Politics: Onward from New Hampshire - Page 125

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-20-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
if your point is that any good antitrust lawyer should say "can't say for sure- you could get in trouble if you sue- or not"

I'd be cool with that, ceptin I coulda told em that.

Yeah, but doesn't any lawyer basically say that? Yeah, you could win this. Or not.

But, he's kind of a pussy if he told you not to sue. Doesn't every patent suit have an essentially mandatory antitrust counterclaim assocaited with it?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-20-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have trouble understanding the posts you guys write,

Yes, you made that abundantly clear yesterday.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-20-2004, 02:47 PM

Okay, you're the SEC. You want to bring a case against a celebrity to highlight the perils of insider trading. So you have a personal friend testify against the defendant. After saying Martha Stewart appreciated brokers with inside information, on cross she concedes:

Quote:

"I do not know if the statement was made by Martha or if it was thought in my mind,"

Why do you call this witness? Good lord.

Not Me · 02-20-2004, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, but doesn't any lawyer basically say that? Yeah, you could win this. Or not.

No one guarantees an outcome especially because so much is dependant on the judge. However, many lawyers are willing to tell a client that they have a good case with a good chance of a favorable outcome or that they have a bad case with a good chance of an unfavorable outcome.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Doesn't every patent suit have an essentially mandatory antitrust counterclaim assocaited with it?

No.

And Rule 11 is still on the books last time I checked.

Secret_Agent_Man · 02-20-2004, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Okay, you're the SEC. You want to bring a case against a celebrity to highlight the perils of insider trading. So you have a personal friend testify against the defendant. After saying Martha Stewart appreciated brokers with inside information, on cross she concedes:
Why do you call this witness? Good lord.

Because this friend of Martha's is the one who confirms that Martha knew Waksal was trying to dump his stock around the time she executed her sell order.

Plus, the "Isn't it nice" statement she said Martha made was simply devastating.

Then, this friend of Martha's and Waksal's flips on cross and undercuts some of her prior testimony in a way probably unexpected by the G but vague enough that she thinks she can't be busted for lying. That's life in the big city -- but they might just try to get her.

S_A_M

Not Me · 02-20-2004, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why do you call this witness? Good lord.

Do you think they knew she would say that before they put her on the stand? If they did, they are buffoons.

Secret_Agent_Man · 02-20-2004, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But, he's kind of a pussy if he told you not to sue. Doesn't every patent suit have an essentially mandatory antitrust counterclaim assocaited with it?

Nope -- not anymore. The antitrust counterclaim with any merit is quite rare -- requires objectively baseless litigation. It also raises issues so complex and expensive that defendants hesitate to pursue it sometimes even if they think that it might have merit.

S_A_M

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-20-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Do you think they knew she would say that before they put her on the stand? If they did, they are buffoons.

I would have thought they would have probed her recollection sufficiently to be confident that she woulnd't provide such an answer.

If she was a friend, why did she blab in the first place? Got conscience? Something seems amiss. This isn't just the guy who thought he saw the defendant shoot but maybe didn't get as good a view as he might have.

Atticus Grinch · 02-20-2004, 03:37 PM

Quote:

David Huether, chief economist for the National Association of Manufacturers, said he had heard that some economists wanted to count hamburger flipping as manufacturing, which he noted would produce statistics showing more jobs in what has been a declining sector of the economy.

In the New Economics: Fast-Food Factories? {NYT; requires registration (with the Democratic party)}

Not Me · 02-20-2004, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I would have thought they would have probed her recollection sufficiently to be confident that she woulnd't provide such an answer.

I agree that should be done, but I also agree that you can probe recollections all you want and still get surprised by someone on the stand.

Maybe they should have been able to predict this, I don't know much about her and didn't see her on the stand and it is hard to say without seeing her testify.

My guess is that she was adamant to the prosecutors that she clearly remembered Martha saying that. Then when she got on the stand and had to actually look Martha in the face in the courtroom that she felt bad for her. Afterall, they were friends. There wasn't any animosity between them, was there?

That whole right to confront witnesses thing is in place for a reason. It is easy to tell the prosecutor what you remember about your friend's behavior when you don't have to look her in the face. Much harder to do when she is looking right at you.

This isn't a murder trial where a victim is testifying about what crime was comitted against her by the defendant. I am sure that the witness feels bad for Martha. Hell, I feel bad for Martha and I lost money in the stock market. She is being made an example of and she was overcharged.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If she was a friend, why did she blab in the first place?

To avoid getting charged herself with obstruction of justice. Did she approach the investigators or did they approach her?

I hope my friends won't be shocked to hear this but if they are making stock trades based on wrongfully obtained information and they tell me about it, if the feds come knocking on my door, I am not getting myself charged with a felony by lying to the feds.

I am not taking the fall for something I didn't participate in simply because my friend goes around bragging about something illegal they have done. However, when you put me on the stand and I have to look at her and testify about what she told me, I am going to feel really bad about that. I may feel so bad that my memory starts to fail me right there on the stand when I was confident before I was actually in court that I could testify.

sgtclub · 02-20-2004, 05:02 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112013,00.html

Any of you CA constitutional types know if this is anywhere near constitutional? I am in favor of gay marriage, but Newsom's actions seem to be an illegal power grab.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-20-2004, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112013,00.html

Any of you CA constitutional types know if this is anywhere near constitutional? I am in favor of gay marriage, but Newsom's actions seem to be an illegal power grab.

No one seems to think that the recent marriages would hold up in court, but that doesn't seem to be the issue for the people who are getting married. I don't know, but I would imagine that the City's lawsuit is an uphill battle.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-20-2004, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112013,00.html

Any of you CA constitutional types know if this is anywhere near constitutional? I am in favor of gay marriage, but Newsom's actions seem to be an illegal power grab.

Polygamist.

No expert, but it seems that a specific constitutional amendment specifying what marriage is (one man/one woman) would trump a general one about equality and non-discrimination, unless there's some first-in-time, first-in-right interpretative maxim.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-20-2004, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
No one seems to think that the recent marriages would hold up in court, but that doesn't seem to be the issue for the people who are getting married.

What's the thinking on that? I have to assume that any ruling declaring such marriages illegal would also make all such marriages null and void. Does waiting in line for a nullity mean something? Or is it the souvenir piece of paper that comes with it? (plus photos!)

sgtclub · 02-20-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Polygamist.

No expert, but it seems that a specific constitutional amendment specifying what marriage is (one man/one woman) would trump a general one about equality and non-discrimination, unless there's some first-in-time, first-in-right interpretative maxim.

That's my take as well. So the question is, what the hell is AS doing in Sacramento? This is truly disappointing behavior, as I see it, because he's afraid of being the bad guy even if it's the right thing to do under the law.