Can somebody please explain to Judge Martini that foregone revenue (being that the city sold land it owned way below its value), is not that different from higher expenses due to theft?
Basically it means that the Judge would have problems with embezzlement, but not skimming.
So if the Judge had a yard sale, and wanted to sell you a vase for $10 (that would sell on eBay for that amount), and you give him $2 and run, he wouldn’t have a problem with that? I hope he has a yard sale sometime soon. (Sorry, best quick analogy I could think of on the fly…the other alternative being just calling the guy an idiot who may be on the take.)