Are police allowed to kill people to catch a killer? Last time I checked, speeding didn't result in perverting the course of justice, or even harm anyone (as opposed to "dangerous driving"). And the police can be prosecuted for driving so as to endanger the public during a chase of a speeder. Out of interest, have you ever exceeded the speed limit? If yes, then are you anything other than a complete hypocrite?
By your logic, every Congressman, Senator, and President in the history of the USA should be behind bars for lying to the people and the government. Surely their lies are no different to stock fraud or other malicious BS-ing? Also see my recent post, explaining the malicious lying (as opposed to normal adversarial legal conduct) by the prosecution to enhance their plea-bargaining leverage. I don't understand this double-standard. Either lying in a judicial case or supsected crime is a criminal offence - and 99% of politicians, presidents, and prosecutors spend the rest of their natural lives in jail; or it is not - and Stewart walks because she did nothing wrong other than "lie" about a perfectly legal action. So Turok, I take it you think Bush and every living ex-president, along with the entire Martha Stewart prosecution team, should be in jail right now?
Cutten: >By your logic, every Congressman, Senator, and President >in the history of the USA should be behind bars for lying to >the people and the government. Whether "every Congressman, Senator, and President" should be behind bars is one thing (many should be), but you can't support that statement through my logic. My previously stated logic however DOES support this statement which is similar... "every Congressman, Senator, and President in the history of the USA should be punished IF a jury is unanimously convinced that they lied to investigators in the course of their investigation. >Surely their lies are no different to stock fraud >or other malicious BS-ing? In that I could hardly agree more. >I don't understand this double-standard. I challenge you to find an example of this "double-standard" in my thinking. >Either lying in a judicial case or suspected crime is a >criminal offence - and 99% of politicians, presidents, >and prosecutors spend the rest of their natural lives >in jail; Once again you are putting words in my mouth that don't exist. I have not once called for Martha to be jailed. Perhaps it would be justice, perhaps not, but I have not called for it once. I have repeatedly used the word "teeth" and I believe the punishment should fit the crime. I am absolutely unsure as to the level of punishment I would mete out if I were tasked with sentencing Martha. >So Turok, I take it you think Bush and every living >ex-president, along with the entire Martha Stewart >prosecution team, should be in jail right now? Again, you haven't heard me say that Martha should be jailed so once again you are putting word in my mouth that don't exist. I have only commented on the legal grounds of the conviction and my opinion that it is wise to expect truth in the process of official investigations and to back that expectation up with teeth. So, to answer your question again, Yes, IF they are convicted of lying to investigators in the course of their investigation they should be punished. JB
Martha could have avoided all this if she had given truthful answers to the investigators. This of course would have fingered Bacanovic, which she clearly did not want to do. The question is why. Did she simply feel an obligation to protect Bacanovic? Or did she feel that by telling the truth it would have put her in a compromised position. And if yes to the lattter, was she afraid that none of her rich and wealthy friends would have trusted her or continued to accept her if she yielded secrets? Or are there other skeletons in her closet, illegal or questionable schemes that she thought would be unearthed if she cooperated with the investigation? Maybe Bacanovic knows a lot more about Martha and stock deals and would have retaliated if Martha said, "Yes Peter had Doug call me and told me to sell, so I sold." My guess is that the Martha Stewart criminal epic may not have seen its last chapter.
regarding the Supreme Court of California. The State Supreme Court does not just jump to attention anytime that it appears that a State law is being violated. They are tasked with resolving cases that have been filtered through lower courts. That's the way that the legal process has been, and there simply isn't any good reason to change it now. On a Federal scale, the last time that the U.S. Constitution has had an amendment "ratified" was the 27th Amendment that says that Congress cannot raise their own pay without giving the voters a chance to respond to the pay raise. The 27th Amendment was initially ratified by only 6 states back in September of 1789. - - - Two hundred and three years later, the Amendment was fully ratified as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Now who is George Bush kidding when he says that he wants an amendment to the Constitution regarding "same-sex" marriages ratified promptly? :eek:
A very interesting 25 pages of post. It is absolutely amazing to me how many of you are just mind boggling dumb. Martha THOUGHT she had traded on inside information!!! The Feds were investigating that potential CRIME!!! It is a crime, regardless of what some of the more dense people here like to opine. I suggest you try the Russian stock market if you like it free and open, LOL. The Feds take "obstruction of justice" as a very serious charge as it undermines the entire legal system. Nixon was driven from office over the "coverup" aspect. He did not even know beforehand about the break-in. A person agrees to an explicit agreement in order to take his company "public". Don't like it don't go public. Lots of big companys stay private. Koch Bros., Betchel etc. Do you know why all other countries keep most of their money in our bonds? Because it is safe. They will get it back when they need it. Only US and Brit can say that. We are a nation of laws. Are there abuses? Absolutely! Think if you had money in Russian market and Putin comes out Monday moring on Russian "squawk box" and declares market closed for re-evaluation of situation with monetary imbalances. I would bet the "long winded" nonsensical Libertarians would go nuts and scream for the Government to help them out, LOL. I remember when Mitterand "nationalized" the French banks in the early 80's. As I said the post are interesting with 3 or 4 people seem to have actually read the facts about the case. SteveD
Cutten, regarding the fraud charges that were dropped I could hardly agree with you more. A person has the right to proclaim his/her innocence in this country and it was the proclamation that was at the heart of those charges (they said that her proclamation amounted to fraudulent stock manipulation). That those charges were ever filed was a miscarriage of justice in itself and thankfully there was a judge on board that saw through the prosecutors BS. JB
>Turok, we are not talking about two individuals or >corporations in a civil case. We are talking about blatant >violation of an existing state law. Yes, it is the violation of a law that is being challenged on constitutional grounds as we would expect. I am in no way condoning the breaking of California law. I am only responding to your statement about the position of the CA Supreme Court. >And, yes their position is nonsense. >Just as the position of the Florida Supreme >court was nonsense during the last presidential >election Apparently whole "emergency" topic just passed you by because the situation in CA is NOTHING like the situation in FL during the Presidential election. (either that or you are familiar yourself with CA law and simply disagree which is fine as well) In the Florida case there WAS good reason for the Supreme Court to get involved immediately and to act because a finding of emergency was not difficult to come by. There wasn't the weeks/months/years for that case to wend its normal path. It needed to be dealt with PRONTO. In the CA case there simply is NO HURRY because no damages are likely from the contracts that are being issued in the likely event they are ruled illegal constitutionally. Again, I am not commenting on the law or the marriages, only that the CA Supreme Court is taking the position that the we in the State ask them to take -- filter non-emergency cases through the lower courts. Any other position overloads the Supremes and keeps them from the cases we want them to be available for. JB
Wags, you're a little short on your constitutional amendment history. Here is a list of the amendments including all those started in the last century and ratified, in some cases, within months. http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html But, back to the felony convictions for lying to investigators and lying to the police, under your and Turok's beliefs, one should be at risk of prosecution and serving jail time for the following: 1. You are not paying close attention to your speed and are doing 45 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. When you are pulled over and asked if you know how fast you were going you tell the cop you were only doing 35. But he has you clocked on his radar at 45. Should the cop a) arrest you on the spot for obstructing his investigation or, b) inform you that felony charges will soon be filed against you? 2. You had a beer at a friend's house on the way home from work. After leaving for home you are pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. The cop asks you if you have been drinking. You say, no, thinking you are so tired you might not pass a sobriety test or maybe his breathalyzer might mistakenly show you are over the legal limit and you really don't want to deal with this. So the cop says I smell alcohol on you breath and he makes you take his breathalyzer test (which you submit to because you don't want your license taken for refusing). The test shows some alcohol in your system but well under the legal limit. Should the cop a) let you go, or b) arrest you for lying and obstructing justice, or c) inform you that felony charges will soon be filed against you? Now, lets see how this could become a conspiracy charge and get both you and a friend in trouble. Again, you are not paying close attention to your speed and are doing 45 MPH in a 35 MPH zone. You are again pulled over by a cop. While stopping, your friend, in the car with you, tells you not to admit how fast you were going but to say you thought you were going the speed limit. When cop asks you if you know how fast you were going you tell the cop you were only doing 35 but he has you clocked on his radar at 45 and tells you so. You say, well, my friend said I should say I was only going 35. Now, should the cop a) arrest both you and your friend on the spot for conspiring to obstruct his investigation or, b) inform both of you that felony charges will soon be filed against the two of you for conspiracy and obstruction of justice? See where this is leading and how this "obstruction of justice for lying" can quickly become an abuse by the authorities? Especially since it is a felony. This law is very worrisome to many of us.
I think if you read the article linked in my previous post on this subject, you will see that the AG did indeed petition the Supreme Court to grant an injunction and would not have done so had it not been a legal alternative under Kalifornia law. The fact of the matter is that it is the mayor violating the law who should be taking the matter through the courts before he decides to just violate the law. Learning the law doesn't come from osmosis from your partner of ten years who went to law school while you knew him just as my knowlege of law didn't come from my life long friend who is now a state supreme court chief justice.