Politics: Onward from New Hampshire - Page 96

sgtclub · 02-13-2004, 06:26 PM

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040213/1/3i07u.html

[presidential hopeful in Russia kidnapped and drugged]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-13-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

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

By allegedly lying to the SEC as to whether she had received information from an insider at Imclone (i.e., from Waksal through Bacanovich (or via FAnueil as well) and by changing phone records ostensibly to cover up evidence of those alleged lies. One can be charged with insider trading, through use of inside information, even if one is not an insider.

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

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

She was the tipee under 10b-5 and the tipee doesn't have to be an insider, just the tipor.

But even if she was neither the tipor nor the tipee, she could still obstruct justice. A secretary could be charged with obstructing justice if they destroy evidence.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 02-13-2004, 06:34 PM

OK, so some advocacy group in California is challenging the marriage certificates issued by the City of San Fran to gay couples. Can some of you more litigious types tell me why they have standing? Or is that going to be an issue in the case.

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040213/1/3i07u.html

[presidential hopeful in Russia kidnapped and drugged]

Anyone care to speculate on what went on in the "revolting video tape"?

Russia is practically a 3rd world country run by thugs and it is scary that they have so much nuclear technology.

bilmore · 02-13-2004, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
So my question is, what kind of evidence can be admitted to prove the information is material?

It's going to go to the jury as "what do YOU think about this?", "Would this make you change your investment outlook on MSL shares?" They can do this because they are amongst the kind of people whom MS's obstructionism would have affected. Don't need an expert to opine on that.

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
OK, so some advocacy group in California is challenging the marriage certificates issued by the City of San Fran to gay couples. Can some of you more litigious types tell me why they have standing? Or is that going to be an issue in the case.

I am sure that standing will be an issue.

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-13-2004, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
OK, so some advocacy group in California is challenging the marriage certificates issued by the City of San Fran to gay couples. Can some of you more litigious types tell me why they have standing? Or is that going to be an issue in the case.

In federal court, they'd have a problem, I imagine, but state courts are not governed by Article III. California can (and frequently does) confer standing on any schmoe who wants to sue.

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
It's going to go to the jury as "what do YOU think about this?", "Would this make you change your investment outlook on MSL shares?" They can do this because they are amongst the kind of people whom MS's obstructionism would have affected. Don't need an expert to opine on that.

I don't disagree but I was just wondering if that is in fact the law.

The reason I am so curious about this is because everyone is saying that this now basically makes it impossible for the prosecution to prove their case. If I were on a jury, I would say, yeah, it would be important to me if I owned Martha Stewart stock. So I don't see how keeping the experts out now makes it impossible for the prosecution to make their case.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-13-2004, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't disagree but I was just wondering if that is in fact the law.

The reason I am so curious about this is because everyone is saying that this now basically makes it impossible for the prosecution to prove their case. If I were on a jury, I would say, yeah, it would be important to me if I owned Martha Stewart stock. So I don't see how keeping the experts out now makes it impossible for the prosecution to make their case.

Maybe they failed to put on their witness list an investor who felt defrauded. Obviously in civil class actions, the lead plaintiff could provide such testimony, and likely would. "I bought teh stock because I believed Martha." But since this is criminal, they didn't come up with someone for that testimony other than an expert. Now they're barred from adding witnesses late in teh game.

All speculation and musing, however.

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
In federal court, they'd have a problem, I imagine, but state courts are not governed by Article III. California can (and frequently does) confer standing on any schmoe who wants to sue.

Admittedly, I don't know squat about CA state law on standing.

However, under what legal theory would you sue? What is the greviance they are suing to have redressed? How are they injured by this?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 02-13-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
Admittedly, I don't know squat about CA state law on standing.

However, under what legal theory would you sue? What is the greviance they are suing to have redressed? How are they injured by this?

Hmm. Declaratory judgment that actions of marriage comm'r of SF were illegal and ultra vires, and that any marriage licenses issued not in accordance with law are invalid? Dunno about standing, etc., but evidently they let just about anyone into court there, so . . .

Not Me · 02-13-2004, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Declaratory judgment that actions of marriage comm'r of SF were illegal and ultra vires, and that any marriage licenses issued not in accordance with law are invalid?

BUt why are they invalid? Because they are unconstitutional or is it just that they are not authorized by statute?

Tyrone Slothrop · 02-13-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
BUt why are they invalid? Because they are unconstitutional or is it just that they are not authorized by statute?

There was a referendum on this a few years ago, but I can't recall whether it was constitutional or statutory. I think there's very little doubt that what SF is doing violates the law. I don't know enough about it to know how someone could bring a claim. But if there is a cause of action, I don't think standing will be a problem.

Atticus Grinch · 02-13-2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
BUt why are they invalid? Because they are unconstitutional or is it just that they are not authorized by statute?

Because state law describes who may marry, and the last time I checked the Mayor of San Francisco does not write, or for that matter even enforce, state law.

In any other state the AG would file. I don't know what will happen, given that the AG's power base for his No On Arnold 2006 campaign includes many who don't like the "one man, one woman" rule. I don't know that the state necessarily loosens standing requirements for challenges to local government action.

In other news, I bring you Quotes* from Either President of the United States George W. Bush or Senator/Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine from the Star Wars Movies. I got 14/14. Hank?

*I don't make grammatical errors; I just report them.