Politics: Onward from New Hampshire - Page 95

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-13-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Good point and I will show my ignorance of criminal procedure by asking, is there anything like an interlocutory appeal in the criminal realm?

I believe the federal rules provide for an interlocutory appeal of granted motions to suppress, either on 4th or 5th amendment grounds.

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 03:45 PM

http://www.nylawyer.com/news/03/11/111903a.html

The link above is what I am talking about - this judge ruled that the securities fraud count was proper, although novel. If she thinks it is such a bogus charge, why did she not grant the motion to dismiss it?

Atticus Grinch · 02-13-2004, 04:52 PM

NYT: Conservatives Shine Spotlight on Kerry's Antiwar Record

Quote:

And on Thursday, a new photograph of the senator and the actress began circulating via e-mail. Unlike the image Mr. Sampley bought, which shows Mr. Kerry seated several rows behind Ms. Fonda, this picture — its origins are unclear — shows them side by side, Ms. Fonda behind a microphone and Mr. Kerry, holding a notebook, to her right.

Snopes:

Quote:

Claim: Photograph shows Senator John Kerry with Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally.
Status: False.

(Snopes is Drudge for non-credulous people.)

Photoshopping another picture of Kerry with Fonda is coals to Newcastle. Mmmmmmm. Newcastle.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-13-2004, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

(Snopes is Drudge for non-credulous people.)

Oh just come on out and say it: snopes is for people who want their news actually fair and balanced.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-13-2004, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
If she thinks it is such a bogus charge, why did she not grant the motion to dismiss it?

I agreed. If you allow the charge, you have to let the government try to prove its case with competent, relevant evidence. That's why I say something about these experts was not one or both of those.

Hank Chinaski · 02-13-2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Photoshopping another picture of Kerry with Fonda is coals to Newcastle. Mmmmmmm. Newcastle.

Note to Ty- think "Coming Up For Air."

bilmore · 02-13-2004, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Photoshopping another picture of Kerry with Fonda is coals to Newcastle. Mmmmmmm. Newcastle.

In the day of digital, the probative value of any image is about nill, anyway. Mmmmmmm. Nill.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-13-2004, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Note to Ty- think "Coming Up For Air."

Orwell is the other board. For this board, I read US Weekly. Oops, maybe I have that reversed.

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I agreed. If you allow the charge, you have to let the government try to prove its case with competent, relevant evidence. That's why I say something about these experts was not one or both of those.

I agree, too, I was mostly talking to Sebby who thinks the judge's ruling is an indication that she thinks the case should be dismissed, which of course, makes no sense.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-13-2004, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree, too, I was mostly talking to Sebby who thinks the judge's ruling is an indication that she thinks the case should be dismissed, which of course, makes no sense.

Yeah, but we're forgetting one thing: Sebby's a cool courtroom cat who deals in foul truths, unlike us law school types in our ivory towers.

bilmore · 02-13-2004, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yeah, but we're forgetting one thing: Sebby's a cool courtroom cat who deals in foul truths, unlike us law school types in our ivory towers.

Ah, but many of us deal in foul truths. We may not dress as well as Sebby, but . . .

sgtclub · 02-13-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I agree, too, I was mostly talking to Sebby who thinks the judge's ruling is an indication that she thinks the case should be dismissed, which of course, makes no sense.

I haven't been following all that closely, but I thought she allowed the charge because, without it, you have obstruction of . . . what - no crime?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-13-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I haven't been following all that closely, but I thought she allowed the charge because, without it, you have obstruction of . . . what - no crime?

No, you can still have the obstruction of justice claim. The securities fraud is free-standing, and doesn't relate to Imclone (directly). The obstruction charges relate to the investigation of insider trading of imclone.

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I haven't been following all that closely, but I thought she allowed the charge because, without it, you have obstruction of . . . what - no crime?

I am just trying to understand this from a procedural and rules of evidence perspective, not passing judgment on the merits of the case.

My understanding is that the information is material if a reasonable investor would consider the information important in making an investment decision. So my question is, what kind of evidence can be admitted to prove the information is material?

But I am no securities lawyer and apparently neither are any of the others posting here.

sgtclub · 02-13-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No, you can still have the obstruction of justice claim. The securities fraud is free-standing, and doesn't relate to Imclone (directly). The obstruction charges relate to the investigation of insider trading of imclone.

But she wasn't an insider at Imclone. So how did she obstruct that investigation?