Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Undersized Grouper Case Lands In Supreme Court

Posted by samzenpus on from the ine-serious-fish-story dept.

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.

47 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. If they're going literal.... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're going literal, then the groupers weren't destroyed. They were just placed in an indeterminate location. Hell, take it up a notch, and rely on the second law of thermodynamics.

    Stupidly vague laws resulting in legislative over-reach is one of many reasons the law is an ass.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    1. Re:If they're going literal.... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not vague, it's inclusive. They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did. Had they meant something different, they'd have chosen different words. The "strict constructionists" on the court are favoring the idea that the law doesn't mean exactly what it says, but some they're-going-to-define-it-for-us subset of what it says? This makes sense to you?

      Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right? Right?

    2. Re:If they're going literal.... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Funny

      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."
    3. Re:If they're going literal.... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Funny

      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
    4. Re:If they're going literal.... by diamondmagic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A constitutionalist (you know, the supreme law of the land, the thing they all swore to uphold) would also notice that no part of the Constitution granted authority to do such a thing: An application of Sarbanes-Oxley needs to involve interstate commerce in some fashion.

      Fishing is distinctly intrastate commerce (if commerce at all!), and cannot be covered by federal law. Criminal law is supposed to be a state issue.

      The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also requires "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." I doubt 20 years prison listed in the statute is ever warranted.

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    5. Re:If they're going literal.... by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:If they're going literal.... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's not that simple. The /. "article" doesn't exactly provide a comprehensive restatement of the law. Here you go:

      Sec. 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

      ``Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

      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!
    7. Re:If they're going literal.... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Funny

      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."
    8. Re:If they're going literal.... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 5, Informative
      Dude. You have no idea. The Supreme Court has held that a grandmother named "Angel" growing pot in her basement for her own personal consumption for medical purposes falls under the interstate commerce clause because it "affects" interstate commerce, and therefore she can be prosecuted under the federal law banning the possession of marijuana. In the Supreme Courts view, if she didn't grow it herself, she would have to buy it on the open market. Therefore, growing it affects interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      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!
    9. Re:If they're going literal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except, as the NPR article notes...

      Commercial fisherman John Yates and his crew were fishing for grouper in federal waters in

      Commercial fishing often results in the product being transported all over the country, and with the fishing being done over a variety of areas and jurisdictions - especially in border areas (no idea if that is the case here).

      20 years is definitely excessive for what they indicate would normally be the equivalent of a minor fine (like a speeding ticket). However, the article goes on to note that he was sentenced to 30 days. I'd still consider that to be excessive myself - but not outrageously so considering it was destruction of evidence, deliberate fraud for financial advantage, as well as likely refusing to comply with a relevant direct request from an appropriate deputized federal officer in the normal course of his duties.

      That said, continuing the bad analogies, if you're stopped for speeding, don't do burnouts and doughnuts in front of the police vehicle as you pull over - you're likely to find yourself in a lot more trouble than just the speeding ticket...

    10. Re:If they're going literal.... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sorry, I forgot to spell out the conclusion, for anyone wondering if this was off topic. Of course fishing falls under the interstate commerce clause, and the Supreme Court will have zero difficulty finding this to be so, because the fish can be sold on the interstate seafood market, just like wheat or pot. Even if the fisherman was eating the fish himself, the Supreme Court would not have trouble under it's own precedent finding federal jurisdiction over the matter. I personally don't think the Supreme Court is right about this, but there is little doubt that the Supreme Court will use these precedents to find that the Feds have jurisdiction over fishing.

      This kind of Federal overreach could be overturned by a Supreme Court decision, but that is unlikely. The only real hope is a constitutional amendment limiting the interstate commerce clause.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    11. Re:If they're going literal.... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      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
    12. Re:If they're going literal.... by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly - I can still partially forgive those, it's specialized technical knowledge. In theory those who would regulate something should damn well get educated about it first, but people outside those fields usually won't have a complete understanding of them.

      I get more upset by the ones who want to regulate things like sex and female reproductive issues while having absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Todd Aiken who seems to think that falopian tubes can tell whether a woman consented or not, or the congresswoman who thought a rape-kit is something that emergency rooms use to undo the act of rape !
      Apparently she has never read a news story, or watched a crime show.

      Not knowing specialized technical information is forgivable (at least - if your NOT actively regulating it) but not knowing basic general knowledge about something you hold that much opinion about - that's unforgiveable, especially in those who have the power to propose their opinions as laws.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:If they're going literal.... by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Case Study #31027 of government twisting and misusing laws intended for one thing, to attack a completely different class of crime.

      This "creativity" is nothing to be proud of.

      If you don't like the wording of a proposed bill you can write to your congresscritter regarding your concerns about the wording of a law and have them change it before it is passed. I've done this in the past to some major acts of law and had a good response. Once it is law the authorities can press charges under that law.

      If no one has raised objections to proposed laws, how can you expect the politicians to?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    14. Re:If they're going literal.... by skine · · Score: 2

      It seems to me that the fish is not the tangible object, but instead the replacement fish would be a false entry into the tangible object (the box).

      I don't really see how this isn't just an open and shut case (obviously IANAL). While I think the sentence is inapt, that doesn't change whether I agree with the law or whether they're guilty of violating it.

    15. Re:If they're going literal.... by BradMajors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The SEC hasn't used false certification against executives from any of the major banks suspected of misleading the public about their finances during the crisis."

      Apparently the law was intended to be used against fishermen and not CEOs of banks.

    16. Re:If they're going literal.... by ttucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      here we have a case of a fisherman keeping an undersize fish.

      More accurately, here we have a case of a fisherman being accused of keeping undersized fish. The officer who accused him of doing so left the only evidence whatsoever of the crime with the accused. Upon discovering that the evidence indicated no crime had occurred, he made the outlandish claim that the evidence had been tampered with, having no evidence besides his testimony given as support.

    17. Re:If they're going literal.... by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, though, it's not even a matter of Congress misunderstanding the law. It's a matter of the prosecutors (and even more scarily the courts) completely subverting the law through overly literal interpretation.

      Though what disturbs me the most about this is that it may be the first non-unanimous Supreme Court decision in my lifetime where I 100% agree with the "conservative judges."

      Seems like the prosecutors could have gone with a good old "destruction of evidence" and not had to delve into Sarbanes-Oxley (which while having many good intentions is in so many ways a totally fucked up law that has made billions for a few financial and auditing consulting companies and cost tens of billions for the rest.)

    18. Re:If they're going literal.... by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      20 years is definitely excessive for what they indicate would normally be the equivalent of a minor fine (like a speeding ticket). However, the article goes on to note that he was sentenced to 30 days. I'd still consider that to be excessive myself - but not outrageously so considering it was destruction of evidence, deliberate fraud for financial advantage, as well as likely refusing to comply with a relevant direct request from an appropriate deputized federal officer in the normal course of his duties.

      Actually, if 30 days was the sentence for knowingly destroying the evidence that would have otherwise resulted in a fine, I'd say it's in NO way excessive. Though I guess the problem with it is not the sentence (which seemed totally reasonable) but the statute that was used to convict, which could actually define the rules for all preservation of "evidence" under Sarbanes-Oxley rules...

    19. Re:If they're going literal.... by davester666 · · Score: 2

      They work for you in the amount that you have paid them relative to everyone else who pays them.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    20. Re:If they're going literal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Honestly - I can still partially forgive those, it's specialized technical knowledge."

      Yeah, who wouldn't think internet runs in tubes. I mean, it's very special knowledge. A bit like cheese is made of milk and milk comes from cows is special agricultural knowledge.

      I could forget them not knowing how electricity works, how data transfer using electricity works, or what is done to the milk after it's out of the cow (heck, I don't know this exactly), but confusing tubes and internet is like claiming agricultural expertise, telling cheese comes from chickens, and then basing laws on that. How about "chickens must be milked 2 times a day to ensure their well being".

    21. Re:If they're going literal.... by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Actually, if 30 days was the sentence for knowingly destroying the evidence that would have otherwise resulted in a fine, I'd say it's in NO way excessive. Though I guess the problem with it is not the sentence (which seemed totally reasonable) but the statute that was used to convict, which could actually define the rules for all preservation of "evidence" under Sarbanes-Oxley rules...

      A British minister of parliament (Chris Huhne) and his wife were each sentenced to eight months jail for perverting the course of justice, when they lied about who had driven a car that got a speeding ticket. Three points on the wrong license (she accepted the fine instead of her husband), eight months jail each.

    22. Re:If they're going literal.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only real hope is a constitutional amendment limiting the interstate commerce clause.

      We're going on 80 years of oppression under /Wickard/ - it's not good strategy to hold out hope for something where you'd need to get a supermajority of Congress to vastly limit their own power and roll-back nearly a century of power and bureaucracy.

      Nay, the only thing (within the State mechanism assumption) that is having success in limiting Federal power is nullification through initiative measures and that's even only on one very narrow power. Everything else is going wildly in the other direction, over any long-enough timescale.

      It appears that the only real chance of sanity now lies outside the State mechanism - /Wickard/ may well have been the point of no return. Every system on earth ever run by power-lusty men has had a point of no return from which it's never recovered.

      Be careful of 'hope' - you can die waiting for it to show up.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    23. Re:If they're going literal.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.'"
    24. Re:If they're going literal.... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Screwup by the fisheries officer. If he had secured the box with some sort of official "evidence" tape to make it tamperproof, this never would have gotten to this point. Seal the box, get the signature of the accused testifying that they have the sealed box, and it's ok to leave it in their possession until they get to shore. (Most of these fisheries enforcement officers work in small/medium high-speed power boats, so it would be impractical for them to take aboard all the illegal fish they find for safekeeping as evidence.)

      However, in this case they have the testimony of the crew that the captain ordered them to throw out the (purportedly) undersized fish. So I think the Feds are still going to win based on that. It's not solely the officer's word that a crime was committed.

    25. Re:If they're going literal.... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An "outlandish claim" that was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a fair trial. Mostly because the guy who actually threw the fish out of the boat testified that he was ordered to do so by the captain.

      Nobody with a brain in their heads is claiming this guy did not deserve to get in trouble for what he did. They're claiming that the government charged him under the wrong statute.

    26. Re:If they're going literal.... by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2

      Sec. 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
      ``Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

      The grouper was a tangible object which was evidence of an offense committed in the course of a federally regulated commercial activity. It was concealed in the ocean and/or falsified (the bigger fish was falsely represented as the offending fish) with the intent of frustrating the investigation for which they were explicitly entrusted with the evidence.

      It's also not uncommon to have an offense covered by more than one statute. If I shoot someone in the head, that could qualify as either criminal negligence, aggravated assault or attempted murder (among others), depending on the related evidence and/or the mood of the prosecutor. Which statute the crime is prosecuted under is not the choice of the accused.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    27. Re:If they're going literal.... by Talderas · · Score: 2

      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.

      The logic went, a farmer is prosecuted for growing wheat on his farm for use on his farm, on the grounds that growing for personal use means he's not purchasing or selling wheat on the interstate markets.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    28. Re:If they're going literal.... by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Well, I'm kind of with you that this is evidence tampering.

      Are we certain that what was described in TFS actually happened? Are we all certain that the fishermen actually tampered with evidence? Has that been determined to be fact in a court of law?

      Could this be a case of low-level government agent acting with incompetence or personal malice, and unwittingly starting a cascade of CYA up the chain resulting in this case? Seems to be a lot of that going around in government circles these days, so it's not an unreasonable question

      I mean, did some Fish & Game (or whatever department/agency/bureau was involved) officer miscount either accidentally or intentionally, and this prosecution is simply a CYA for incompetence and/or malice on behalf, at first, of just the field agents/officers, then after it snowballed, also in defense of the prosecutor/AG's office in a double-down on government thuggishness to cover *their* incompetence/malice in pursuing this initially?

      That might be a motive for throwing SARBOX at a fisherman like using a nuke to get rid of cockroaches.

      There is far too little information here to make any kind of reliable determinations.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    29. Re:If they're going literal.... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      To be fair, whilst I'm not defending the way the law is written, let's not forget that the whole reason it was written- because without it a series of financial scandals meant it cost tens of billion for the rest too.

      I haven't heard of any bankers or investment brokers being arrested and jailed with the law. None. Clearly, US law enforcement is much more concerned with jailing fishermen that worrying about Americans losing their homes and retirement savings. After all, plenty of that Wall Street money is landing right there in the lobbyist's offices in Washington, and fishermen seem to be inept and figuring out whose bread they need to butter in order to maintain their livelihood.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    30. Re:If they're going literal.... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      I'd still consider that to be excessive myself - but not outrageously so considering it was destruction of evidence, deliberate fraud for financial advantage, as well as likely refusing to comply with a relevant direct request from an appropriate deputized federal officer in the normal course of his duties.

      Then maybe the prosecutors should have thrown bunch of those charges at him instead. There are so many laws on the books for so many things that some people speculate that everyone commits three felonies a day.

      The courts are apparently completely ignoring the purpose, and, indeed the name of the law itself. We typically call it Sarbanes-Oxley, but that's only because it's shorter than the real name of the act, which is the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. The law was enacted, according to the summary in the bill, "to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws". Claiming it applies in this case is to ignore the clear intent of Congress for the entire law itself - why is parsing a few passages out of it even necessary?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    31. Re:If they're going literal.... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Laws are meant for little people. Not big shots and billionaires.

    32. Re:If they're going literal.... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right?

      This story seems to mix up the traditional concept of destruction-of-evidence with a very specific subset of that crime applicable under SOX.

      The prosecutors simply went too far in pushing for that specific crime, and therein lies the abuse - No different than how they try to make every case of plain ol' traditional fraud into a federal "wire fraud" offense when it involves the use of a computer (ie, basically all of it in the modern world), or how any crime involving more than a single person qualifies under RICO, or to pick a golden oldie, nailing Al Capone for tax fraud. Might what the crew did technically count under SOX? Maybe, maybe not - But SOX doesn't exist to serve as a bigger stick in all situations; it exists specifically to prosecute otherwise difficult to prove "white collar" crimes where most non-accountants can't even comprehend who did what to whom.

      Prosecutors need to stick with the crime that actually happened here, punish the crew appropriately, and lose the "get creative with charges and see what sticks" bullshit that has become far, far too common in today's legal system. When the law becomes nothing more than a set of technicalities to use to punish dissidence as their whim, do we really wonder why no one actually respects the law anymore?

    33. Re:If they're going literal.... by Xest · · Score: 2

      Agreed, it's actual application by authorities has been pathetic. There's somewhat of an irony I guess in the fact that numerous execs were jailed for financial scandals before the law existed (i.e. some Enron and Worldcom folks were jailed) but none after despite the law creating an ever more powerful tool to do exactly that.

      I'd suggest though that it's worth considering that the problem isn't the law per-se, but whoever is taking charge of enforcing it. It seems there were a lot of financial misconduct prosecutions in Clintons era and at the very very start of Bush's era possibly as a spillover from Clinton era doctrine but fuck all after that.

      Of course I'm not being partisan here and pretending it's all Bush, it's pretty clear Obama has equally let plenty get away with it on his watch too. But certainly both of them seem to have overseen governments with a startling lack of prosecutions for this sort of thing compared to their predecessors.

      So it's hard to judge Sarbanes-Oxley, on one hand you could argue that it put a stop to financial scandals, on the other you could say that's blatantly not true because we've seen plenty and it's not being used, on another we could say it's because of SO that we're not seeing prosecutions anymore. Personally though I suspect it's more to do with government will to prioritise and enforce that aspect of the law- i.e. since Bush and continued by Obama there is no will to enforce against financial crimes- I don't think this is purely a US phenomenom though for what it's worth, I think it's been the same here in the UK and really the West in general.

    34. Re:If they're going literal.... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.
    35. Re:If they're going literal.... by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      This is just another classic case of the law being used as worded rather than "intended". Much like computer code, the law allows for what is actually written down. Your code needs to equal your intent.

      This is why the pessimistic types need to be listened to when they tell you all of the bad ways in which your law can go wrong.

      The real problem here is that no politician has the guts to admit they screwed up and that the need to patch the bug.

      Although I have little sympathy for the boat crew as they crossed a line that should include hellfire and damnation.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    36. Re:If they're going literal.... by sjames · · Score: 2

      No, I am arguing that the rule of law requires an actual understanding of the law and a reasonable interpretation of language. There really are phrases that any reasonable person would understand one way even if the words might suggest something else if read by an AI or a non-native speaker.

      That is quite different from rule of man.

      I would go so far as to say that allowing every bizarre over-broad interpretation of law (such as applying SOX to the fishing boat case) is an example of allowing rule of man to take over. For example by applying a law that was never meant to be applied such that a minor infraction suddenly carries a major penalty.

      Essentially I advocate calling bullshit when someone wants to bend the law to their will. Legislative intent is often quite discernible and it is perfectly valid to do so in order to squash these impermissible efforts by individuals to effectively re-write the law

  2. So don't destroy evidence by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:So don't destroy evidence by Required+Snark · · Score: 2, Informative
      No nukes, no mobile labs for biologic agents. I specifically left out chemical weapons because of the media hype about the previously known chemical weapons that were left over from the Iran-Iraq war. I didn't want to make any claims that could be exploited by an idiot like you.

      During the Iran-Iraq war the US government supported Iraq's development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

      U.N. inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs. ... The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record.

      The recent reports about chemical weapons in the hands of ISIS are the direct result of actions taken by the US government during the Regan/H.W.Bush administrations. All the claims about weapons of mass destruction after that were deliberate propaganda made up during the G.W. Bush run up to the invasion of Iraq. Those are the facts. Deal with it.

      There is only one "fucking moron" in this exchange, and it's not me. You are delusional. I live in the real world. You should visit it sometime.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  3. This is getting weird. by freeze128 · · Score: 2

    Can a life-form be "evidence"? Can a Grouper be compelled to testify against itself? Where are we?

    1. Re:This is getting weird. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      So throw the murder victim overboard and replace it with a mannequin. Of course life forms and ex life forms can be evidence.

  4. Overreach... by David_Hart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone knows this is an overreach by the prosecutor and an abuse of the very intent of the law. All the Judges need to do is read up on the history of what lead to it's creation to understand that it was developed purely as a way to ensure that publicly traded corporations weren't reporting fictional financial statements. There is no way that this should have EVER reached the Supreme court, let alone this fisherman being convicted under this law. But, of course, we now have a legal system that prizes conviction over justice.

    I also love the argument for why this conviction should be upheld. "The government replies that the "records only" argument would make it a crime for a murderer to destroy his victim's diary, but not the murder weapon." Um... The destruction of evidence to cover up a crime is already against the law (Tampering, Obstruction, etc.). Saying that the Sarbanes-Oxley law is needed for this is just plain silly..... I guess it's a good thing that I am not a Supreme court justice. If I were I would have laughed my head off at the pure stupidity...

    FYI: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV... The above are my personal opinions...

    1. Re:Overreach... by Tom · · Score: 2

      it was developed purely as a way to ensure that publicly traded corporations weren't reporting fictional financial statements

      Frankly speaking, I always thought SOX was developed as a way to ensure IT consulting companies had a continuous source of income.

      The whole thing is basically one big "please interpret me however you see fit" paper, so I'm a little but not very surprised to see it applied to fish.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    2. Re:Overreach... by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Total overreach, and I don't understand why they couldn't have gone with some simpler "destruction of evidence" charge (which I'm sure is still fairly serious and would turn a fine into a prison sentence).

      Though if you read TFA he was sentenced to 30 days under a statute that could have given 20 years. The fact is he was ordered to preserve and turn over the evidence of his minor violation and he destroyed it, which was stupid and clearly worse than the original crime. The judge was actually pretty reasonable with the sentence, it was just the prosecutor who picked the wrong statue to prosecute...

  5. Fisherman charged with lieing about the size by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Funny

    of his fish.

    Next week: 7 supreme court justices die of laughter when presented with the case.

  6. Waste of time and money by sociocapitalist · · Score: 2

    tangible
    tan(d)b()l/
    adjective
    adjective: tangible

            1.
            perceptible by touch.

    object
    noun
    noun: object; plural noun: objects
    bdkt,-dkt/

            1.
            a material thing that can be seen and touched.

    A fish is a material thing that can be seen and touched.

    Voila, decision rendered.

    Fucking American legal bullshit idiot judges wasting time on this when they should be listening to more important cases.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  7. Bastard should have been shot by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    When it was found the captain attempted to destroy the evidence, as evidenced by the crew member(s) testifying, the captain should have been shot.

    His catching, and keeping, of undersized fish was deliberate as was the destruction of the evidence. He knew what he was doing in both cases.

    It's people like him who are destroying what little is left of the fisheries (along with fishermen from various Asian countries). Size restrictions and fishing limits are in place for a reason. People who deliberately go out of their way to subvert them don't deserve to kept around.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower