Thanks. I'm thinking of something even bigger than this, i.e., not just Burkett being in trouble, but the entire Viacom Corp. Let's say that Rather knowingly conspired to use the forged documents that came from the Democratic Party, using the power of CBS as a news organization to hurt the Republicans in a presidential election. There must be federal laws against corporations allowing this to happen, i.e., if rather than proactively doing something like firing Rather and issuing corrections, they simple "let it ride".
FUNNY YOU MENTION THAT. We would have to ask one of the lawyers of FR is they think this would fly. I know how to look up legal cases and codes and statutes to an extent.
BUT THEY WOULD KNOW IF IT WOULD FLY.
The State Atty folks in Austin are starting to hear rumbles...from what I understand...so who knows.
Texas Penal Code - Chapter 2 Sect. 7.02 (maybe (a) 2, 3 and (b))
§ 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF
ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense
committed by the conduct of another if:
(1) acting with the kind of culpability required for
the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person
to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;
(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the
commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids,
or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or
(3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the
offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission,
he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the
offense.
(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit
one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators,
all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed,
though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed
in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have
been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
Just thinking...but...I wonder if CBS can be charged since there office is not is Texas. Not sure how that works.
I guess they drag their sorry butts down here after they serve them with extradition papers.
WHILE WE ARE PONDERING ABOUT IT....This looks interesting too.
SUBCHAPTER B. CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS
§ 7.21. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) "Agent" means a director, officer, employee, or
other person authorized to act in behalf of a corporation or
association.
(2) "High managerial agent" means:
(A) a partner in a partnership;
(B) an officer of a corporation or association;
(C) an agent of a corporation or association who
has duties of such responsibility that his conduct reasonably may
be assumed to represent the policy of the corporation or
association.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 7.22. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION OR
ASSOCIATION. (a) If conduct constituting an offense is performed
by an agent acting in behalf of a corporation or association and
within the scope of his office or employment, the corporation or
association is criminally responsible for an offense defined:
(1) in this code where corporations and associations
are made subject thereto;
(2) by law other than this code in which a legislative
purpose to impose criminal responsibility on corporations or
associations plainly appears; or
(3) by law other than this code for which strict
liability is imposed, unless a legislative purpose not to impose
criminal responsibility on corporations or associations plainly
appears.
(b) A corporation or association is criminally responsible
for a felony offense only if its commission was authorized,
requested, commanded, performed, or recklessly tolerated by:
(1) a majority of the governing board acting in behalf
of the corporation or association; or
(2) a high managerial agent acting in behalf of the
corporation or association and within the scope of his office or
employment.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 4, eff. Sept.
1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 7.23. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSON FOR CONDUCT IN
BEHALF OF CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION. (a) An individual is
criminally responsible for conduct that he performs in the name of
or in behalf of a corporation or association to the same extent as
if the conduct were performed in his own name or behalf.
(b) An agent having primary responsibility for the
discharge of a duty to act imposed by law on a corporation or
association is criminally responsible for omission to discharge the
duty to the same extent as if the duty were imposed by law directly
on him.
(c) If an individual is convicted of conduct constituting an
offense performed in the name of or on behalf of a corporation or
association, he is subject to the sentence authorized by law for an
individual convicted of the offense.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
§ 7.24. DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF
CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION. It is an affirmative defense to
prosecution of a corporation or association under Section
7.22(a)(1) or (a)(2) that the high managerial agent having
supervisory responsibility over the subject matter of the offense
employed due diligence to prevent its commission.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 5, eff. Sept.
1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.
I've reviewed forgery and fraud laws, and think criminal charges there are dry holes.
I haven't reviewed or studied electioneering laws, but have an aversion to "going there" for the same reason I have an aversion to Congressional hearings. Both lead to regulation of political expression by the media, using the force of law.
To me, the best "correction" is for the public to view all media with deep skepticism, and for each individual to develop critical thinking and analytical skills. Reading comprehension, logical thinking, etc. are useful to society in proportion to the fraction of its people that posses those skills.
I have no issue with the cause of action that GWB has against CBS News for defamation, or a shareholder suit by Viacom shareholders, if their stock loses value on bad business judgement.
I've asked this same question on a couple of other threads. Anyone know anything about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002? Doesn't it require some very strict provisions for corporate oversight and governance of publicly-held companies?