Bears repeating................
Posted on 06/24/2010 8:46:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Freeper
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court found fault Thursday with the federal government's high-profile convictions of Enron's Jeffrey Skilling and former media mogul Conrad Black, rejecting the government's use of a key white-collar crime law on which part of the prosecutions were based.
Former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling in April 2006. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday found fault with the federal government's convictions of Enron's Jeffrey Skilling and former media mogul Conrad Black. The justices sent the cases back to two different lower courts to determine whether portions of Messrs. Skilling and Black's convictions should be thrown out.
In ruling for Messrs. Skilling and Black, the high court, in opinions by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, found fault with a federal law that gives prosecutors the authority to bring cases against executives who deprive companies of their honest services.
The ruling could have a significant impact on some white-collar crime prosecutions. The honest-services law has been a darling of government lawyers because it is broadly worded and gives them room to prosecute a wide range of conduct.
Justice Ginsburg said the honest-services law should be confined only to cover fraud schemes involving bribery and kickbacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
Actually, she’s right on both these cases. As for the “honest services” provision, s prosecutors like Fitzgerald interpreted it, any business executive they disliked could be prosecuted. It was impossibly vague.
You can say that again!
Her clock is right twice a day, it seems...............
Bears repeating................
hit a glitch, I’m afraid.
Ha!
I agree, agree, agree . . . .
All of the Court's liberals, and some of its conservatives, joined Ginsburg's opinion. Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy would have gone further and tossed the entire statute as unconstitutionally vague instead of limiting it the way the majority did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.