You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Who assumes the risk of corked bottles?
- Thread starter VLM
- Start date
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
You now are being intentionally obtuse. If I do not commit murder, in a fair system I can't be charged or convicted of murder. If i have material information about that murder and I lie to the police about it, i can be charged with obstruction.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by kirk wallace:
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
In the federal courts and every state in the union except Maryland, which is considered a great anomaly, juries are limited to questions of fact. Questions of law are always decided by judges. They instruct the juries what they can consider and what they cannot and how much weight they are to accord to the factual evidence and how the law applies. Oh, and by the way, judges have the power to overrule a jury's verdict. Jonathan, I'm sorry, but you've really diminished my respect for you by this thread and your ridiculous arguments.originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
For good reasons, lawyers don't find people guilty, juries do.
Kirk to the contrary notwithstanding, Martha Stewart was originally brought under suspicion and was questioned because she was alleged to have sold shares in a drug company when her friend, who was the president of the company told her, prior to the reporting in the news, that the drug had been rejected by someone or another. This is insider trading. It is what they could not prove and instead charged her with obstructing justice in the sense of obstructing the case they were unable to prove, by lying under oath. If I had been a member of that jury, I would have had to vote to find her guilty, but I wouldn't have liked it.
Sorry, Jonathan: you have the facts a bit muddled. Sam Waksal, the CEO on ImClone, tipped his daughter and other family members to sell ahead of the public announcement of the FDA's failure to approve one of ImClone's pending drugs. That is insider trading as to him -- note that his daughter was not charged with a crime. MS's broker was aware of the Waksal sales and was found to have tipped MS about them. MS denied that the broker had told her. She was found (as you note, by a jury) to have lied about that. That is obstrucion of justice; it is not insider trading. She was originally charged with, but not convicted of securities fraud --and indeed the judge threw out that charge before it even went to the jury -- but that securites fraud charge related to her company; not Imclone. If you'd like, see this story.
USA Today, that paragon of journalism, has a nice time line here.
Let's go over history of charge and counter-charge.
1)I said I could tell the difference between charging someone with insider trading and charging them with lying about it, which was the obstruction of justice charge. In other words, I said at the outset, and it was indeed part of my point, that she was charged with lying under oath--because they could not get her on insider trading.
2)You denied that it ever had anything to do with insider trading.
3) I contradicted you, giving an elided account of the insider trade in question. By the way, the charge went through her broker because they could never prove it came from Waksai, but she did know him and it was widely suspected. I'll, however, accept your correction as it still makes my point in 1). They couldn't get her on the real charge so they got her on lying in their investigation of the real charge.
4) You write as if you are correcting what I say, but you confirm my original statement's content: they couldn't get her on the real charge so they got her on lying about it. I'm happy we agree. You are free with Claude to think the conviction on the obstruction charge was just as well as accurate (two different claims), if you wish.
That is what happened. If you want to say this is proof of "not being able to get her on the real charge", you have not grasped what the "real" charge was or could be.
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
originally posted by SFJoe:
This grows a little dull, and I even know Sam.
YES!
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by Chris Weber:
originally posted by Steven Spielmann:
Some comments:
....
I've lived in Michigan my whole life, been buying wine here seriously since 1985 and know many people ITB and never heard of this. Lots of bottles get returned in Michigan and I've never heard of anything under the table about it.
....
I grew up in MI, though I haven't lived there for a while. I discussed a prospective purchase with an Ann Arbor retailer about six weeks ago when the subject of returns came up. The seller cited the law, saying he couldn't accept them. I don't buy there much, and perhaps this chat was an anomaly.
It's peculiar that Michigan, with its good and growing wine-making community, is so backward-looking in its regulation.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Kirk,
By your own account, they brought a charge of securities fraud, which the judge threw out. They then came back with a charge of obstruction of justice. Yes, I am therefore maintaining that the real charge they wanted her on was the securities fraud charge. Further the obstruction charge did not relate to her testimony with regard to some other crime she did not commit but her testimony with regard to the alleged securities fraud. Yes, I want to describe that as not being able to get her on the real charge. As I say, I'm happy to assent to your description of what happened and happy to let others decide whose construction of it the events bear.
I understand that numbers of people think Martha Stewart got what she deserved. Claude's position, that she was charged with obstruction, found guilty of obstruction and had obstructed is accurate as far as it goes and I'm happy to assent to it. You are welcome to it, too. You are not welcome to maintain that she was never charged with securities fraud and that the obstruction charge has nothing to do with that first charge and the government's failure to get it past a judge.
By your own account, they brought a charge of securities fraud, which the judge threw out. They then came back with a charge of obstruction of justice. Yes, I am therefore maintaining that the real charge they wanted her on was the securities fraud charge. Further the obstruction charge did not relate to her testimony with regard to some other crime she did not commit but her testimony with regard to the alleged securities fraud. Yes, I want to describe that as not being able to get her on the real charge. As I say, I'm happy to assent to your description of what happened and happy to let others decide whose construction of it the events bear.
I understand that numbers of people think Martha Stewart got what she deserved. Claude's position, that she was charged with obstruction, found guilty of obstruction and had obstructed is accurate as far as it goes and I'm happy to assent to it. You are welcome to it, too. You are not welcome to maintain that she was never charged with securities fraud and that the obstruction charge has nothing to do with that first charge and the government's failure to get it past a judge.
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Kirk,
By your own account, they brought a charge of securities fraud, which the judge threw out. They then came back with a charge of obstruction of justice. Yes, I am therefore maintaining that the real charge they wanted her on was the securities fraud charge. Further the obstruction charge did not relate to her testimony with regard to some other crime she did not commit but her testimony with regard to the alleged securities fraud. Yes, I want to describe that as not being able to get her on the real charge. As I say, I'm happy to assent to your description of what happened and happy to let others decide whose construction of it the events bear.
I understand that numbers of people think Martha Stewart got what she deserved. Claude's position, that she was charged with obstruction, found guilty of obstruction and had obstructed is accurate as far as it goes and I'm happy to assent to it. You are welcome to it, too. You are not welcome to maintain that she was never charged with securities fraud and that the obstruction charge has nothing to do with that first charge and the government's failure to get it past a judge.
read the materials. do your own research. whatever. you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. the securities fraud charge was a very creative and far fetched claim that her lying was intend to prop up the value of Martha Stewart Living OmniMedia shares. that charge was tossed out.
chaad thomas
chaad thomas
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Chris Weber:
originally posted by Steven Spielmann:
Some comments:
....
I've lived in Michigan my whole life, been buying wine here seriously since 1985 and know many people ITB and never heard of this. Lots of bottles get returned in Michigan and I've never heard of anything under the table about it.
....
I grew up in MI, though I haven't lived there for a while. I discussed a prospective purchase with an Ann Arbor retailer about six weeks ago when the subject of returns came up. The seller cited the law, saying he couldn't accept them. I don't buy there much, and perhaps this chat was an anomaly.
It's peculiar that Michigan, with its good and growing wine-making community, is so backward-looking in its regulation.
There is no prohibition against returns of tainted wine by the consumer to a MI retailer as I understand it:
"Administrative Rule 436.1531 states that an off-premises licensee may accept from a customer, for a cash refund or exchange, an alcoholic liquor product purchased by the customer from the off-premises licensee if the product is demonstrably spoiled or contaminated or the container damaged to the extent that the contents would likely be of an unsanitary nature or unfit for consumption and if the returned product is not resold and is removed from the licensed premises as soon as practicable, but not more than 14 days after its return."
And yes, I understand "alcoholic liquor product" includes wine.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by chaad thomas:
.....
And yes, I understand "alcoholic liquor product" includes wine.
?
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by kirk wallace:
this is really tediousoriginally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Kirk,
By your own account, they brought a charge of securities fraud, which the judge threw out. They then came back with a charge of obstruction of justice. Yes, I am therefore maintaining that the real charge they wanted her on was the securities fraud charge. Further the obstruction charge did not relate to her testimony with regard to some other crime she did not commit but her testimony with regard to the alleged securities fraud. Yes, I want to describe that as not being able to get her on the real charge. As I say, I'm happy to assent to your description of what happened and happy to let others decide whose construction of it the events bear.
I understand that numbers of people think Martha Stewart got what she deserved. Claude's position, that she was charged with obstruction, found guilty of obstruction and had obstructed is accurate as far as it goes and I'm happy to assent to it. You are welcome to it, too. You are not welcome to maintain that she was never charged with securities fraud and that the obstruction charge has nothing to do with that first charge and the government's failure to get it past a judge.
read the materials. do your own research. whatever. you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. the securities fraud charge was a very creative and far fetched claim that her lying was intend to prop up the value of Martha Stewart Living OmniMedia shares. that charge was tossed out.
I agree with SF Joe that this is tiresome, particularly as the debate keeps shifting ground. There is a lengthy New Yorker article here
Loading…
www.newyorker.com
which goes into the whole thing in detail for those who care. Kirk can contest its accuracy if he cares to.
Chris Weber
Chris Weber
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Chris Weber:
originally posted by Steven Spielmann:
Some comments:
....
I've lived in Michigan my whole life, been buying wine here seriously since 1985 and know many people ITB and never heard of this. Lots of bottles get returned in Michigan and I've never heard of anything under the table about it.
....
I grew up in MI, though I haven't lived there for a while. I discussed a prospective purchase with an Ann Arbor retailer about six weeks ago when the subject of returns came up. The seller cited the law, saying he couldn't accept them. I don't buy there much, and perhaps this chat was an anomaly.
It's peculiar that Michigan, with its good and growing wine-making community, is so backward-looking in its regulation.
Since I live in Ann Arbor, I'm curious as to who the retailer is, since I know most of them.
As far as MI's astonishing set of laws, you'll never guess who the #1 contributor is to the coffers of state legislators. Here's another one for you - all hard liquor is actually sold by the state to distributors. Minimum quantity they'll handle is 200 cases, which of course eliminates a lot of stuff. And there's a time limit for it to sell through, or the state will just take ownership of it and sell it at a steep discount. I know a guy who lost a lot of Cognac that way a few years back.
Jeff Twersky
Jeff Twersky
A corked bottle of wine is a defective product, and the winery is responsible for that product. I would no more assume that risk than I would assume the risk of a defective car.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
I hear Toyota is going into the wine biz, by the way, although I perceive a conflict of interest.originally posted by Jeff Twersky:
A corked bottle of wine is a defective product, and the winery is responsible for that product. I would no more assume that risk than I would assume the risk of a defective car.
Tom Glasgow
Thomas W Glasgow
Try explaining that to the average consumer, or a sophisticated one.originally posted by Jeff Twersky:
A corked bottle of wine is a defective product, and the winery is responsible for that product. I would no more assume that risk than I would assume the risk of a defective car.
kirk wallace
kirk wallace
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by kirk wallace:
this is really tediousoriginally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Kirk,
By your own account, they brought a charge of securities fraud, which the judge threw out. They then came back with a charge of obstruction of justice. Yes, I am therefore maintaining that the real charge they wanted her on was the securities fraud charge. Further the obstruction charge did not relate to her testimony with regard to some other crime she did not commit but her testimony with regard to the alleged securities fraud. Yes, I want to describe that as not being able to get her on the real charge. As I say, I'm happy to assent to your description of what happened and happy to let others decide whose construction of it the events bear.
I understand that numbers of people think Martha Stewart got what she deserved. Claude's position, that she was charged with obstruction, found guilty of obstruction and had obstructed is accurate as far as it goes and I'm happy to assent to it. You are welcome to it, too. You are not welcome to maintain that she was never charged with securities fraud and that the obstruction charge has nothing to do with that first charge and the government's failure to get it past a judge.
read the materials. do your own research. whatever. you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. the securities fraud charge was a very creative and far fetched claim that her lying was intend to prop up the value of Martha Stewart Living OmniMedia shares. that charge was tossed out.
I agree with SF Joe that this is tiresome, particularly as the debate keeps shifting ground. There is a lengthy New Yorker article here
Loading…
www.newyorker.com
which goes into the whole thing in detail for those who care. Kirk can contest its accuracy if he cares to.
Toobin was a good lawyer and he is a good reporter and writer. Nothing in his story supports your notion that MS was some how guilty of securities fraud but "only" convicted of obstruction of justice. Quite the contrary, it seems to me.
Steven Spielmann
Steven Spielmann
Normal alcohol purchases cannot be returned in MI - if you overbuy Dupeuble Nouveau for a party, you're stuck with the leftovers. There's apparently an exception for corked or otherwise fouled bottles, which is cool- I didn't know that.
The liquour distribution system in Michigan is rotten to the core. Nothing good to say about it at all.
The liquour distribution system in Michigan is rotten to the core. Nothing good to say about it at all.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
Toobin was a good lawyer and he is a good reporter and writer. Nothing in his story supports your notion that MS was some how guilty of securities fraud but "only" convicted of obstruction of justice. Quite the contrary, it seems to me.
Not "guilty of," but "originally suspected of" and charged with obstruction as a result of "inquiry into." And originally not "securities fraud." That resulted from my misunderstanding of the court ruling you cited. Insider trading. Note also Toobin's remark that she was found guilty of lying about something that in the event was not against the law.
I think if you want to continue this pointlessness, you should probably take it offline. No one else is listening.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
I hear Toyota is going into the wine biz, by the way, although I perceive a conflict of interest.originally posted by Jeff Twersky:
A corked bottle of wine is a defective product, and the winery is responsible for that product. I would no more assume that risk than I would assume the risk of a defective car.
I hear they're taking a big position in white Burgundy.
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Ruben Ramos:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
With due respect, I'm going home to diminish a bottle of Granite de Clisson.
Ian, the 2005?
The 07. We re-bottled half of it, left the other half open in the fridge for about five hours, then decanted it for an hour. I felt it was still just coming into its own at that point, but, even so, it was eerily good with crabcake, yam shoestrings, and cucumber salad. It's fascinating wine.
I have the 05 only in magnums: I won't be messing with those before I've worked through my magnums of 05 Briords, and that will take a while.
We had a 3L of 2007 Clisson on Friday night. Stunning. Went faster than one would think possible.
lars makie
lars makie
You know how the ladies in the red-light district of Amsterdam look at you as you walk by their windows? The 3L of '07 Clisson at my friends wine store looks at me like that every time go in. Damn, I'd love to get that bottle.originally posted by VLM:
We had a 3L of 2007 Clisson on Friday night. Stunning. Went faster than one would think possible.
originally posted by lars makie:
You know how the ladies in the red-light district of Amsterdam look at you as you walk by their windows? The 3L of '07 Clisson at my friends wine store looks at me like that every time go in. Damn, I'd love to get that bottle.originally posted by VLM:
We had a 3L of 2007 Clisson on Friday night. Stunning. Went faster than one would think possible.
You'd almost certainly get more pleasure from that bottle than from any of those ladies you mention. They do make great sport for the roving hordes of camera-toting Japanese tourists, chattering and giggling as they snap photos, though.
Mark Lipton
(buying drinks at the Melkweg for a soldier in drag)