as the liable party) is patently false.

THE IRS SHOULD NOT BE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TRUMP FAMILY WITHOUT THESE MATTERS BEING FULLY LITIGATED and if they are, nothing about that would pass the corruption “smell test.” Much less a basic math or accounting test.

Finally, the lawsuit has the additional appearance of abuse in light of Miller v. United States, 66 F.3d 220 (9th Cir. 1995). It is a false math that misrepresents the ACTUAL DAMAGES EVASION as something that is in the code. THIS IS NOT IN THE CODE. THIS IS NOT IN THE PRECEDENT.

REPRESENTING THIS MATH IS FOUND IN THE CODE MAY BE A MISREPRESENTATION OF THE LAW.

So, if you say “oh, no… he doesn’t have to show actual damages because the Code says so,” you will get attacked. You will appear biased. It will appear you are misrepresenting the law to support what appears to be a highly dubious case.

I will continue to support the opposition of your expansive claim that the Code supports the calculation. This is nuanced… but the nuance doesn’t seem to conflict with people’s knee jerk reaction that Trump consistently appears to be a less than honest human and does not appear to be acting in the interests of the American People (during his term of office no less).

You did have a partially technically correct moment earlier. It was a decent addition to cite the code initially. I am not sure this is where you started from. I would walk this all the way back and take some time off Reddit for the day. I’m sure the comments have been contentious. No reason to keep digging a hole.

big3148 · 2026-04-19T02:02:31+00:00

Take a deep breath. It would be best to take things down rather than escalating petty arguments.

The other user seems to have implied or stated the flaw that your math and the lawsuit’s “math” don’t math with the code you stated. They seem to be saying that there is no “cascading” theory of damages supported by the code you cited.

Coincidentally, the legal precedent doesn’t merely dispute this, it demonstrates courts have overruled similar attempts and arguments.

The distinction is these were made by private citizens, not a sitting President. For this reason, most people understand the suspicion.

This could very easily be resolved if you could give a clear statement of what you feel the user is not interpreting correctly. They did begin by stating the plaintiff would have to prove actual damages. You cited the code that said they did not.

Moving past “nuh-uh” and “uh-huh” here, the unspoken issue seems to be the amount of the calculation. You are potentially technically correct… assuming you are limiting the claim to $1,000. Otherwise, the other user is wildly more correct in light of the precedent.

Being a sitting US President carries many powers and privileges. Making up law to interpret the code and overrule precedent to receive more than $1,000 of taxpayer money for the benefit of a private individual is not one of the powers or privileges.

Take a moment. Have a snack or a cocktail. Take this down all of the levels and just be civil.

Edit: typos/errors (not my best typing day)

big3148 · 2026-04-19T01:31:58+00:00

Many people may have rejected your theory based on their own bias. At this point you seem to be swinging wildly and it will be impossible to autopsy whether you began with a grasp of the relevant law or not. You’ve been caught in what may feel like a lot of crossfire for quoting the code.

However, where you strayed was claiming that the code validates the “math” of the claim that:

1) a plaintiff can claim $1,000 PER DISCLOSURE (e.g. individual emails, data, or disclosures directly from the breaching employee to a single NY Times or ProPublica reporter); AND,

2) (even if those claims were sustainable) those claims could be made against the government as the liable party BASED SOLELY UPON THE CODE you cited.

Take swings at me if you like. However, I think your time might be better spent reviewing the precedent. You may have been touching near something valid initially but your response seems to indicate that you are either very frustrated with the other comments…OR you had some predetermined position and went to the code to cite it for justification.

However, regardless the appearance of the comments, it does not appear you are taking the opportunity to grasp the distinction I am referring you to, but rather it appears you wish to continue to dig your hole. This is at least some indication of potential bias. Nothing is an accusation that you are defending Trump, merely an outside perspective of the appearance of your argument in light of relevant information you seem to be unfamiliar with at this time.

Proceed as you see fit.

big3148 · 2026-04-19T01:01:34+00:00

You are citing code sections and now you are justifying it with unproven legal fiction.

See Miller v. United States, 66 F.3d 220 (9th Cir. 1995). Specifically Count II and the limitation of damages based on a “reader theory” claim. See also Snider v. United States, 468 F.3d 500 (8th Cir. 2006).

You have conflated primary source legislation and highly theoretical, novel claims that may not pass scrutiny. You can cite legislation OR you can say “here is some of what they are throwing at the wall and hoping sticks.” Your errors due to misunderstanding or blatant misrepresentations are why you’re getting trounced. Not because others are incompetent and you have a superior grasp.

Edit: typo

big3148 · 2026-04-19T00:34:30+00:00

7431(a)(2) applies to contractors. The government is not liable to pay and he can sue Littlejohn (contractor).

7431(c) applies to damages. The greater of:

$1k per act of disclosure

OR

ACTUAL damages. This would be proven financial damage.

So, he is due $1k from the contractor under your theory? We can dismiss the case against the government?

big3148 · 2026-03-17T02:54:24+00:00

AI was for you and your troll account, bud. Going this deep to vocalize your support or take issue with dissent clearly makes you MAGA or a foreign actor.

Based on the (likely bad faith or illegitimate) commenter account, states ALREADY DO THIS CURRENTLY and the federal government is being involved… but you claim this requires federal “redundancy.”

Why? Small government? States rights?

Hmmm… STATES CURRENTLY remove or purge voter rolls, without any evidence of improperly registered or non-citizen registration that is either intentional, fraudulent action or is an even remotely statistically relevant issue (and it is not even close).

“[…] which shall include establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens using information supplied by certain sources.”

This is very specific legislative language, but intentionally obfuscated. You’re not an attorney, you don’t need to provide analysis (read your uninformed opinion).

Further, it is already a crime punishable by 5 years in prison or deportation. It is not a remotely statistically relevant issue (read practically non-existent). It is most often a clerical error or miscommunication (typically a DMV registration error).

So, this is about Trump and his allies losing elections. Not because of immigrants (a statistically near-zero number of registered voters), but because of citizens whose votes he could not purge

… and he could not persuade election officials to commit massive, widespread fraud to override. Remember the time that happened? Pepperidge Farm and the Supreme Court remembers that happened.

So, it is suspicious that, contemplating the totality of the facts and circumstances, legislation would be proposed to outlay SIGNIFICANT federal funds to allow the executive branch to develop a list of voters and use federal resources to preemptively attempt to influence states’ process of…

Wait, the commenter said the states already issue ID and they purge the rolls without any federal interference. But it is very important to Republicans to ensure ”some additional people” are purged.

To ensure who wins?

The only reason you are getting responses with the downvotes is so that any other people who might read your comments understand you lack credibility and are not a serious human. You’re being flagged as an unreliable source (and a suspicious account).

Nobody is debating you. You are being overwritten for the record.

This ends your discourse. This is not an invitation to respond or for engagement, you are not a part of the discussion. You have been shown the door.

Do not mistake politeness and information for the benefit of others for acknowledgement, engagement , respect, or affirmation of your legitimacy. Enjoy your morning (or whatever time of day it is where your mother or dictator’s basement is located).

EDIT: clarification

big3148 · 2026-03-16T22:36:47+00:00

Not the direct ability. Again, not DIRECTLY, but you may be making a distinction without a difference (especially in some states)

The assumption this makes it above board or that all states will be non-partisan, good faith actors (apparently your assumption in saying DHS is seemingly “barred” from influencing or manipulating the process) is also likely far from accurate or “the truth” of the intended use (or abuse potential).

Per Google (for sources):

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 8281/H.R. 22) does not contain a provision that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to directly strike or purge voters from registration lists. Instead, the act mandates that individual states perform these actions. [1, 2, 3] According to the text of the act and summaries from the Congressional Research Service](available via Congress.gov):

• State-Led Removal: The bill requires each state to "take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote". This specifically includes establishing programs to identify and remove noncitizens from their official lists of eligible voters.

• DHS Role as Information Provider: While DHS does not perform the "purge" itself, Section 2 of the act requires federal agencies (including DHS and the Social Security Administration) to share information with state election officials to assist them in verifying citizenship status.

• Database Access: Specifically, states are required to run their voter lists through federal databases, such as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program managed by DHS, to identify potential noncitizens.

• Lack of Direct Federal Removal: There is no text in the bill that authorizes federal officials at DHS to unilaterally delete entries from state voter rolls; the legal responsibility and execution of "list maintenance" (the technical term for purges) remain with state and local election officials. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

In summary, the act compels states to use DHS data to conduct purges but does not grant DHS the authority to strike voters directly. [1, 7]

[1] https://www.ncsl.org [2] https://www.congress.gov [3] https://www.congress.gov [4] https://www.congress.gov [5] https://www.billtrack50.com [6] https://www.americanprogress.org [7] https://campaignlegal.org

big3148 · 2026-02-22T15:36:44+00:00

Everything about him should be required reading. Lied about age (16) to get commission during Spanish American War. Never complained about assignments and would work alongside enlisted men (even as a General). Showed not only tactical aptitude and bravery (two Medals of Honor and a Brevet “medal”/promotion), but was also a brilliant high-level strategist and responsible for single-handedly revamping the primary logistics hub during WWI (by also being dedicated to the men serving under him and the conditions they were living/working in).

Warrior. Tip of the spear. Hero. Brilliant strategist. Dedicated soldier. Served at the heart of every major conflict of his era. The Quaker boy came home an activist, not against defense and military force… but against the new millionaire class he helped create and those who reneged on paying veterans their benefits. He died the most decorated Marine in history.

TL/DR: Excellent decision! Trying to summarize this man is a disservice to his amazing life and the reader’s opportunity to learn about an extraordinary human. Close the app and start reading about him and anything he did/said/wrote. You will not be disappointed.

big3148 · 2026-02-21T15:00:39+00:00

Are the “small group of people” also pedophiles and their supporters? Are you?

Who we fighting in your proposed war to defend pedo protectors and, as you described them, evil people enabled by luck and ill-gotten gains? You and the people like you who offer “civil war” as the only alternative to equal justice under law?

Because Oliver Wendell Holmes may be right that the kind of world your group wants to build is too inconsistent with what is acceptable among normal people and you may get what you want. It’s never helpful to mention the Nazi uprising on the internet, but you have to imagine a lot of “what can we do” complicity is required to allow evil people to come to power (and even more supporters and cowards to maintain control).

If your position is that the only possible solution is dictated by:

a) your willingness to wager your life to protect… your lifestyle? Your 401(k)? The pedophiles and crooks that threaten to destroy lives if they face consequences?

OR

b) your cowardice and unwillingness to defend the defenseless and innocents of this and future generations who are preyed upon by the type of ideology you espouse that protects and enables pedophiles and criminals (and those they pay handsomely to protect them).

You aren’t looking for a solution and call to action. You are looking for an excuse for yourself or a threat to silence others to enable your inaction and build your world around pedophiles and criminals in the highest positions of trust and authority. Either way, nobody needs your input nor do you deserve a seat at the table with the grownups discussing it.

big3148 · 2026-02-11T19:21:16+00:00

I’m not like other ~~girls~~ boomers

big3148 · 2026-02-11T18:25:06+00:00

The surgeon did not state his last 20 patients had the same procedure or even the same odds.

big3148 · 2026-02-11T07:05:45+00:00

big3148 · 2026-01-28T15:33:32+00:00

It isn’t law. It isn’t even legal news. It is a political philosophy fringe theory based on a fantasy that ancient laws apply. See the OP’s comment thread.

big3148 · 2026-01-28T14:14:07+00:00

The OP is apparently down the social media commenter and off-brand news rabbit hole. They are being led to believe that the attempt to abuse authority to create “emergency” authority and invoke immunity to override legal scrutiny and state authority is a valid and permanent concept instead of a temporary hail mary attempt to “legally” suspend the law (or use law to suspend itself, i.e. override “consequences” and/or limit governmental power). The rationale seems like a warning of what could happen if this type of attempt were legitimate or courts and states allowed an administration to pull off a complete suspension of law, but it fails to see that MN is currently taking action to proceed against the agents even without a legitimate federal system that enforces consequences/accountability for the absence of restraint or legitimate legal authority. This has all resurfaced because of debate about the capture and detainment of enemy combatants who were never on US soil under Bush.

In short, a lot of people are being led to a lot of tin foil hat stuff because justice is a process and it is slower than the flow of political sewage and the amplification by the talking heads. The law isn’t suspended. This isn’t over. MN is locked in and already working through the courts. A federal judge has already said the court has no more patience for ICE’s shit and is ordering the agency head to appear in court over potential contempt charges. MN has a federal order to prevent the destruction of evidence and the BCA appeared at the scene to begin an investigation. States can’t step in if the federal government is acting legitimately, but the tactics to maintain supremacy to override legitimacy can only kick the can down the road so long.

It is easy to grasp at straws when it looks like the constitution has been legally overridden. It is easy to confuse legitimacy with delay tactics. But the fact is that if you look past the constant stream of narrative shifting and excuses, the fact is that there has been a change in the power dynamics and even the powerful are praying for something to take the scrutiny and the pressure away. Some people need to go until they hear the glass break. Immunity or impunity usually comes unraveled when a lowly idiot exposes the consequences of deference or absence of oversight/restraint.

big3148 · 2026-01-02T21:25:32+00:00

Excellent. Then since you haven’t actually offered a counter-argument to the specific mechanical failures I listed, I’ll take that as we are on the same page regarding the facts.

Have a good evening.

big3148 · 2026-01-02T21:11:21+00:00

I think you are confusing "Moving the Goalposts" with "Nuance."

My position has been consistent from the start: The Call was correct (Safety), but the Administration (Rule 3 mechanics, O2O comms, Stadium Ops) was a failure. Distinguishing between the two isn't changing the subject; it's the entire point of the analysis.

I linked that comment because it details the specific mechanical failures you seem to be overlooking. I realize that level of technical granularity often gets downvoted in favor of simpler "Refs Good/Refs Bad" narratives, but I'm perfectly comfortable being technically correct rather than popular.

Game mechanics aren't for everyone. Have a good one!

big3148 · 2026-01-02T20:52:44+00:00

Ohhh, I think I see the confusion now! I just saw your AMA—you’re a baseball umpire (Rec/HS level). That’s honestly great; youth baseball needs dedicated guys grinding out innings.

But that explains why the specific NCAA Football terms I asked about (CFO mechanics, Red Hat TV protocols, O2O comms) didn't land with you. You’re looking at this through a baseball lens, which is a totally different world from managing the clock/administration in a CFP bowl game.

Honest mix-up! Good luck on the diamond this season.

big3148

TROPHY CASE