On May 24, 2015 the New York Times published an article about an alleged scheme of fraud and corruption involving the real estate industry and politicians. One of the individuals was intricate to the scheme because he had “access.” In fact-finding of accounts, translation of the stated words to words more reflective of facts is usually necessary; i.e., the Code must be consulted. For example, buyers do not often pay much for access. What they pay much for is influence. This is illustrated by the difference between getting a leveraging person’s telephone number versus getting a leveraging person’s favorable decision.

Within the article an individual is described as “very charming” and “he doesn’t lie.” This demonstrates that the profiling account of the individual could not be true. These attributes should be integrated according to the rules of the Code. Firstly, few attributes deserve the modifier “very.” Rare are such extremes. Secondly, an individual could not be both charming and honest as charm requires the exercise of tact and not always presenting the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All individuals lie more or less. (Cf. all financial statements contain false assertions – the only practical threshold issue is whether these underlying assertions are materially misleading individually or in the aggregate.)

The article contains a reference to the difference between being a victim and being a co-conspirator as subject to the whim of the prosecuting attorney. Indeed, the race to the proverbial courthouse is a highly significant factor in the categorization of individuals. The Code reads as follows: He/she who is fastest to fold, snitch, and cover his/her toches (i.e., minimize one’s punishment) at the expense of others may be rewarded with the temporary friendship and merciful blessings of the prosecuting attorney. Per David Simon’s Omar Little: It’s all in the game.