The Democrat's answer to fraud: Make discovering it illegal!

T. A. Gardner said:
No, it isn't because it's PUBLIC INFORMATION!


False equivalence. My name and address aren't a public business. Running a daycare center or hospice is a business, even if you run it out of your house. You are licensed by the state and would normally expect and want people to know the address and contact information to generate more business.
Click to expand...
I knew you wouldn't.

Hypocrit.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
OMFG. You are a complete idiot. The purpose of this law is to make that information no longer public. The persons apply and get a way to keep the actual information from being public while they are given some way to still be contacted through the Sec of State's office.

OMFG. Once again, you are a complete idiot. The address of the business is not kept private. It is the private address of the employees.
Click to expand...
So you say. What that means in effect is that fraudulent businesses could shield themselves from investigation by anyone outside of government and if government has no interest in finding that fraud, as Nick Shirley among others has amply demonstrated now, the fraudulent business could continue unobstructed and anyone outside government that tried to report it would potentially be open to criminal charges for doing so.
 
We see that all the time now in the dying West....where it is not the wrong doers who get hurt by power.....it is those who talk about the wrong doers.

Buckle Up...This is going to hurt.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So you say. What that means in effect is that fraudulent businesses could shield themselves from investigation by anyone outside of government and if government has no interest in finding that fraud, as Nick Shirley among others has amply demonstrated now, the fraudulent business could continue unobstructed and anyone outside government that tried to report it would potentially be open to criminal charges for doing so.
Click to expand...
Again, they are free to investigate. Just don't doxx people. It's that simple.
 
AProudLefty said:
Again, they are free to investigate. Just don't doxx people. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
The way the law is written, it becomes incumbent on the person investigating to prove they aren't doxxing the person claiming harm. If it were incumbent on the person claiming harm to demonstrate that and show that other than public information is involved--along with the state not allowing a business to shield even basic information about itself--I might not care. But the way the law is currently written, it opens up anyone investigating businesses that have an immigrant in any capacity as part of that business to serious criminal indictment and possibly ruinous fines and prison time.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The way the law is written, it becomes incumbent on the person investigating to prove they aren't doxxing the person claiming harm. If it were incumbent on the person claiming harm to demonstrate that and show that other than public information is involved--along with the state not allowing a business to shield even basic information about itself--I might not care. But the way the law is currently written, it opens up anyone investigating businesses that have an immigrant in any capacity as part of that business to serious criminal indictment and possibly ruinous fines and prison time.
Click to expand...
So it comes down to lawsuits?

Again, no doxxing, no worries.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yep, that's what Democrats in California want to do, leading the charge against investigative journalists like Nick Shirley. Pass laws that make what he does illegal...

www.deseret.com

California addresses fraud with the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

California lawmakers are advancing the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," following increased scrutiny about rampant fraud in the state
www.deseret.com www.deseret.com

bigleaguepolitics.substack.com

Newsom-Backed Bill Sparks Alarm Over Potential Crackdown on Fraud Investigations

Critics warn California proposal could criminalize investigative reporting Elon Musk and watchdogs raise free speech concerns as debate intensifies.
bigleaguepolitics.substack.com bigleaguepolitics.substack.com

nypost.com

California tries to criminalize journalism — to protect fraud

A bill moving through the California Legislature would give taxpayer-funded organizations the power to demand the removal of videos recorded in public spaces.
nypost.com nypost.com

www.smobserved.com

California Democrats Advance "Stop Nick Shirley Act" to Shield Immigrant Fraudsters from Public Scrutiny

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - In a brazen 11-2 vote on April 13, 2026, the California Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced AB 2624, a bill that critics are rightly calling the "Stop Nick Shirley Act." Authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, this legislation masquerades as "privacy protections" for...
www.smobserved.com

That's the ticket for Democrats! Make free speech illegal, jail the reporters, and ignore the fraud because for them fraud of the sort being uncovered is good and results in lots and lots of campaign donations. Can't have that money pipeline cut off by responsible use of tax dollars and rooting out fraud!
Click to expand...
Blatantly against the 1st Amendment. Anyone who signs onto this could legally be removed from office.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
So, now you're claiming if someone running a fraudulent business registers with the state to keep their information private, journalists and others with an interest in making that fraud public would be barred from doing so under penalty of law.
Click to expand...
Wow. You seem to insist on proving you are a complete moron or so deep in the cult you can't understand simple English.
The only things that the law does is protects the person's home address and prevents people from posting their image with the intent for violence against them. Nowhere does it prevent fraud from being made public. Not only that, they can't register with the state as a business, they can only register as an employee of that business and then they have to provide evidence that they have been threatened in the last year.

You failed to address how my statement about Donald Trump which reveals his name and his ties to fraud would violate the law in any way. It wouldn't even if he was registered with the state because it doesn't reveal his private address and isn't posted with the intent to cause violence against him. So clearly your argument is so insane that you can't even try to defend it by pointing out how stating Donald Trump committed fraud would violate the law.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
Matt Dillon said:
Blatantly against the 1st Amendment. Anyone who signs onto this could legally be removed from office.
Click to expand...
Thanks for arguing that every Republican that says ICE agents shouldn't be doxxed and their home addresses should be protected should be removed from office. Can we start with Donald Trump?

Maybe you should sit this one out since it only proves you are in a cult since you don't know what you are arguing about.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
By the language of the bill simply having an "immigrant" complain you've been investigating them.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for you to provide any support from the actual bill that would even come close to this conclusion.

Here is the bill and the part that provides criminal penalties. Nowhere does it say what you claim. Investigation isn't a crime under the bill. Complaining someone has been investigating them doesn't meet the requirements of the proposed law. Posting the the person committed fraud isn't a crime under the bill. The only crime is if the "investigator" posts information to social media with intent that another person commit a crime of violence against the person they posted about.

6218.20.​

(a) (1) A person shall not post on the internet or social media, with the intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence against a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or client, or other individuals residing at the same home address, the personal information or image of a designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address.
(2) A violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, imprisonment of either up to one year in a county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(3) A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or client, or other individuals residing at the same home address, is a felony punishable by a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under any other provision of law.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Still waiting for you to provide any support from the actual bill that would even come close to this conclusion.

Here is the bill and the part that provides criminal penalties. Nowhere does it say what you claim. Investigation isn't a crime under the bill. Complaining someone has been investigating them doesn't meet the requirements of the proposed law. Posting the the person committed fraud isn't a crime under the bill. The only crime is if the "investigator" posts information to social media with intent that another person commit a crime of violence against the person they posted about.

6218.20.​

(a) (1) A person shall not post on the internet or social media, with the intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence against a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or client, or other individuals residing at the same home address, the personal information or image of a designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address.
(2) A violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, imprisonment of either up to one year in a county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(3) A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or client, or other individuals residing at the same home address, is a felony punishable by a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under any other provision of law.
Click to expand...
See the video above. Several California legislators spell it out clearly. YOU ARE FUCKING TOTALLY WRONG ON THIS BILL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top