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.
There was a bug with the fish, so they had to be refreshed. They were of the wrong scale. You can check the logs, those are in the forest. Yes, that sounds fishy but that's to be expected given the circumstances.
Eh, about as credible as "my harddrive crashed and all backups are for mysterious reasons unavailable". I have no sympathy for those who destroy evidence because they think it will be better for them at the trial.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The interstate commerce clause is the most thoroughly raped portion of the constitutions imaginable
If you are not familiar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...
A farmer is prosecuted for growing wheat on his farm for use on his farm, on the grounds he should be forced to sell or buy on the broader market.
Notice that the law includes not only destruction, but concealing or covering up. So, the trial court didn't have the easy resolution you suggest, nor can the Supreme Court easily dismiss it on the basis that it isn't "destruction".
Join the IParty!
It was not hard for the Supreme Court to decide this, since they had already decided that a farmer growing wheat on his own property for his own consumption could be regulated by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Join the IParty!
If no one has raised objections to proposed laws, how can you expect the politicians to?
Right, and if you don't tow your own vehicle out of the ditch, how do you expect the tow truck guy to do it? If you don't cook your own meal, how do you expect the chef to do it? Oh, right, it's their fucking job.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"