Money Order Deposit Form For Restitution &Amp: Fill & Download for Free

Cool question! Here goes!Most Federal Prison Commissaries sell a variety of snack foods which inmates can purchase and eat (or sell to other inmates, usually at a markup!).These snacks include items such as:Candy Bars, Cookies, Candies, Chips, Nuts, Crackers, Cheese, Granola Bars, Pretzels, Honey Buns, and - ICE CREAM! Although you have to eat the ice cream right away after buying it, so that it does not melt (unless you are able to get your hands on a clean bucket, and fill it with ice to act as a refrigerator).Here is an excerpt with some snacks listed, from the commissary list for the Federal Detention Center in Miami:If an inmate has enough money in their “account”, they can buy these and other items from the commissary.Money can come into the account in two ways:Money deposited by a friend or family memberInmate pay (pennies per hour) deposited by the prisonBut there are limits imposed, on how much an inmate can spend, on a prison by prison basis. And if as an inmate you are paying restitution while in prison, you have to be careful how much you spend at the commissary so as to not draw attention.Some crafty inmates find ways around the limits by “contracting” with other inmates who don’t spend the limit. They have money deposited in the low spender’s account by a family member. They then give the low spender a cut - like $20, to spend for themselves. Then they provide a shopping list of items to the low spender to buy for them.Look here for the entire FDC Miami commissary list: https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/mim/MIM_CommList.pdfThe prison commissary is run by a Corrections Officer. They are mean sons of guns, so when your turn comes at the commissary window, you had better be ready to order and have your list filled out right. Or else, like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld, “no commissary for you!”Another way to get snacks is when an inmate receives a visit from a family member or friend on their approved visitors list. There are snack vending machines in most prison visiting rooms. But the inmate cannot purchase any items directly. Only the visitor can make the purchase form the machines. They can then give the snacks to the inmate. Inmates are not allowed to have or even touch money.Hope my answer has helped!

I have just received a letter from the Ayn Rand Institute explaining why they applied for PPP benefits, and their reasons are pretty much what I expected.Ayn Rand was opposed to government redistribution of money, not because it is wrong to accept money, but because it is wrong for the government to take other people’s money in the first place. Consequently, if you have been taxed all your life, you have been robbed. Receiving any money back is simply restitution.The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.—Ayn Rand, “The Question of Scholarships,” The Objectivist, June, 1966, 11 -Ayn Rand LexiconThe Ayn Rand Institute has published an article explaining the reason for their actions, and they are exactly what I suspected. They see the money they get back from the government as restitution for not only the money they were forced to pay as taxes, but the harm done by the Covid-19 lockdown.To Take or Not to TakeThe government wants to offer some relief to the public — for damages caused by its own orders, regulatory agencies, and executive diktats. That relief comes down to sending out newly printed currency, wrecking everyone’s economic calculations and making your livelihood depend not upon your productive ability but upon your political connections — your closeness to the spigot from which the new money gushes forth.You can’t achieve the good of all by robbing everyone and then distributing the booty to some.In this context, it would be morally wrong for pro-capitalists to humbly step aside and watch the new money go only to anti-capitalists. That would turn justice upside down.———————————————————————————————————The $2.3 trillion emergency “stimulus” will be paid for by extracting wealth from everyone, including the Ayn Rand Institute and its contributors, many of whom have already been damaged financially. Since raising taxes is not politically viable, the stimulus will be paid for by “deficit financing” — a euphemism for raiding everyone’s savings.If ARI gets government relief money, it will be, for us, partial restitution for government-inflicted losses.EDIT:A hysterical critic has reminded me about Ragnar Danneskjöld, a character in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Ragnar took up piracy in order to steal from governments and pay restitution to their victims. He attacked government relief ships, sold their cargo and bought gold which he deposited in the Midas Mulligan Bank in Galt’s Gulch. He created accounts for each of the strikers, based on their tax returns. He was providing restitution for taxes, which Ayn rand considered to be theft. The only reason Ragnar’s friends objected to his piracy was not that it was wrong to rob the government of money that was stolen from innocent victims, or because it was wrong to accept such restitution, but because it was dangerous. His friends didn't want him risking his own life on their behalf.Ayn Rand recommended compliance with even unjust laws, because the government has the guns. Trying to stand up against the government using force of arms would be fairly futile. The solution to unjust laws is through the government itself, and advocacy of cultural change.A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom.Ayn Rand, “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 235

I have a friend whose family owns a business with about fifty employees. A clerk, an office manager, a VP/Owner, and the President/Owner man the main office with regard to that business. On top of that, the President separately owns a chain of mini-warehouses (→ storage units for rent), and in the beginning, he had one more clerk in that office who solely worked on that side business.The bigger business had a great system of controls. Business data was entered into the best version of the premier accounting software; this data was received and analyzed, monthly, by the preeminent accounting firm in our city. For you bookkeeping fans, that means the books were closed and reopened every month, which is a more stringent form of checks and balances than many small businesses would use. For instance, these end-of-period adjustments might happen annually, for income tax purposes; or, quarterly.It’s germane to state that the President was not aloof in this process. He came to work every day and didn’t delegate much decisionmaking to subordinates, despite them having titles like office manager or vice-president.The smaller business — the storage unit business — did not have anything like that level of control built into its administrative and operational structure.The President intervened when new units were constructed and when delinquent renters had the property in their units auctioned off. The clerk or the VP would sign pro forma (template-style) lease agreements, and the clerk received and processed payments. — Here’s the rub.Rather than using QuickBooks, bookkeeping software that makes printing off reports easy based on data that has been entered, and — since it is set up with double-entry bookkeeping in mind — makes fudging transactions more difficult, the President just had the (accounts receivable [A/R]) clerk working in MS Excel.Every month, the spreadsheet would have the name of each tenant and how much each tenant owed. When the tenant came in and paid, the “amount due” cell was zeroed out (→ $0.00), and in printed form, it would serve as a “report” of who had paid and who was delinquent just based on who didn’t have a $0.00 next to his or her unit number.I’m not saying that someone in QuickBooks couldn’t game this system to hide theft of rental income, but it’d be more difficult. Receipt of a payment from a unit tenant should make the bank account, a current asset account, rise in amount and, correspondingly, the amount of rental income, an income account, rise by the same amount.One easily could print out a QuickReport showing how people had paid from month to month, and the likelihood of finding irregularities, in my opinion, would have been very much higher. Why the President didn’t want the clerk to use QuickBooks and instead use a 1990s technology instead, I really don’t know, but it would come back to bite him, big time.The clerk, at some point, began pocketing the cash that renters brought in and depositing only the checks. Probably, this happened over time, lest it be obvious, no matter how you recorded the A/R, that something major had happened.Whether the cash or checks were deposited in the bank, all she had to do to prevent the next month’s statement from showing delinquency (due to her embezzlement) on the renter’s account was to change the number from $X to $0.00 in her Excel spreadsheet. — That kept the renters from knowing what she was doing. Specifically, putting the cash in her purse.This went on for long enough that, by the end, the President and his son did not know exactly how much she’d stolen. They thought, at first, it was around $50,000. But, in the end, it was determined that she’d stolen more than $100,000.A few things were suspicious, maybe, about a change in her lifestyle. She had five children, and pretty soon, most of them had braces. She got a boob job (you can’t make this up). — When suspicions of her theft arose, she quit and falsified a résumé she submitted to a local dentist for employment as his new office manager. Hilariously, she got the job, but the President and his wife found out just in time to give the dentist a call.Her first ten minutes or so were her only ten minutes or so as the office manager of that dental office. The dentist took her aside and fired her upon arriving for her first shift.Due to the shabby way the President had her keeping the books for that business, it was difficult to determine what actually she’d done. As you can imagine, that made it difficult for the local district attorney to charge her with a crime, because it was unclear what crime she’d committed. They couldn’t (like with some forensic accountant’s unqualified opinion) accuse her of stealing $$$,$$$.$$. At least, not at first.Because she had embezzled so much money, she was able to retain a felony criminal attorney, who had, in the past, been the misdemeanor criminal/not-yet-district-court civil/family court judge for the county. — That meant she was able to prolong the presentation to the grand jury and, after that, and after she was formally arraigned, to negotiate a plea while her case was dropped from the docket due to continuous continuance requests.In Texas (and, in business, I know this personally, as I’ve had to file felony charges against people before), you want a plea deal to be struck, because you have, basically, and at least in this county, two options: (1) send the people to prison; you get no restitution; or, (2) the person/people get(s) probation and you get enforceable restitution.If you don’t get the court to order restitution (or the DA to request it per these rules), then your only other remedy is a civil lawsuit; and, in Texas, the law is heavily weighted in favor of debtors. Even criminally liable ones. — If you are single, you’re allowed to have one house, one car, and something akin to enough money to live on and survive on, which is a vague aspect of the statute, and probably is somewhere around $5,000 cash. If the single person has more assets than this, then you may be able to get a court to order the sheriff to seize them for you. Maybe.If the person is married, then it goes to two houses, two cars, and <blah blah blah about money> ~= $10,000+, which I assume is an amount a judge determines. Having five school-age kids with braces makes me think the number would be much higher.Needless to say, you want the person to get on felony probation; comply with that probation for the term set out; and, to pay you restitution until you are made whole again. In this case, that is — if you can determine, or otherwise agree upon an amount with the alleged party and her ex-judge attorney.After three years, she took a plea offer and agreed to reimburse, in the form of restitution, over $100,000 to her ex-employer, representing funds that she embezzled from a side business of the President of a relatively small corporation.Thankfully, she took that course, because — keeping it on the criminal docket — the state’s attorney represented the victim (i.e., there were no costs of prosecution due from the victims).That would have been very different had this gone to court in the local district court. Then, the people already out $100,000 would have had to retain their own attorney, because — since this lady had already retained an attorney, I would not consider this to be something about which you could represent yourself while still running multiple businesses).A wonderful end-of-case scenario: You lose your case. She has countersued and loses. The judge issues a take-nothing judgment and makes both parties responsible for his or her own attorneys’ fees, meaning you’re now out, at least, another $30,000.