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.

Pastimes : Laughter is the Best Medicine - Tell us a joke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Messbauer who wrote (8126)	12/17/1998 10:15:00 PM
From: Timothy Liu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 62549

Not Telling Whole Truth and Perjury Aren't Same.... Cases From WSJ Tuesday Ku Klux Klan member Billy Carriagan was asked if he had ever burned crosses on people's lawns. "No, I haven't" he said. He was convicted of perjury, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Va. threw out the charge in 1987 because he actually had only stood watch with a shotgun while others unsuccessfully attempted to ignite the cross. His conspiracy conviction was upheld. Prosecutors in Texas subpoenaed documents in an alien-smuggling case from one Dudley Bell. “Do you have records that are asked for in the subpoena?” Mr Bell was asked. He replied: “No, sir, I do not.” Turns out, he did – at home. But Mr. Bell contended that he thought he was being asked if he had brought the files with him. The Fifth Circuit reversed his conviction in 1980. It upheld a second perjury conviction – for denying he knew the wife of an alien smuggler. Linda Marks was embroiled in a struggle for control of a bingo hall. She took $60,000 of the halls revenues and split it among associates, including her husband. He later was convicted of conspiring with his wife and others to burn down the bingo hall and incite a riot. But Ms. Marks's perjury conviction for denying that she received any bingo-hall money was overturned by the New York-based Second Circuit in 1992; It was unclear whether the prosecutor meant she took the money personally or in a business capacity. Outhouse builder James Chaplin was convicted of hiding assets by giving his father-in-law “on or about Oct.23, 1990.” But his perjury conviction, for denying turning over the money on that day, was thrown out by the Wisconsin-based Seventh Circuit, because there was no evidence that the transaction happened on exactly that day. The most famous Supreme Court perjury case upholds the legality of misleading by truthfully answering unasked questions – a device that Mr. Clinton seemed to employ. Samuel Bronston, the owner of a bankrupt company, strongly implied, falsely, that he never had a Swiss bank account. Here is how: First, he denied currently having a Swiss account. Then, when asked if he ever had one, he replied that his company once did. True enough, even if his answer was “shrewdly calculated to evade,” the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. Luis reveron Martinez, a police officer convicted in the coverup of an ambush of two Puerto Rican nationalists, similarly got one of his two perjury convictions overturned. Asked “Did you hear a second volley of shots?” he replied:”After that, the shots stopped and there was not any more shots.” Actually, the evidence of a second volley of shots was clear. But the Boston-based First Circuit ruled that the officer never denied that, for the words “after that” could have meant there wasn't a third volley. Quillin Porter pleaded guilty to mail fraud in a securities case and admitted before a grand jury in Arkansas that he periodically sent out misinformation in client newsletters. He later tried to back out of his plea and denied mailing the newsletters. His perjury conviction was overturned by the Eighth Circuit in 1993, because having something sent out isn't necessarily the same as physically putting it in the mail. During an investigation into an alleged scheme to misuse pension funds, James Tonelli denied that he had ever "handled" a pension-fund check, even though evidence indicated he had signed a letter enclosing one for $300,000. The Philadelphia based Third Circuit overturned the perjury conviction because there was no evidence he had physically touched the check. In other words, it depends on what the meaning of the word "handled" is.

To: John Messbauer who wrote (8126)	12/18/1998 2:04:00 PM
From: SJS	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 62549

Name Change for America: __________________________ WASHINGTON, DC (REUTERS: 12/18/98, 12:25P EST)--World leaders reacted with stunned silence as Congress pre-empted the impeachment proceeding to conduct a vote on a formal name change for America. There will be a vote later today, or tomorrow, or Monday, or next week, or next year, depending on the war with Iraq. "This is unprecedented," said Tony Blair, Prime Minister of England. Congress is now debating a formal motion to change the name of America. Two suggestions have been forwarded from committee: Partisan States of America, or Un-united States of America. "Many Americans have been asleep at the switch," said Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts. "They haven't been diligently watching C-Span, so they haven't been aware of these suggestions. Congress is going to attempt to have this wrapped up as fast as possible BEFORE the impeachment vote, if possible." Reuters polled 3500 random phone callers and web users. Results of that poll overwhelmingly indicate that Americans favor leaving the name unchanged. Congress, however, is unfazed. Senator Jerry Calwirth (D) from Idaho said that the name change is more reflective of a country that has a true lack of unity on current affairs. He thinks his vote will be for Partisan States, but hasn't totally made up his mind. As he tell Reuters, " I was very disappointed that the Republican leadership choose to publicly attack our President for his IRAQ decision. Right or wrong, we used to all be Americans. If the new millennium brings more of an open public forum and partisanship to all of America's issues, then we should let the world know that we are not always going to be the United States of America. Anyway, if we're going to change it, I kinda like the ring to Partisan; it rolls off my tongue." The stock market, at 12:09, after the announcement that the impeachment vote was yet again moved out, was up 109.39. Analysts indicated that it doesn't affect corporate earnings, and that the rally was due to the relief that Congress was finally working on some real issue. In Washington, President Clinton announced the US Government would veto any name change. Minutes later, the President reversed his decision. "We've tried everything to come together on this agreement, however I plan to vote along party lines, depending on the choice presented to me. The President indicated that the administration will initiate a policy of "constructive engagement" with Congress to attempt to ward off any delay in the decision in lieu of returning to the impeachment process. Reuters News