Slashdot Mirror
Undersized Grouper Case Lands In Supreme Court
An anonymous reader writes The Supremes have decided to hear a case regarding whether groupers are 'tangible articles' under the Sarbanes-Oxley law. The issue is that the crew of the Miss Katie was caught with undersized fish. A marine fisheries officer wrote them a ticket and put the fish in a box that the captain was ordered to turn in when he got ashore. Rather than do this, they threw out the undersized fish and replaced them with bigger ones. Prosecutors, rather than charging them with offenses of catching undersized fish (which would have resulted in a fine and a small jail sentence), went after them under the Sarbanes-Oxley law which forbids the destruction of "any record, document, or tangible object" and which could result in a 20 year prison sentence, though the prosecutor only asked for two years on this one. Lawyers are arguing over whether "tangible object" here is something that could contain records, or whether it's any object whatsoever that might be evidence. So far in comments, many of the conservative justices, including Roberts, Alito and Scalia, have expressed skepticism as to whether this would lead to overcriminalization for petty crimes and would give prosecutors undue leverage given all the things Sarbanes-Oxley can apply to. They also question whether this was intended in the law, given that "tangible object" was listed in a context including documents and records and appears to have been only contemplated in terms of servers, DVDs, or other tangible objects that might contain documents or records. Meanwhile, Kagan and Kennedy appear amenable to a more literal reading of the statute, given that groupers are in fact touchable and that makes them "tangible objects" under the ordinary meaning of those words.
Had they meant something different, they'd have chosen different words.
I understand that ideal, but still does it seem there could be any possibility that the intelligent, polite, honest, upstanding lawmakers who sit in congress might have misunderstood the law they voted on? It is true that only the best and brightest make it to congress, but sometimes it's hard to think through all the implications of what they have (or have not, as the case may be) written?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's not vague, it's inclusive.
Same thing. It's inclusive, by being vague.
They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did.
Yes, I'm sure that when they sat down to formulate legislative regulations on corporate finance records, they thoroughly intended that it be used for punishing fishermen who caught undersized fish.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
It is true that only the best and brightest make it to congress
How did you manage to type that with a straight face ? Or were you being sarcastic ?
Sarcastic? Me?? Never!!! Congress of course is populated with geniuses, you can tell because of how well they explain complex topics like physics and how to transport things over the internet through tubes.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If they're going literal, then the groupers weren't destroyed. They were just placed in an indeterminate location.
On the plus side, the fishermen got an extremely precise reading on the groupers' momentum.
#DeleteChrome
of his fish.
Next week: 7 supreme court justices die of laughter when presented with the case.
So then, to be in complete compliance with eSOX, the boats crews will need to have segregated duties. Owners aren't allowed on the boats. Captains can't fish and the the crews can't drive the boat. The guy who baits the hooks or deploys the nets isn't allowed to pull them in.
After all, we need complete segregation of duties.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.