| Author |
Message |
    
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, March 6, 2004 - 4:13 pm: |     |
I expect she could have gotten a deal, the Feds will almost always deal and under the guidelines, from what I've read, she's only facing 16 months now so if they had dealt down she probably could have gotten probation, maybe some house arrest. Hard to say without knowing the details.
Cato - why do you think she was innocent? Do you know the elements of the charges? They are pretty simple. My experience is that juries are smarter than you might think. Have seen a lot of jury trials?
My undersntanding is that in the case of the priest abuse cases the statute of limiations has run, which is why there have not been more criminal prosecutions (thought in any even your criticism is of prosecutors, not jurors). |
bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 533
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 1:29 am: | |
Have you ever been called to jury duty, Cato? I have been. Twice in 19 years. The last time I was excused, temporarily, because my employer warranted me too "important" to spare at the time; I served 2 months later when things had calmed down. I spent my day milling around with the rest of the "little" people, reading my book, and sunning myself at the lunch break. I've never been put on a jury since I have a prosecutor sibling, but that excuse is not enough to avoid showing up.
I'm curious: how often do you, the average MOL addict, get summoned for jury duty? I haven't received the dreaded blue envelope since my last stint 3 years ago, my sweetie served last year and received another summons last week (he's excused since he reported he'd served within the last 3 years). It seems so random. |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 436
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 7:05 am: | |
Let this be a warning to us all. |
Dave
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6544
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
About a month ago and was excused for work related reason (self-employed). It was my first time being called. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4903
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
I think they may have thrown away my juror card. For the first 15 years we lived here I got called about once every three or four years. After being held there for two weeks about ten years ago with never being on a jury I think they took pity on me.
My occupation makes me very suspicious as far as civil cases are concerned. Plaintiff's lawyers don't like insurance people. In criminal cases since I look like the Republican from Hell, I was usually the first preemptive (is that the right term?) challenge by the defense.
The one time I came close to be seated on a jury one of the witnesses, an MPD officer, was someone I was casually acquainted with. Another time I had a casual acquaintance with the judge!!
|
Rebecca Raines
Citizen
Username: Robin_realist
Post Number: 88
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 7, 2004 - 8:17 pm: | |
So the way to get out ot jury duty is to befriend every law enforcement officer you can find. I'll keep that in mind. Might be a good policy anyway.
I've been called 5 or 6 times in about 20 years in 5 of the 6 different states we've lived in (it takes awhile for your info to get listed or something). I've never gotten out of it, even when I was the primary caregiver, breast-feeding mom of a less than one year old. I've served on two cases: Shop-lifting in MO (guilty) and one recieving drugs (not-guilty, not enough evidence) NJ. I find it very interesting, but would rather do my regular job any day of the week than sit around waiting. R. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 466
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 1:35 am: | |
In the case of Imclone, isn't the real problem that the company had advance warning of the FDA's decision, allowing them to sell on 100% certainty where the average investor could only make an informed guess?
I'm no big fan of Martha, but I'm not convinced that justice was served here. |
CFA
Citizen
Username: Cfa
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 4:28 am: | |
I'm living here for 7 years now and got called 4 times and served on 1 jury. I think they like me  |
barbara wilhelm
Citizen
Username: Bartist
Post Number: 157
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 8:16 am: | |
11 years in maplewood. jury service 3 times. |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1025
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:02 am: | |
For your edification one of the charges on which Martha was convicted was 18 usc 1001. This is a favorite of the feds because its so easy to prove. Here are the elements: 1) knowingly and willfully; 2) make any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; 3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.
I'm not a big fan of this statute because I do think its overbroad, but Martha is not alone in getting nailed under it.
Also, NBC said this am that she turned down two offers before trial, one for no jail and a fine, the other for probation. This sounds typical of what the feds would offer on a case like this. |
lumpynose
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 769
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
Is it her own arrogance or bad attorney that led to this? |
Earlster
Citizen
Username: Earlster
Post Number: 132
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Lumpy,
France doesn't want people like cato. They love the little guy, they would have thrown Martha from her high horse long ago.
I don't think it's her bad attorney. She is simply used to picking people that feed her what she wants to hear. She was to arrogant to give in to the feds and take a settlement. She got what she deserves. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
For what it's worth, I read that no plea bargains in front of her could guarantee her not going to the pen. If true, I think it was a fear and determination about not serving time. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2332
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 8, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Andrew Tobias's column today addresses this.
I'm a bit uncomfortable about the whole thing. I've heard plenty about Stewart's objectionable demeanor off-camera, and I wonder if this is another "queen of mean" scapegoat. I tend to believe she is guilty as as jury found her, but why make a model out of her? I'm not saying it's wrong, but...
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
ligeti
Citizen
Username: Ligeti
Post Number: 97
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:51 pm: | |
Martha's mistakes and guilt aside, I thought it was particularly disturbing that the jurors seemed so anxious to talk to the press. And what they said didn't convince me they were completely impartial in analyzing the evidence. They luxuriated in spotlight; kind of sick, if you ask me. |
crabbyappleton
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
it's their reality tv moment. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2075
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Jury duty last year & again this year -12 months apart. Was picked, but thrown off because I couldn't be imnpartial (who can be impartial when the defendent is an accused child molester?).
Anyway, re: Martha. I still don't understand how you can be guilty of lying about a crime you aren't charged with. And, at best, what she did was pretty stupid.
The bigger question: why is it that so few of the Sr. Management at Enron, who virtually destroyed the lives and retirements of so many employees, have not even been charged? Or have been allowed to make deals? And the ones who have been charged have not yet even gone to trial?
Am I supposed to be convinced that the Justice Department is actually sending a signal to Corporate America after all of this? |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2400
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:56 am: | |
Seems quite possible to lie (or refuse to answer questions) about something you didn't do. Such lying and stonewalling is apparently illegal.
But I agree that they're making this look much bigger than Enron and MCI, which it most certainly is not. I heard this morning that MCI now says the extent of their lying amounts to $11B.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
jamie
Moderator
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 458
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
Greenetree - jury duty 12 months apart? I think you only have to serve once every three years. When they sent me a notice the year after, I called and let them know I served the previous year and the took my name off. (Though I do like being on a jury.) |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2076
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:18 am: | |
Jamie - does being called to the jury box & being dismissed during voire dire count as serving? I thought it didn't so I figured I had to show up. |
shoshannah
Citizen
Username: Shoshannah
Post Number: 404
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
Greenetree, yes that counts as serving. The once-every-three years rule applies to petit jury. You can be called to grand jury, which is a separate system |
ligeti
Citizen
Username: Ligeti
Post Number: 102
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 12:31 pm: | |
So long as you are called, and show up the first day, you have served. Sometimes, they don't even need jurors and let you go almost immediately, obligation discharged.
btw, for those who have avoided jury duty, for whatever reasons over the years: it is an absolutely fascinating and enlightening experience. As a result of serving, I feel so much more informed about how the criminal justice system is supposed to work than before. It's worth the inconvenience and necessary. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 2077
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
Thanks, everyone! I just called and got disqualified!!!! |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 995
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
FYI,
MCI REAFFIRMS $74.4 BILLION LOSS; OKLAHOMA AG ANNOUNCES MCI SETTLEMENT – [The Wall Street Journal, B2.] MCI swept $74.4 billion from pretax income for 2000 and 2001, restating results to show the true magnitude of the losses it had concealed through a massive accounting fraud and a host of other overly aggressive or mistaken accounting moves. The company detailed the accounting failures, which represent the largest accounting fraud in U.S. history, in a filing Friday with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing also disclosed audited results for 2002 for the first time, reporting a loss of $9.2 billion. The accounting fraud drove WorldCom into Chapter 11 bankruptcy-court protection in 2002 and resulted in criminal charges against WorldCom's former chief executive and former chief financial officer. [Associated Press] The state of Oklahoma has agreed to settle its criminal fraud case against the telecommunications giant in exchange for new jobs and cooperation in its prosecution of former executives of the company, the state’s top legal officer said Friday. Under terms of the agreement, MCI would create 1,600 new jobs in Oklahoma over the next 10 years and has pledged to assist the state in its prosecution of former executives of the company formerly known as WorldCom, state Attorney General Drew Edmondson announced. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2428
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 5:08 pm: | |
sportsnut, what's your point? That corporate malfeasance is on a much, much grander scale than the likes of Martha's doings? If that's your point, I thoroughly agree.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 996
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
No, tom I really didn't have a point other than to pass on the information. I was admittedly to lazy too scroll through this thread to see if it was here that some people (myself included) said that other corporate scandals should be punished.
IMO, the magnitude of the fraud at MCI was at one time incomprehensible. The fact that this reflects poorly on my one time profession (as an auditor) is depressing. It still boggles my mind that we can spend days discussing the Martha case and very little on a case where everyone pays the price. People like my mom and dad who lost 20K on their investment. People like me who work at the "other" phone company who "plays" by the rules and tried to keep up with MCI's price cutting based on fraudulent reporting and now is paying a steep price.
I struggle with wondering how a company like this can be permitted to continue. What kind of message does it send? That no amount of fraud is too big. All you'll have to do is declare bankruptcy and you can go on your merry way as if nothing had happened. Then when you step back and realize that if the company were not permitted to continue thousands more people would suffer.
There has to be a way to really punish those who were involved here and get them to pay back all of their ill-gotten gains.
So maybe there was a point after all. The ability to vent. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 2432
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Yeah, I know. If you add up all the grief this causes, there is no punishment severe enough to fit the crime. When I think about stuff like this, it almost makes me believe in the death penalty. In fact, it almost makes me wish we could torture these people to death.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:03 am: | |
Sportsnut - I agree with you that frauds like MCI and Enron are way more important than this Martha stuff (if you want to understand the what happened with Martha Jeffrey Tobin has a great piece in the current New Yorker). I think that the executives responsible will end up in jail but it takes a long time to put these cases together. As for letting the company continue, doesn't that just punish all the innocent employees for what their bosses, who should go to jail, did. One of the reasons the Martha trial happened so fast is that it was very simple, there were no complex financial transactions involved. She just lied to the Feds. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
ashear - yes, innocent employees would be punished and that is why I am torn about what the punishment would be. OTOH, Arthur Andersen's employees were all left to fend for themselves solely because of some rogue partners in the Houston office. No one seemed to care about them.
Additionally, MCI will emerge from bankruptcy with little to no debt which will allow them to slash their prices and hurt all others in the industry. The good side is that it has forced companies like mine to be prepared and clean up our balance sheets.
I guess there are no black and white answers. |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:50 am: | |
I don't know that I agree with what happened to AA for that very reason. I think the whole corporate person fiction is silly in the criminal area. The punishment should focus on those who made the decisions that were criminal. And what you say about a company emerging from bankruptcy would be true if it was due to incompitence rather than malfeasance (though I do think they pay a price in higher capital costs, so I don't know that the advantage you cite is unmitigated). |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:22 am: | |
I guess I don't understand the distinction between incompetence and malfeasance. To me the company emerges from bankruptcy with a clean slate regardless - they even changed their name back to MCI to avoid the negative connotation associated with their name. Ordinarily I would agree with you about capital costs being higher but in this particular case the industry has so much excess capactiy that the real capital expenditure outlays in the next couple of years will not be significant.
You're and attorney right? If so do you practice corporate law? What do you think the ultimate outcome will be in these cases (Enron, Tyco, WCOM, Parmalat et al)? Will there ever be a day when restitution will be paid to the thousands of shareholders or employees? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:49 pm: | |
Martha was convicted of 18 USC 1001 - Lying to a federal officer.
The subject matter of the lie is not relevant to this statute.
If an FBI agent, Customs agent, IRS agent, Secret Service agent, etc, etc, in the course of an investigation asks you a question which you answer untruthfully then you are in violation of 18 USC 1001 and are subject to prosecution.
Example: An IRS agent knocks on your door and asks you if you have seen your neighbor in the last week. You tell him no. Later, he can verify by other witnesses or by your neighbor himself telling the agent that you and him saw each other 2 days ago. You are subject to prosecution even if the agent was only trying to do a background check because your neighbor had applied to become an IRS agent.
The statute is helpful to federal law enforcement as it hopefully gives people a reason to tell the truth to them or suffer the consequences of lying. I know several of you have said you think the law is to broad and vague. However, what if you were a victim of a crime, ie identity theft, child abduction, etc, etc, and you found out later that the bank teller lied about knowing the perpetrator which caused you serious headaches and financial loss. Or much worse, your child is abducted and a witness saw a green van pull away but when the FBI asked the witness, he said he saw nothing because he didn't want to get involved or he dislikes the police.
I don't care whether Martha did or didn't commit the act of insider trading. However, I am upset that she lied to a federal officer. And I am glad she was convicted of this crime. |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Sports - I guess I'm confused now. I thought you were saying there was something unfair about a company that broke the law getting bankrupcy protection. Now you seem to be saying that bakrupcy law in general is unfair. (I haven't actually given that question all that much thought, you may be right).
I'm not a corp lawyer so I don't know the answer to your question but I think the stockholders go to the back of the line after all the other creditors so I would guess not.
Southerner - that's bacically right, but the lie has to be material. The materiality requirement has been defined very liberally, too liberally I think. In your example the lie might not be material because seeing the person two days earlier might not matter. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1007
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
ashear - I was trying to say that the bankruptcy law is unfair as it applies to these types of cases.
Yes shareholders go to the back of the line. I was just wondering if there are any provisions that would allow for some other remedy (outside of the normal class action law suits typically filed in cases where shareholders rely on management comments, which generally do nothing but line the pockets of the attorneys). |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
I guess this goes back to the question of whether you punish the company or the individuals. If you think the entity should be punished then you could have some different bankruptcy law for them, or not allow them to have protection at all. But again that seems like it would just hurt the emloyees and shareholders.
Do you think MCI is better off, post bankruptcy, than it would have been had its execs not engaged in fraud in the first place? |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 3:06 pm: | |
I think the harm that was caused by upper management is so wide spread you have to pick your poison. To me if they ultimately and sufficiently punish those responsible, while not completely making everyone who was affected whole, would suffice.
I generally hate to give answers like this but it depends. My knee-jerk reaction is that they will be better off if only because of the reduced amount of debt on their books. Most of which was incurred prior to the commission of those frauds. Companies like mine who incurred similar amounts of debt have had to restructure, sell off and utilize existing cash reserves to bring our balance sheet in line. With one stroke of a pen they get to start fresh as if it never happened and arguably get put back into a better position then when this whole fiasco started. Its tough to say with certainty because the entire industry was swept up in this mess. Companies began to undercut each other to gain market share when in reality the goals that they were trying to reach were inflated and really unattainable.
In addition they were able to win new clients by offering artificially lower prices, prices that we now know were not sustainable from a business model perspective. The bankruptcy doesn't force them to give back the clients that they won during that period. Their fraud also put companies out of business. Those companies are no longer around so at some small level their competition has been culled. There will be no reinstating those companies. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page