From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Mar 11 2004 - 16:06:15 GMT
Hi Rick,
> P
> > I thought I made my position clear. The punishment for lying to
> > government authorities shouldn't involve jail time. Otherwise, if you
> > believe in equal justice under the law, Clinton should be behind bars.
>
> R
> Well, there are significant differences between the two situations which
> you may not recognize, but which the legal system does. For example,
> Martha lied in a criminal trial, Clinton in a civil trial; Martha lied to
> cover up committing a crime, Clinton lied to cover up something that wasn't
> a crime.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't our legal system say that perjury is a
crime regardless under what circumstances it was committed? At least
that's what it says in the various legal dictionaries I've found on the
Internet.
> P
> > Wonderfully imaginative stories, but missing an essential element--the
> > government Judas who leaked the information about the FDA's decision to
> > ImClone's president who passed it on. It's amazing to me that no one ever
> > mentions the source of the information in the first place. But, then
> > again, I'm not really surprised. Governments are not known to investigate
> > their own unless there's a political advantage involved.
>
> R
> If such person is ever identified, you can bet your Mozart collection that
> the SEC and the DOJ will have their head.
Did the SEC or DOJ even investigate the FDA? I've read nothing about
that.
> P
> Furthermore, I'm
> > sure your familiar with the old adage "caveat emptor" which casts a
> > slightly different light on your examples.
>
> R
> Yes, I took a class on it. 'Caveat Emptor' ('let the buyer beware') is a
> legal doctrine concerning liability for negligence in torts. It states
> that a vendor or manufacturer is under no duty to communicate the existence
> of latent defects in his wares unless by act or implication he represents
> that such defects do not exist. To steal a quote from Black's, it has been
> described as "one of that tribe of anonymous Latin Maxims that infest our
> law.... they fill the ear and sound like sense, and to the eye look like
> learning; while their main use is to supply the place of either or both."
> It's also not law anymore (hasn't been for more than century really). In
> every state of our union, all products are now sold with an implicit
> warranty of fitness for the purpose for which they are sold (it's called
> 'caveat venditor', let the seller beware... the theory being that charging
> the sellers with responsibility only requires them to be an expert in their
> own business, charging buyers with responsibility would require them to be
> an expert in every business). But I digress, the bottom line is that
> "caveat emptor" has no relevance to my examples at all as it did not have
> any weight in criminal matters and even in civil matters it didn't protect
> sellers who represented by implication that their goods were without defect
> (as both of the sellers in my examples clearly did).
Yes. The politicians and trial lawyers turned the law of centuries upside
down. Now people sue for such imagined wrongs as McDonald's causing
obesity. Thanks goodness that the House of Representatives just passed a
law that would protect the sellers of food products from such absurd
claims. But, I concede your point.
> > P
> > I'm suggesting justice would be better served by treating everyone
> > equally under the law.
>
> R
> Justice treats equally those who are similarly situated. That is, Clinton
> and Martha only deserve to be treated equally if they both did the same
> thing. As I said above, their were significant legal differences in the
> situations (whether you think those differences should count or not...
> which you clearly don't).
I await your reply on whether perjury is a crime. A federal judge fined
Clinton $90,000 for "false testimony." What's the difference?
> P
> > Bill Clinton set the precedent for the whole country that it's OK to be
> > dishonest.
>
> R
> Is this to say that no one lied until Bill Clinton came along? What about
> Nixon? Does he share in the scorn you have for lying presidents?
Was Nixon ever charged, impeached, fined or otherwise brought before the
bar of justice for lying? Not that I want to defend Nixon. He was a mental
case.
> R
> What are you saying? That it's okay to commit crimes if you see other
> people do it and get away with it? I sure hope she doesn't use that in her
> closing statement to the sentencing judge.
I'm saying Martha figured she could get away with it without jail time
like Clinton did. Are you not influenced at times by people you admire and
respect?
> P
> > I'm not angry. I pity people who somehow have the childish idea that the
> > world owes them a living and that their jobs should be guaranteed for
> > life. Jobs are lost everyday for a thousand different reasons but many
> > traced back to some form of government interference in the marketplace.
> > Adults prepare themselves for the ups and downs of life that are beyond
> > their control. Children are dependent on others and need to be taken care
> > of. All I want is for individuals to grown up and become the captains of
> > their own destinies.
>
> R
> I'm curious, do you think employers have any responsibilities to their
> employees at all? Do you think Martha deserves any blame at all for the
> economic loss many of these people might experience?
The responsibility of an employer is to pay employees the salaries and
benefits agreed to at the point of hiring as long as the employer has the
wherewithal to do so. If an employer makes a mistake which results in his
going out of business, especially due to a run in with the government, I
fail to see how employees can hold him accountable. Employers like the
rest of us are not infallible. Have you ever counted the regulations
government imposes on employers?
> R
> In perpetuity? That would be absurd. I'm glad I didn't say anything like
> that all. What I said was, Martha's corporation stands a significant
> chance of defaulting on the contracts it has made with it's associates and
> employees. I said every employment agreement is a contract; every contract
> has duties that flow in both in both directions. When one party violates
> those duties, consequences apply. Still sounding absurd?
Defaulting on contracts is a common business risk. But beside that, what
in Martha's contract with her employes says she had to tell Federal
investigators anything? I don't remember seeing anything about that in my
employee contract.
> R
> I'm not sure what this means. If you're saying that Clinton might not be a
> 'dynamic force' then I wouldn't disagree. I have no idea if history will
> judge him as saint or sinner. Moreover, I don't think he got off scott
> free. He was impeached, censured by congress, lost his license to practice
> law, was sued, etc.
Yea, but he didn't get jail time. That's my beef. I hope the judge in
Martha's case has enough sense of justice (regardless of sentencing
guidelines) to let her off with probation.
> I think we may be nearing the end of the road on this one.
Agree. Thanks for the exchange.
Regards,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 16:06:11 GMT