Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lazarre who wrote (16753)	7/2/1998 9:06:00 PM
From: Catfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

The Truth about the Hubbell Tax Case The Landmark Legal Foundation July 2nd , 1998 Mark R . Levin Yesterday , Federal District Judge James Robertson , a Clinton appointee , dismissed multiple tax fraud indictments against Webb Hubbell , his wife Suzy , and related indictments against the Hubbells ' lawyer and their accountant . Among other things , the judge ruled that Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr improperly used documents Hubbell turned over to him under a grant of limited immunity . Judge Robertson wrote , in part : " Mr . Hubbell was thereby turned into the primary informant against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment " right against self - incrimination . Judge Robertson also ruled that the Special Division Panel , which is an arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals , lacked the authority to expand Starr ' s investigation into Hubbell ' s alleged tax violations . PRODUCTION IMMUNITY Judge Robertson is wrong as a matter of law. Starr granted Hubbell production immunity , requiring Hubbell to turn over his records , in response to a subpoena . This is a very narrow grant of immunity , that simply prevents the government from using the act of production against Hubbell . For instance , if Hubbell provides Starr with his own tax returns , and other documents , that suggest fraudulent conduct , Starr cannot use those documents to indict Hubbell . But Starr can use Hubbell ' s documents as a road map . He can ask the IRS to provide him with a copy of Hubbell ' s tax returns ; he can subpoena records from others who may have assisted Hubbell ; and he can secure sworn testimony from those familiar with Hubbell ' s conduct . Unlike use immunity , which is granted to compel or enable someone to testify before the grand jury without violating their Fifth Amendment right against self - incrimination , production immunity applies to documents that already exist . Starr is free, like any federal prosecutor , to use those documents to gather additional information , and to pursue leads . If Judge Robertson is right , and he is not , every time a person provides subpoenaed documents to a grand jury , and those documents reveal evidence of crimes , the grand jury would be unable to investigate those crimes . What are subpoenas for , but to uncover crimes ? What are grand juries for but to investigate possible crimes ? LOWER COURT OVERRULING HIGHER COURT Judge Robertson also took the extraordinary step of overruling a higher court asserting that the Special Division Panel -- which is an arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals -- lacked the authority to expand Starr ' s investigation into Hubbell ' s tax filings without first seeking permission from Attorney General Janet Reno . Since when does a lower court judge have the authority to overrule a higher court ' s decision ? If I were a betting man , I would bet heavily that Judge Robertson ' s bizarre holding will be overturned. Mark R . Levin , President , The Landmark Legal Foundation freerepublic.com