Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The arc of the moral universe does not bend itself. it is up to us to bend it.

“Loving your country does not mean lying about its history.”

The fight for our country is always worth it. ~Kamala Harris

Their freedom requires your slavery.

When they say they are pro-life, they do not mean yours.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

The republican caucus is covering themselves with something, and it is not glory.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Shut up, hissy kitty!

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires Republicans to act in good faith.

Just because you believe it, that does not make it true.

Hell hath no fury like a farmer bankrupted.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Second rate reporter says what?

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

Washington Post Catch and Kill, not noticeably better than the Enquirer’s.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

This country desperately needs a functioning fourth estate.

You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Arthur Andersen

Reader Interactions

21Comments

  1. 1.

    Rick

    Overturning verdicts on technicalities is as American as Apple Pie. Not, as Zsa Zsa Huffington would have it, Baklava.

    Cordially…

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    I didn;t even think it was a technicality- it was a way fouled up jury charge that virtually ensured a guilty verdict.

    At least from my reading…

  3. 3.

    Non-Fat Latte Liberal

    After a bit of thought, the Jury instructions were an interpretation of the law and, that being struck down, I’d say isn’t a technicality.

    It sounds like one though.

  5. 5.

    Justin Faulkner

    If Arthur Andersen was denied its due process rights, then overturning the conviction is a pretty good thing to do. The government could retry the case, what what’s the point? As you said, John, the company is obliterated and thus there is little reason to.

  6. 6.

    Non-Fat Latte Liberal

    Justin,
    Is it true that they can retry? I don’t think so. I think that’s it. Otherwise you’re being tried for the sasme crime twice, whoch is verboten.

    Looks like the only punishment they’ll get is a ruined image and a destroyed firm. Not sure we could ask for much more.

  7. 7.

    slickdpdx

    And, as Huffington and others would be quick to suggest, such “technicalities” are the foundation of a just legal system. They often work to the benefit of regular people and, even, violent criminals as well.

  9. 9.

    Libertine

    If the jury was told they could convict even if they thought the company complied wit the law then the SCOTUS ruled correctly. The saddest thing is that either Arthur Anderson was destroyed as a company based on incompetence of the government or the American people were denied justice for the same reason.

  10. 10.

    tim

    Justice Sandra Day O’Connor remarked: “If this thing is so confusing, how is a businessperson supposed to know what to do? How’s a lawyer to know?”

    I generally agree with the thrust of the remarks here, but this stood out. Can’t make rules that businesspeople or lawyers can’t understand, but somehow such questions never come up in SCOTUS rulings regarding, say, blue collar types or even beat cops.

  11. 11.

    Libertine

    And the court was unusually in lock step on this case. It was a 9-0 ruling…a legal “no-brainer”.

  12. 12.

    Rick

    John,

    Though I’m still aglow from your hat tip, I, per usual, contributed *nothing* to the enlightenment you state.

    Cordially…

  13. 13.

    Doug

    >>Is it true that they can retry? I don’t think so. I think that’s it. Otherwise you’re being tried for the sasme crime twice, whoch is verboten.

  14. 14.

    Scott Chaffin

    You amaze me with your hypocrisy. Here we have a judge who made a completely false interpretation of the law, gave bad jury instructions, and it ended with the destruction of one of America’s oldest accounting firms, sending thousands into unemployment.

    And yet, per you, it’s wrong for Republicans to try to get strict constructionists onto the appeals court?

    Now, if there were instances of AA breaking the law as you seem to believe, why was this particular case tried, when it utterly hinges on the bad jury instructions? I’m not trying to absolve either Enron or AA of criminal activity, but it’s ridiculous that one effed-up judge can wreak that much havoc with a stinking interpretation.

    Don’t give me that “I know more than you do” answer, either. If there are fireworks in the offing, then hit us with them. We’re adults.

  15. 15.

    Non-Fat Latte Liberal

    Doug,
    I looked it up as best I could, found what looked like a reasnable page (I don’t have my sources sorted out here) the quote is in the annotations as the constitution is unclear:
    In this country, the common-law rule was in some cases limited to this rule and in other cases extended to bar a new trial even though the former trial had not concluded in either an acquittal or a conviction.
    Link here:
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/02.html#1

    Scott,
    While you’re right that we shouldn’t applaud the extrajudicial guilty verdict, if justly AA was innocent. I think it’s the universal consensus that AA was destryed not because of the court case but because of their association with Enron, a debacle that they were either complicit in, or unacceptably hands off about. The market enacted this revenge, not the courts, whose case was subject to higher standards.

  16. 16.

    John Cole

    You amaze me with your hypocrisy. Here we have a judge who made a completely false interpretation of the law, gave bad jury instructions, and it ended with the destruction of one of America’s oldest accounting firms, sending thousands into unemployment.

    I am sorry- at what point was I cheering fucked up judges? I thought by pointing out this was pretty clearly not a teechnicality I was actually pointing out all the things you just hammered me for being a hypocrite about.

    Fill me in, please. Arthur Andersen was pretty much DOA before any charges were even filed, if I remember correctly.

    I wold also look at who the judges were, first, before claiming the nuclear option might help things.

  17. 17.

    Kimmitt

    One issue here is that while Arthur Andersen shareholders took an absolute bath, the folks who were involved with the fraud by and large suffered very little.

  18. 18.

    Bekim

    Arthur Andersen could be re-tried without any violation of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, but it’s an expensive proposition and the prosecutors may choose not to do so.

    Scott, the chances that the judge in the original trial thought up those faulty jury instructions all by him/her self are approximately zero. The usual procedure is for the attorneys for both sides to bring their preferred jury instructions to a conference with the judge. The attorneys and judge then work out which instructions to offer. If this set of instructions slipped by both the judge and Andersen’s legal team, we may wonder about their competence, but it has absolutely nothing to do with their politics.

  19. 19.

    Geek, Esq.

    No doubt that this case will go into the next edition of every major criminal law textbook.

    Though, an argument can still be made that belief of legality should be an affirmative defense.

  20. 20.

    CalDevil

    Enron and the destrruction of Arthur Andersen were the greatest things ever to happen to the accounting industry in this country.

    Just ask any of the smaller publicly held companies that find themselves at the mercy of the big 4 and the affiliate members of their oligopoly.

    Sarbanes-Oxley has turned the traditionally money-losing auditing practices of the big accounting firms into a serendipitous goldmine.

    The negative consequences to the productivity (read: profit making ability) of American companies and the impact on their investors (read: everyone of us owning stock, or having a 401k or pension plan) is another issue entirely.

    Who cares about the companies and their investors (who must be evil if they’re looking to make money), as long as the accountants and lawyers are getting rich?

  21. 21.

    Justin Faulkner

    NFLLiberal: When an appellate court overturns a verdict like this–for reasons of due process like not getting a fair trial–a new trial can begin. Indeed, the Court’s opinion says that “the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

    I know it’s tempting to view this as simply letting a player in the Enron travesty off the hook, but consider that affirming the holding (or just not granting cert) would have allowed for a significant expansion of executive power. The addition of “impede” to the statute’s criteria–upon the insistence of and agreement with the Gonzales Justice dept., I might note–is especially concerning:

    These changes were significant. “[D]ishonest[y]” was no longer necessary to a finding of guilt, and it was enough for petitioner to have simply “impede[d]” the Government’s factfinding ability. “Impede” has broader connotations than “subvert” or even “undermine,” and many of these connotations do not incorporate any “corrupt[ness]” at all. Under the dictionary definition of “impede,” anyone who innocently persuades another to withhold information from the Government “get[s] in the way of the progress of” the Government.

    Hmm let’s see…do I want more executive power (when there is perhaps too much already) simply in order to make sure somebody pays the piper for covering up Enron? Nah.

    Also, for those who agree with me, I think this should serve as a perfect example of why Tom DeLay-style judicial intimidation is not only abhorrent, but completely off-the-mark in its assessment of the judiciary. Ideologically liberal and idologically conservative judicial rulings often do not match the political platforms of the parties. Bush’s attempt to pack the court with “constructionists” could very well backfire, if they’re worth their salt. I am imagining a SC ruling in 2012 seriously curtailing the executive’s war powers…now that I would like to see.

    What worries me is that Bush will appoint some movement conservative hyper-activist (they do exist) who doesn’t belong anywhere near the Supreme Court.

Comments are closed.