Jump to content



Photo

Could Danny Rodden be "off the hook" like a red snapper?


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#1 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 09:00 PM

Last week, the US Supreme Court delivered an interesting decision.   In "Yates v. U.S."  the SCOTUS ruled that 

for  purposes of a 1519 prosecution, .....  'JUSTICE GINSBURG, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE BREYER, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concluded that a “tangible object” within §1519’s compass is one used to record or preserve information."

 

They reversed the conviction of Cap'n Yates who tossed a bunch of red snapper overboard to try to avoid a prosecution.

You can read the opinion here.    Thus....the US gummit  prosecutors claimed the old Capn was destroying evidence and such like and violatin' 1519.  But the prosecutors ran into a problem up at the Supreme Court.

 

The Supremes decided that 1519 was designed to go after dummies that falsified records and stuff.  It doesn't apply to stuff like 19 inch fishes. 

 

"So what" says you. 

 

Well,  here's what,  Danny Rodden was charged with conspiracy to violate 1519 by telling his acquaintance to 'destroy that little deputy costume what I give you".  Now I asks you...is a deputy costume something 'used to record or preserve information" or not?

 

Some in the legal world thought that was the toughest charge he faced.  "destruction of evidence" was undeniable and doesn't sound too good.  But check it out....the US Supreme Court said unless it's something that is used to record or preserve info, it aint' a 1519 charge.  BOOM!

 

"Wait a minute...wait just a minute Pesty"  says you.  "How about lying about sex with a hooker".  Pesty says ...aint that

'entrapment'?   Did DR go to the feds and say "I ain't had sexual relations with that woman"!    OR did the Feds come to  DR and whilst he was minding his own bidness ask him "Did you have sex with that woman?"  


Edited by Pesty Version 2, 03 March 2015 - 09:01 PM.

  • Not Super But Honest Mike, Quasar, Oldgoat and 2 others like this

#2 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 09:54 PM

5-4 on very odd lines indeed!  I'd say that's as bipartisan as you can get.

 

Roberts, Ginsberg, Sotomayer, Breyer & Alito voted for Yates' position.

 

Kagan, Scalia, Kennedy & Thomas dissent.


  • snowman and Pesty Version 2 like this

#3 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 11:17 PM

Pesty, I hope you are correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • Pesty Version 2 and Donna like this

#4 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 03 March 2015 - 11:31 PM

Not Super,    It aint' a matter of 'correct'.  The opinon is the opinion. " .... I only state what the actual case says and what Danny's case says. He was prosecuted for conspiracy to 

destroy evidence ( I think) under 1519. 

 

I think the judge (Cool  Tanya) will have to consider whether a plea can be sustained with that 1519 charge.  If not, it is probably back to the old drawing board.  Then, all they got is an entrapment threatened case. 

 

If you convene a jury that includes a couple of regular guys..... and ask them if they would or wouldn't 'stretch the truth' when asked

whether they got cozy with a fluzy..... 

 

That's entrapment  baby. 


Edited by Pesty Version 2, 03 March 2015 - 11:33 PM.

  • Donna likes this

#5 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 10:41 AM

Would you say the same if it had been someone else that was being investigated?

Would NSBHM be of the same opinion if it was say Mayor Moore?

 

I hope things work out for Mr. Rodden, but treat everyone the same.


  • Mary, Sleepy and grammy like this

#6 grayarea

grayarea

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 835 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 11:19 AM

Pesty,

 

My problem with this is that Danny has already pled guilty. Normally, a guilty plea forecloses any further discussion of the case issues unless those issues go directly to subject matter jurisdiction. He may not be out of the woods on this...at least, yet. This sounds more like something that went to how he was found out, not whether the was a justiciable issue before the court.

 

What do you think?



#7 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 11:43 AM

grayarea,  I think he pleaded but hasn't been sentenced.  It will depend on the judge I imagine. It's an odd situation.  

 

The judge may not be agreeable to enter a judgment on a plea she knows is insufficiently supported.  I would think

the government would have to concede it doesn't work.  Perhaps they argue conspiracy is distinguishable from the 

Yates case?  Dunno.  Could be interesting.



#8 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 11:48 AM

"At The End Of The Day" Pesty Is Pretty Smart !

 

The United States Supreme Court's decision
on the '1519 evidence' changes how the judge can accept

a plea on a very important part of the basis for the case. There is now

a legal obligation for the defense, the government's attorney, and the judge

presiding over the case to re-evaluate, respond , and determine how to proceed.


Edited by Savile Row, 04 March 2015 - 11:56 AM.


#9 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 03:00 PM

Well,  here's what,  Danny Rodden was charged with conspiracy to violate 1519 by telling his acquaintance to 'destroy that little deputy costume what I give you".  Now I asks you...is a deputy costume something 'used to record or preserve information" or not?

 

Some in the legal world thought that was the toughest charge he faced.  "destruction of evidence" was undeniable and doesn't sound too good.  But check it out....the US Supreme Court said unless it's something that is used to record or preserve info, it aint' a 1519 charge.  BOOM!

OK ... I'm confused.  :blink: 

Was he charged improperly?

18 U.S. Code § 1519 - Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy



#10 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 03:46 PM

River,  read the case linked above.  1519 prohibits, among other things, the destruction of 'tangible objects' which was in Roddens

case the deputy costume.  The Yates boat cap'n was facing the same charge for tossing the red snapper overboard. 

 

So, then here comes that high falutin' SCOTUS and declares that aint' what the Congress meant by "tangible objects"...they meant

tangible objects that you record information on.  (Like account books and computer harddrives and stuff)....not fishes and not, presumably, 

a badge and shirt.  

 

So back when the charge came down,  it looked like a valid charge. But, last week....the Scotus said "naw....destroying fish ain't a 1519 

offense".  



#11 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 03:49 PM

Would you say the same if it had been someone else that was being investigated?

Would NSBHM be of the same opinion if it was say Mayor Moore?

 

I hope things work out for Mr. Rodden, but treat everyone the same.

 

Yes.  I would say the same.  Even if it was NSHBM charged with destroying say....a set of bib overalls....to thwart the Federal investigation,  

it wouldn't be a 1519 case.   



#12 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 04:01 PM

So back when the charge came down,  it looked like a valid charge. But, last week....the Scotus said "naw....destroying fish ain't a 1519 

offense".  

That's what I was thinking. Destruction of evidence is still a crime, just not under that statute

which only deals with "Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records". Right?



#13 Pesty Version 2

Pesty Version 2

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,953 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 04:06 PM

Take a look at the indictment.  He had several counts of false statement (lying about "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman!")  but Count 4

is 1519.   Here is the cj article w the Indictment



#14 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 04:24 PM

One more question. The indictment reads :

 

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1519 and 2.

The section 1519 was easy to find. The section 2, not so much.

 

_____________ EDIT ____________________________

 

Nevermind, I found it.

 

18 U.S. Code § 2 - Principals

a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels,

commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

 

(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him
or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

Edited by RiverFox, 04 March 2015 - 04:29 PM.


#15 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 05:13 PM

So, in technical legal type terms this here dern egregious act against Uncle Sammy's feelings,
aka an "offense against the dang United States its-sef ",
by  the fisherman and the Sheriff
both involve a "red snapper" as a "tangible object"....
Ol Uncle Sammy is getting pretty dern persnickety.....

e·gre·gious
adjective

adjective

"outstandingly bad; shocking"...



synonyms: shocking, appalling, terrible, awful, horrendous, frightful, atrocious, abominable, abhorrent, outrageous;
 


Edited by Savile Row, 04 March 2015 - 05:21 PM.


#16 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 06:17 PM

Soooo, if the request to hide the t-shirt and the Kentucky Colonel thingy

was made to an agent of the guv-mint tasked by the guv-mint

and the guv-mint's agent committed the acts while under the control of the guv-mint,

is the guv-mint is complicit in its own actions and scheme....?

The crafty guv-mint committed an act against itself?

Dang it, Uncle Sammy's feelings should not be trifled with

in such earth shattering and important matters.....



#17 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 06:38 PM

The more I think about the humor in Uncle Sammy's important governmental investigations,
I am really concerned what will now happen since  the Supreme Court of the United States of America
( SCOTUS ) has ruled that the DOJ can't indict a citizen for treating as a "red snapper" a " tangible  object"...............



#18 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 06:50 PM

.......



 


Edited by Savile Row, 04 March 2015 - 06:56 PM.


#19 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 07:20 PM

savile, DUDE, you are too old to go "red snapper" fishing.......and the bait won't work........so put your broken pole away.....and try to remember 40 years ago when you could catch some snapper......while the memory still works.....



#20 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 04 March 2015 - 07:27 PM

Dag nab it!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users