by TChris

It's good to be a CEO, even if it occasionally means a little prison time.

Fog Cutter Capital Group on Friday gave Andrew Wiederhorn, its prison-bound chief executive officer, a deal perhaps unprecedented in the post-Enron era of corporate reform: a continued position atop the company's organization chart with full salary even as he spends 18 months in federal prison.

"Full salary" means $350K a year, on top of a $2 million "leave of absence" payment and a bonus to be named later. The $2 million matches the restitution that Wiederhorn agreed to pay to the people he helped swindle.

Fog Cutter's board of directors, charged with looking out for the company's shareholders, are doing a good job of looking after Wiederhorn and his family and friends, who control 60 percent of the company. The other shareholders can't be pleased to see their stock losing value in response to the decision to keep a prisoner in his corporate position -- a decision made no less disturbing by the hiring of Wiederhorn's father-in-law as co-CEO.

The board members have close ties to Wiederhorn, ties that apparently motivate their belief that Wiederhorn should be rewarded for his dedicated (albeit illegal) efforts on behalf of the company. The minority stockholders should consider a lawsuit against the rogues who are placing their own interests (and Wiederhorn's) ahead of the shareholders.'

Next weekend is the 10th anniversary of the death of Nicole Simpson. O.J., who was acquitted of the murder but found liable in civil court for her "wrongful death" is giving interviews. He maintains his innocence and asserts he was convicted by the media.

We are well aware that most people in this country believe OJ was guilty and got off due to great defense lawyers, not-so-great prosecutors, and the race card. We're not one of those people. We followed both trials very closely, know many of the lawyers involved, and have never been convinced that O.J. killed his wife or asked anyone else to kill his wife.

Bump and update: Now the prosecution in the Limbaugh case is trying to hire a lawyer who is married to one of the judges on the appeals court considering the appeal (although not on the Rush case panel) to "assist" with the appeal. Will they will stoop to anything to win?

***************
Original Post

The Rush Limbaugh case is getting nastier with each court hearing. Here's the latest, in which the prosecution accused Roy Black, Rush's lawyer, of misleading the court at a prior hearing on the legislative history of the medical records law:

The latest disagreement arose earlier this week when Assistant State Attorney James Martz told an appeals court that Limbaugh's attorney provided wrong information in the case. Both sides appeared before the 4th District Court of Appeal in April to debate whether Limbaugh's medical records, which were seized for the ongoing criminal investigation, should remain private.

During the court hearing, Limbaugh attorney Roy Black told judges that the Florida Legislature had at one time revised state law so that medical records could not be taken by search warrant. On Tuesday, Martz provided the court with information that Black's comments were incorrect.

But two days later, Black fired back, arguing that prosecutors were missing five years' worth of audiotapes of lawmakers' discussions when they made their assertions. "The prosecutor is wrong and his research recklessly incomplete," Black charged in a response filed Thursday in court. "Prosecutors may have many powers, but they do not have the power to skip five years of legislation and rewrite history." Black asked the court to fine Martz for his false accusations.

Ouch. Word of advice to prosecutors: If you go after the king, you better make sure you slay him.

First, the prosecution gives an overly long, passionless opening practically conceding that their case is woefully short on direct evidence linking Scott Peterson to the murder of his pregnant wife Laci. As one former prosecutor said:

Legal analyst and attorney Dean Johnson is following the Peterson case, and told NBC 4 Tuesday, "My assessment of the opening statements thus far is that Rick Distaso, who is leading the prosecution team, is really losing this jury. Thus far, he has had a long, rambling statement … he hasn't covered the key points that the prosecution needs to cover to convince this jury about their case."

Thursday, the first full day of testimony, didn't go much better for the prosecution:

Prosecutors trying Scott Peterson's murder case got off to a rocky start Thursday, with some of their first witnesses seeming to do more harm to prosecutors than good....The prosecution "is helping the defense," said Michael Cardoza, a former Alameda County, Calif., prosecutor following the case. "They started on the starting line and are 10 yards behind already. They're running the wrong way."..."How is this a prosecution case?" asked Jim Hammer, a former San Francisco district attorney. "These are more like defense witnesses."

No murder weapon. No cause of death. No eyewitnesses to Laci's killing. Exceedingly well-prepared defense lawyers. Reasonable doubt galore. That's the wrap-up for week one of this trial that is supposed to last six months.

Update: Check out ScottIsInnocent.com put together by a Sunnyvale grandmother. Among the features:

by TChris

If you're speeding through Pennsylvania, don't count on CB enthusiasts to alert you to the squad car that's parked behind a billboard over the next hill. Invest in a good radar detector instead (or, if all else fails, slow down).

State police are dressing in camouflage and hiding in the woods with their radar guns.

In one five-hour blitz in Indiana County last week, troopers issued 25 citations to motorists zooming along at least 15 miles faster than the posted 55 mph limit - including one leadfoot cited for going 90 mph.

While the National Motorists Association complains that "studies show police are effective when they're visible" -- effective at reducing traffic speed, not so much at writing tickets -- dressing in camouflage and sitting in the woods is tons more fun than sitting in a car. Don't expect tactics to change soon -- at least, not before winter.

Scott Peterson's jury trial begins today with opening arguments. Many experts say the case is a toss-up. Mark Geragos, notwithstanding a tough gag order, has succeeded in reducing the public certainty of his guilt.

A circumstantial case, no murder weapon, confession, eyewitness. No obvious crime scene. No cause of death. What's left? Speculation over his odd behavior, his affair and a hair that could easily have been transferred --

Geragos says his closing may take all afternoon.

by TChris

Jonathan Singletary, a 16-year-old high school student, is accused of injuring a girl by throwing a piece of clay at her. He was offered a deal: admit to the misdemeanor charge and stay out of trouble, and the conviction would be kept sealed. Singletary says he didn't commit the crime and won't admit to something he didn't do, so he rejected the offer.

Prosecutors in Sutter County, California responded in typical fashion, by upping the ante: they increased the misdemeanor charge to a felony. The felony charge carries a maximum of four years in the California Youth Authority.

Since word about the Sunnyvale youth's case leaked out last month, outraged Bellarmine teachers and classmates have been rallying behind him. Many question the evidence and whether Jonathan was targeted simply because he's African-American.

Only one student claims to have seen Singletary throw something as he was walking past the classroom. The student who was with Singletary denies that Singletary threw anything. Since the victim was in a ceramics class, it seems likely that the piece of clay came from inside the classroom.

The felony charge requires proof that Singletary caused a serious injury. The injured girl had a scratched cornea and a bruise, but suffered no lasting injury. The initial decision that a misdemeanor charge was appropriate is supported by the degree of harm caused. The felony charge is either an attempt to bully Singletary into accepting the misdemeanor, or an attempt to punish him for rejecting the offer and exercising his right to a trial. Enhancing a charge for either reason is relatively common, but still an abuse of power.

Newsweek reports Martha Stewart has a plan to limit her jail time:

Convicted domestic diva Martha Stewart is planning to try to shorten her time in jail by offering to serve part or all of her sentence helping underprivileged women start businesses, according to a story in the June 7 edition of Newsweek due to go on sale on newsstands Monday.

Stewart recently approached the Women's Venture Fund, a new York nonprofit group, offering to work 20 hours a week teaching low income and minority women to become entrepreneurs according to the report which cited the venture's President Maria Otero.

We hope it works.

by TChris

It's unfortunate that Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico learned the wrong lesson from the arrest of Chief District Judge W. John Brennan for possession of cocaine. Judge Brennan may also be charged with driving under the influence. He was stopped after turning into a parking lot to avoid a sobriety checkpoint on a Saturday morning, and was described as appearing "highly intoxicated." A passenger in his car was arrested for having cocaine in her purse.

Although Richardson considers Judge Brennan and his passenger to be his friends and says he is saddened by their arrest, his political response is predictable: more of the same.

"This incident will only redouble my efforts to deal with the DWI and drug scourges in our state in the next legislative session," Richardson said.

Richardson says Judge Brennan's case shows how pervasive drug use is, and vows to deal with the problem even more aggressively. In other words, still harsher penalties. Does Richardson think Judge Brennan, who presides over criminal cases, doesn't know the penalties for DWI or for cocaine possession? Does he think Judge Brennan wouldn't have committed these crimes if the penalties were even more extreme than they are?

The punishment model doesn't work. If it did, Judge Brennan -- who knew the risks as well as anyone and who had more to lose than most -- wouldn't have been getting high on a Saturday morning. The real lesson is that "more of the same" is not a solution. If a judge who sentences people for the same acts the judge is committing isn't deterred by the threat of punishment, why should we blindly assume that even harsher penalties will deter? People with substance abuse problems need help, not punishment -- whether they're judges, talk radio hosts, or kids on the street.

by TChris

Not every harm can be or should be remedied by the criminal justice system. This appears to be a case of a misguided prosecution.

A New Jersey man took his mentally disabled son to the beach. His son suffered a severe case of sunburn. The man had applied sunscreen to his son, but didn't apply enough.

The father was plainly careless, but not every act of negligence should be prosecuted as a crime. The man's decision to put sunscreen on his child suggests that he was trying to protect his son from harm. The father might need to be educated about the protective value of sunscreen, and a family court might want to consider whether this father should be allowed to take his son to the beach in the future, but -- unless there's substantially more to the story -- it is a misuse of the criminal justice system to prosecute a man who not only lacked the intent to harm his child but took affirmative steps to prevent that harm.

Now here's a cushy job. Being retained as a lawyer to attend court proceedings with the defendant's parents and explain to them what's going on. Of course, it's not just any case and any parents. It's the case of Michael Jackson and it is his father who has hired a Beverly Hills lawyer to sit in court with him and his wife and then translate the proceedings for them.

Hey, if anyone knows Kobe's parents, we're available.

by TChris

It's true, as the NY Times editorializes, that the FBI and Justice Department "ought to hang their heads in shame over the mistaken arrest and jailing" of Brandon Mayfield. This isn't the first time that the FBI has followed -- in David Cole's words -- an "arrest first, ask questions later" policy.

Mayfield is fortunate that the Spanish National Police took a more professional approach than the FBI, which confidently announced that a fingerprint found on a bag of detonators tied to train bombings in Madrid was a "100 percent match" with Mayfield's prints. When Spanish investigators met with the FBI to question that conclusion, the FBI came away from the meeting believing that the Spanish police "felt satisfied" with the FBI's analysis. More likely, the FBI -- an agency that doesn't respond well to criticism -- felt satisfied that the Spanish police shouldn't be questioning their conclusions. In any event, the Spanish investigators didn't give up after being brushed off by the FBI; they continued their work and matched the prints with a more likely suspect.

Props to the Spanish police for their professionalism. They kept an innocent man from getting into a whole lot of trouble. The FBI and Justice Department should hang their heads not only for botching the fingerprint analysis, but for advising a judge that they had cause to arrest Mayfield because of a contact between Mayfield and a man on a terrorism watch list that, according to Mayfield, never occurred, and because Mayfield advertised in a Muslim "yellow pages" and attended a mosque (not as incriminating as taking out an ad in the Terrorist Gazette or attending a terrorist picnic, but apparently proof of guilt to the Justice Department).