|
Banned
|
You have posted, on another thread, a committed opinion contrary to the findings of the jury and the court in the criminal case, but you're now posting that you are not interested in a discussion about what should happen to the defendants, in light of your contrary opinion?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ottopilot
In light of the DEA report documenting the long list of criminal activities by the Mexican drug runner that was shot, depositions by fellow agents, and witness accounts all not allowed as testimony, I believe there is ample evidence warranting a new trial. Once all evidence is brought forth and they are convicted, send them back to jail.
Libby absolutely lied under oath, etc. He should be in jail. The Ramos and Campean case (IMO) deserves a retrial, at minimum or a pardon. The two issues were raised for contrast, if the border agents are guilty, send them back.
|
Can you provide anything more convincing than your opinion....? If you believe what you are posting, it shouldn't be too difficult to share with us, what has persuaded you to disagree with the trial jury, the judge, the prosecution team, and the July, 2007 Senate hearing testimony by US border patrol officials and US Attorney Sutton, available at the link I posted below the quote of you indicating your interest and opinion about the case.
<h3>Can we all agree to leave the opinions of elected officials out of our posts</h3>, to increase the probability of avoiding distorting the actual points of fact related to the Compean and Ramos criminal investigation, prosecution, verdict, and sentnecing?
The only link you posted, (I dsiplayed it when I quoted you):
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ottopilot
|
....leads to the off the cuff statement of a "winger" appellate ciurt judge, E. Grady Jolly.....
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_F...l_Dist._v._Doe
There was a dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Grady Jolly, who objected that now 'the majority expressly exerts control over the content of its citizens' prayers.'
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...4701/index.htm
Redefining fraud: Judicial opining
Reversals in the 'Nigerian barge case' won't help Jeff Skilling. But they revive a debate about what's fraud and what isn't.
By Roger Parloff, Fortune senior editor
August 22 2006: 7:27 AM EDT
....In 1987 an honest-services case finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court, with a shocking outcome. Though every federal appeals court had green-lighted the theory until then, the High Court rejected it, 7 to 2.
Liberals worried that it could tar as felons people who had no idea that their conduct could be considered a federal crime; conservatives worried that the feds were usurping state authority. Without deciding its constitutionality, the court banned further use of the theory, ruling that Congress simply never intended the mail- or wire-fraud laws to reach honest-services fraud.
The following year, Congress passed a law that said, in essence, "Oh, yes, we did." But while it restored honest-services fraud, it didn't define the term, so the contours of the crime remained as murky as ever.
Conflicting judicial review
In the 20 years since, many appeals courts have imposed interpretive glosses on the concept in an effort to curb its apparent boundlessness. Nevertheless, a significant minority of appeals judges remain hostile to it, viewing it as hopelessly vague and therefore unconstitutional.
Two of the most hostile have been judges E. Grady Jolly of Jackson, Miss., and Harold R. DeMoss Jr. of Houston, both of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Ten years ago, for instance, they reversed, over the dissent of a third judge, the garden-variety fraud conviction of a Texas state official, Michael Brumley. Giving the concept an extremely narrow reading, they found that it couldn't ever be used against state officials. The full appeals court then took the rare step of rehearing the case. They resoundingly reinstated the conviction, 14 to 3, with just one judge joining DeMoss and Jolly in dissent.
As luck had it, judges Jolly and DeMoss also wound up composing two-thirds of the panel assigned to hear the appeals in the Nigerian-barge case. There, prosecutors had charged that Enron officials' phony sale of the barge to inflate earnings had defrauded the company and its shareholders of honest services. Since the Merrill Lynch defendants knowingly aided this scheme, prosecutors argued, they were guilty as conspirators and abettors.
Too crooked to defraud
On Aug. 1, the panel rejected the government theory by a 2-to-1 vote. Judge Jolly, in an opinion joined by DeMoss, basically forged a brand new limitation on honest-services fraud, which I'll call the too-crooked-to-defraud rule.
Since high Enron officials like CFO Andrew Fastow were in on the scheme, and since their bonuses were linked to quarterly earnings results, Enron wasn't defrauded, Jolly said.
"The employer itself," he wrote, "created among its employees an understanding of its interest that, however benighted ... was thought to be furthered by a scheme involving a fiduciary breach." (In a separate opinion, Judge DeMoss added that honest-services fraud was unconstitutionally vague.)
The problem with Judge Jolly's theory, as dissenting judge Thomas Reavley noted, is that corporate executives are distinct from the corporation, which is owned by shareholders. Executives owe honest services to those shareholders, and one of the most basic is to report finances accurately.
Frankly, I don't expect the too-crooked-to-defraud rule to last very long, and I don't think the Enron Task Force should or could have foreseen its adoption. ....
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1191
Jolly, E. Grady
Born 1937 in Louisville, MS
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 1, 1982, to a seat vacated by James Plemon Coleman; Confirmed by the Senate on July 27, 1982, and received commission on July 30, 1982.
|
With all due respect, the only things you have shared that have influenced you, is a preliminary reaction to an appeal argument from a judge, Jolly Grady, who has a history of incoherent, extreme rulings in other cases.... and a call from a politician for a pardon for the two convicted border patrol officers.....
Last edited by host; 03-30-2008 at 12:43 PM..
|