Agreement To Forfeit Property: Fill & Download for Free

This is a question better suited for any search engine. You would have had your answer, long before I began to type.Mr. Manafort was convicted of five counts of tax fraud, two counts of bank fraud and one count of failure to disclose a foreign bank account.Then — weeks later, in his second trial — Manafort reached a plea bargain on two of the additional accounts (conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering).As part of the agreement, he also admitted guilt to an additional seven counts left unresolved from the earlier trial (bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy), and he forfeited several properties and accounts, and agreed to full cooperation with the prosecution.Then, he refused to cooperate, as he had promised to do.He is definitely guilty of all of the above — since juries found him guilty, or he admitted to guilt. There are about sixteen additional crimes which were dropped, in exchange for his agreement to cooperate. And, as mentioned, he then failed to cooperate.But, again — This is definitely a question better suited for any search engine. You would have had your answer, long, long, long before I began to type.You do know this is Quora, correct?

No. The way I see it, if you’re a man, you don’t get to decide on the abortion matter.Because the unborn baby is not yours. You have nothing to do with it: it’s not inside of you, it’s not “built” from your body resources, it’s not attached to your body. Finally, it’s not your ovum that was fertilized and activated into development.You have no more say about a fetus in your girlfriend’s body than about your girlfriend’s TV.Q: Wtf, I am the father! It was my sperm that fertilized the egg.The thing is: your sperm in someone else’s body is not really yours.As long as it’s in your body, it’s part of you. No one can compel you to ejaculate same as no-one can compel you to spit. But as soon as it gets out of you into someone else, it’s no longer your property. You can’t ask it back or give commands regarding what to do with it.It’s like if I sold you a hammer that I manufactured. The moment the deal is done, the hammer is no longer mine — and neither is whatever you build with it. I don’t have a say in how you’ll use it or what you’ll build with it, or what you won’t build with it.After the transfer of the hammer’s ownership, the hammer is yours, and you’re free to do with it whatever you will. End of story. Whether it was once mine or not is irrelevant.Similarly, consent to sex implies a man’s agreement to potential transfer of his body fluids to a woman, and a woman’s agreement to receive them should the transfer occur. All deals on fluid exchange are final: I can’t ask my saliva back after I’ve kissed you, nor my blood back after you’ve got blood transfusion from me.Q: But a baby has half of a man’s genes!So what? It has 98% of a chimp’s genes — perhaps they should have a say in human abortions too.Genes are not copyrighted intellectual property. And the idea that they determine parenthood in our society at all is medieval, toxic superstition. Parenthood has nothing to do with genes — but with accepted responsibility, as well as investment of time, resources and emotions! A child that carries half of my genes by default is no more mine than a hundred of offsprings of an average sperm donor. On the other hand, a baby that I adopted and chose to care for is more a child to me than it ever was to whoever has brought it into the world.And the fact that the majority of people nowadays use breedinghood as the key determinant of parenthood is somewhat disturbing to me.Bottom line is: Until a baby is born and I actively step into parenthood, I have nothing to do with whatever is going on in my girlfriend’s uterus — except that I lent her a “hammer” to “build” a fetus, but it doesn’t mean anything. If I fix her car for her — and even pour my personal antifreeze into it — it won’t make the car mine.Q: And yet, many biological fathers do suffer emotionally from women having abortions without their consent?I am sorry that they feel that way, but respectfully, it doesn’t matter. You have some sublime feelings about the fate of your genes, I understand it. Similarly, a painter who draws and sells pictures may have elevated feelings about her art — she might put her soul into each work and dream about her pictures decorating beautiful mansions or galleries. Selling a picture to a person who’d use it as a piece of toilet paper or to start a fireplace might be soul-shattering to her… and yet, the deal is done. If she sells a picture to a person, then the rights to do with it as they please are transferred to the new owner. The painter might ask them to treat the pictures gently, but “asking” is as far as it goes.If you’re unhappy about your sperm cells potentially suffering the fate that you wouldn’t like, maybe you should be more picky about who you make the deal with.Also, you can always sign a contract with a surrogate mother and then have every say in the fate of your future baby. In this case, the developing child is yours.Last but not the least, evolution is an evil bitch. Sexes are not biologically equal, and unfortunately, for a man to create a baby, he has to look for a woman who’ll agree to provide such luxury for him. That’s just how it is. If you want a guaranteed paternity, just adopt.Q: I think all you said is bullshit. An unborn baby belongs to both parents — that’s how it always was!Okay. Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps a not-yet born baby belongs to both parents.However, when something belongs to two people at the same time, you know what either of the two has the right to say at any moment? That’s right:— I don’t want it anymore. I want to forfeit my share, and you can keep it.If a man has enough money to pay a surrogate mother and to cover the expensive procedure of “fetus transfer”, then I personally wouldn’t see nothing wrong with respecting the right of a father to have a say in keeping a baby. And if pro-lifers opened a charity fund that provided for such procedures, my respect for their cause would’ve skyrocketed.But unless you can provide for the procedure… basically, you’re demanding that a woman carries your baby (it’s not hers anymore — she’s forfeited her share, remember) for you.I’m sorry, but it’s just basic principles of human interactions. When you give me something of yours to look after, I have the right to demand that you take it back at any moment — and if you refuse to, then maybe you don’t need it after all, and I can just get rid of it.If we jointly owned the same house, but I decided to give up my share and move out, and yet the electricity bills continued to be sent to me, then as a decent person I would notify you and advise to update the billing address/name. But if you ignored me, or said that “I’m sorry, there’s nothing to be done”, then I’d have every right to get rid of those bills and ignore them from then on.P.S. Of course there’s another issue: the fact that a man must hold responsibility for whatever a woman chooses to do with her body and her sperm (since it’s not longer man’s), is the same as if I sold you a baseball bat, then you used it to bash someone’s car, and the court obliged me to pay half of the damages because “I sold you the bat” — would’ve been funny if it weren’t sad. But that’s a different story, I suppose.

Many people who answer against Stand Your Ground laws do so for an inherent belief in the sanctity of life for the criminal. The justification is that the criminal, himself, is some sort of victim. He wouldn’t be making this action if not for desperation caused from a hard life or hard times, racism, prejudice, or some other form of social injustice. In truth, his action is society’s fault. One case, where local news interviewed the most impartial of witnesses, the sister and cousin of the burglar who was killed by a woman being robbed in her home, actually have the witnesses for the one who was killed arguing that the victim of the burglary should have let him go because his life was hard.“Everybody gotta’ look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood. How else he gonna’ get his money for clothes, or to go to school?In spite of how hard the news cast attempted to portray Mr. Johnson as the victim in this case, the argument’s fell completely apart that a person walking around with flamboyant jewelry and nice clothes has no other recourse for survival, than to rob from another person, more so the excuse that he would need that money to go to school, a function provided free for everyone.That said, we do have at least an argument for the protection of life of the burglar. It is to say that that under no circumstances is a person’s Right to Life is subject. It isn’t that I disagree with that as a concept. For example, I would never support acts of retribution beyond the scope of the law, allowing someone to hunt down a burglar, or even a murderer, after the fact for vigilante justice. Nor do I believe people should want to be victimized for the chance of dolling out righteous justice. That is playing fast and loose with morality, and I am not making a case for it here. In fact, once the attack flees, you really don’t have a right to kill them. There is no more danger, so no justification for self-defense.Of course, I know of no other rational people who are, but it serves to make the argument that this isn’t just about a potentially crazed murderer finally getting the chance to vent their pent up rage on the first innocent victim to break into their house. This, however, is the perception being given to “Stand Your Ground” laws and one which we are now struggling to get past to get back to the meat of the argument. The other answers on this question, for example, basically assume just that - that only a person who wants to harm others is placed in a situation. It is to say that they assume most people who are put in the situation to “stand their ground” did so willingly, and happily, that they wanted the opportunity. This assumption lends itself to the hyperbolic non-sequitur that all a person has to do to murder others is to casually state that they feel “threatened” and no other form of due process will be involved. It is to shift the burden of responsibility for the act from the person who first deprived the other their rights, to the one who finally deprived the other of theirs.In one case, I saw a comic from a leftist media thread comparing a gun owner defending his home to be a cold-blooded murderer, an evil looking caricature of what appeared to be a mafia thug holding a smoking gun, standing over the body of a poor innocent victim, what looked to be just a poor child with notably black features in a hoodie, bleeding from a hole in his chest in the ubiquitous “Hands up; don’t shoot”. The violent and murderous homeowner was dramatically standing on the words “Right to Bear Arms”, with the victim lying above the phrase, “Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”This depiction goes over the edge with a morally egregious false dichotomy to the point of pure propaganda. First, it is to say that if you defend yourself in your home, you’re a murderer, while the opposite is a victim, ignoring the context for the situation in the first place. Second, it ignores the overwhelming statistic that if you are hurt, and especially killed, in robbery, you are almost always the resident. Next, it ignores the fundamental hypocrisy that a person, in this context, is pursuing happiness at the expressed cost of another person’s right to life and liberty. And lastly, it ignores what many would find disquieting, but is grounded on a long standing tradition of law - there are certain choices you can personally make that forfeit your rights… including your Right to Life.Some might argue that you can’t forfeit your rights, such as your Right to Life. I disagree, as it is fundamentally wrong. People forfeit their rights all the time. Criminals commit a criminal act and forfeit their right to Liberty. This is the moral justification for prisons. Forfeiture of right to life also has a precedent, though not just to criminals. People who do it as a profession are called soldiers. A soldier accepts that when they enlist with the knowledge that they may go war. In war, it as accepted that an enemy has the right, as you do, to kill you at any time they have available, just as you do them. When warriors kill, if they acted within the bounds of accepted treaty, no side will ever seek to convict them of a crime. The fact is, it isn’t murder, because both participants joined the engagement having made that voluntary forfeiture of that particular right. In that context, we accept that the soldier chose to face this risk and that the enemy soldier acted honorably. This is a hard truth in the rules and law of warfare, but it makes the argument that there is precedent for a person to forfeit their Right to Life. It must also be said that forfeiting your Right to Life as a warfighter is an honorable choice. You accept the risks even though people you don’t know will gain most of the benefit and pay little of the costs. Though most, at least from the United States return home just fine, this is why we thank them, because many understand that societies cannot endure indefinitely if there exists no one who is willing to make that choice and sacrifice that fundamental right.Breaking into the home of an innocent person, however, is a very different matter. You haven’t entered into an implied agreement between an enemy you are engaged with on equal moral terms, who has also made the choice to attempt to kill you and has accepted the necessary risks and loss of life that competition involves. As a burglar, you also aren’t fighting for the protection or others, or for some ideal as warriors do. Instead, you’ve entered into an engagement in a protected space against an adversary which has made no agreement to accept risk and who has committed no justifiable grievance against you. This is what we call being innocent. Innocence, giving it up, is a voluntary choice one knowingly undertakes. The victim, in this case, the innocent homeowner, has a right to safety; of their person, their property, and that of their family. To break the threshold of a person’s home is to fundamentally violate that right. In this way, a criminal violating the rights of others, has forfeited their own. Violating the rights of innocents changes your own. Once we realize that there is a rational justification for why we need to accept that a criminal has made a choice which forfeits their right to life in breaking into an innocent victim’s home.It is the same argument that a rapist has violated numerous rights to a woman victim and has therefore, sacrificed many of their own rights. The woman, no one I assume would argue, has a right to defend her body and her person with anything, up to and including lethal force. I would happily defend a woman’s right to kill a man engaged in carnal assault against her. Of course, some would argue that she has the right to also just lay there and take it, as many have in the past. I find this augment disgusting on a human scale. It is to say that you should increase your chances of living if you just let a criminal have his way and then go on. This isn’t even to talk about how such cases usually get more gruesome the longer they persist, often ending in death if not surely ending in severe bodily or psychological trauma. I’m not even saying she needs a gun. If someone doesn’t want to carry a gun, I don’t want to force them to, or even say they should, if that is something you’re against. Slice his throat. Club him if you like. No such woman would ever receive a judgement from me. The ethical basis is that a person has an inherent right to protect their own life and their personhood.Several of the arguments focus on the nature of Stand Your Ground as being such that it creates aggression, but I argue the more valid point that it creates a situation where there is no duty to retreat. In defense of family, property, life, or personal safety, in most cases there is a sense that a person is obligated to seek a safer situation, first through nonviolent means. That translates loosely as run-away. In the event of a home invasion, however, we’ve been left with effectively no place left to run. Secondly, the duty to retreat maintains a systemic disadvantage to the victim, in that the victimizer holds the initiative and the stronger position. They are still a danger, even if you attempt to run.Furthermore, those who argue that self-defense equals force reasonably necessary to defend yourself, miss the point that that is a very retroactively subjective measurement. As a Marine who trained for war in Iraq, deployed, and who trained others, I know, as should be something we can all see, that we never know how much force is necessary to end a threat to a situation. Retroactively, anyone can make the case that, if a bullet ended encounter for the safety of the victim, well, maybe a knife could have saved both of their lives. If a knife was sufficient, then why not a fist? If you hit him, then why couldn’t you have just talked to him and asked him to step away. No, this placing an unreasonable amount of pressure and decision making on the victim who often has to react to only moments decision making time, and falling back only the training that they given themselves to negotiate the situation. Added to this that there is absolutely no way to know how much force was necessary to stop a dangerous situation. This is also why in the Marines, we use the greatest amount of force that we can rationally bring to the fight, because you can’t take back a decision where you tried to use almost enough force to end a threatening situation.This is why we can’t argue this way. Arguing for the minimum amount of force is arguing on behalf of the criminal aggressor and making a case against the victim’s rights. It also relies on a very subjective measurement of perceived threat to, in the language of the left, blame the victim. This is why we argue based on rights. What rights did the two have when the situation began? Whose rights were violated? What rights were given up by whose choices?Finally, we need to stop giving a voice to people making a case for protection of the criminal intruders. We, instead, need to educate all children in the very concept of what it means to lose your rights, and what it means to have them taken from you. They need to understand and be able to say to themselves, “If I get caught, I could die. I won’t go to jail. Whoever owns this house might kill me and he won’t even get in trouble for that.” Let them be reminded of the intrinsic cost/benefit, risk/reward structure of crime. Once can we do this, we can see there is no moral argument for ever holding someone at fault who has ended the life of an intruder while in the sanctity of their own home. We also can’t hold a person who was uninvited into someone’s home as a victim when it was their choices which caused the consequences they suffered. This is the rationale that the law observes and why Stand Your Ground Laws exist.A note on rights vs statistics.This answer was a bit different than most of my answers. I prefer to back up what I write with as much statistical and analytical background information as I can. An example of this would be What is the root cause of mass gun violence in the US, and how should it be solved? This answer, however, was very different. Had one asked me about the rate of gun deaths, I would acknowledge that most people killed by a gun in the home do so because of negligence with the weapon. This, of course, is also not speaking on account of suicides, which is abuse of the weapon. Both of these statistics make a very good argument against having a gun in the home, which rationally I wouldn’t argue with on the basis of statistics. As a member of the gun owning community, I will agree that there are many people who should not own or even operate a firearm. As a new father, I am also aware of the extreme importance of safely securing your firearms. Many people in our community fail in this responsibility, a truth I absolutely won’t argue with.This answer, however, was about rights. Rights are fundamental to the human condition and not subject to departing if they are good ideas in implementation. They cannot be taken away from a person, regardless of the facts that surround it, or even if it may not be a good idea for them personally to exercise them. Statistics and measurements can be used to help us know how best to express our rights, but they can never used to take a right of someone else away. The only thing that takes a right away is a voluntary choice they make. In this regard, while I personally feel that owning a gun may not be the best option for defense of a home for many people, because I know that many of my fellow gun owners do not respect the responsibilities of that right like they should, I fundamentally support any law that seeks to guarantee a person’s right to their own self-defense, and particularly, that of their family and their property in their own home.Thanks for reading!For more answers like this check out The American and follow my blog War Elephant for more new content. Everything I write is completely independent research and is supported by fan and follower pledges. Please consider showing your support directly by visiting my Patreon support page here: Help Jon Davis in writing Military Novels, Articles, and Essays.