If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Science Monitor)   Halliburton: "Oh... THAT evidence. Yeah, we destroyed that"   (csmonitor.com) divider line 86
    More: Obvious, Halliburton, gulf, free daily, plead guilty, Macondo, criminal information  
•       •       •

8215 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jul 2013 at 1:00 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-26 02:06:49 PM  

CowardlyLion: jake_lex: SpectroBoy: ZAZ: Reuters is now reporting that the "maximum fine" is $200,000.

Wow, I bet Halliburton stock will take a real beating on the news that they are being required to give up the loose change under their couch cushions!

They might have to cancel one of the Friday afternoon money fights they have in the executive dining room!

Nah, the money fights are still on, at least according to their latest newsletter. They'll just have 20 fewer chew toys to give to their dogs at their next cash BBQ.


They will have to delay the opening of thier next Death Star so they can save the 200k fine money in overtime pay to the construction workers.
 
2013-07-26 02:08:06 PM  

N-deutetrei: Just to add some fuel to the fire - the maximum penalty for federal obstruction of justice for destroying evidence in a federal investigation (18 U.S.C. 1519) is 20 years. And of course, there's the conspiracy charges that go along with that (hey, did you call or email someone and talk about doing this? It's conspiracy!) that always get piled on in a Federal case. I mean, a Federal case against a real person, not a corporation-person.
And probation - so, Halliburton has to wear an ankle bracelet? They can't drive after 9pm? They have to submit to a drug-test?  It's meaningless.

So, yeah. This isn't even a slap on the wrist. It is barely disapproving glance or a loud sigh. It'll probably be followed by an apology about making Halliburton feel bad and a promise to go out for ice cream later.


 Similarly, they pled guilty to aiding and abetting 11 counts of homicide as well as mass poisoning and ecological destruction described as, "the worst-case scenario."


Pretty sure accessory to that many murders is also a rather hefty sentence.
 
2013-07-26 02:09:02 PM  

SilentStrider: If corporations were people, they'd face jail time.

Oh who am I kidding? If they were a person, they'd be too rich to go to jail.


Came here to say this. It's sick
 
2013-07-26 02:13:05 PM  
Quick'n'dirty math has a potential 75 year sentence applied to them, just for the people who died.

That is, if corporations could be jailed.
 
2013-07-26 02:22:10 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: SilentStrider: If corporations were people, they'd face jail time.

Oh who am I kidding? If they were a person, they'd be too rich to go to jail.

Um... they are people, according to SCOTUS.  But very special, very protected, very privileged people.


Because some people are more equal than others?
 
2013-07-26 02:23:25 PM  

jake_lex: SpectroBoy: ZAZ: Reuters is now reporting that the "maximum fine" is $200,000.

Wow, I bet Halliburton stock will take a real beating on the news that they are being required to give up the loose change under their couch cushions!

They might have to cancel one of the Friday afternoon money fights they have in the executive dining room

Gulfstream flying circles over a nature preserve.

FTF1%
 
2013-07-26 02:30:09 PM  

TheBigJerk: Quick'n'dirty math has a potential 75 year sentence applied to them, just for the people who died.

That is, if corporations could be jailed.


Ah, fark: the same people who scream about dividends and double-taxation are going to show up and biatch to us about how that would constitute double jeopardy.

Now you've done it.
 
2013-07-26 02:31:33 PM  

dionysusaur: Dimensio: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Yeah, they're gonna have to pay a $50 fine and pickup the garbage in the snow.

Then the corporation is being punished. I do not understand the reason for disapproval.

handing over whatever change is in the ashtray is a class of 'punished' very few experience in our courts.


The actual fine was $200,000. Would you not feel punished were you ordered to pay a $200,000 fine? Would not such a monetary loss substantially inconvenience you? Moreover, you are not a Job Creator; this fine will likely substantially impact the company's ability to create jobs, further stifling unemployment. Congress should therefore investigate measures to provide further tax breaks to benefit the company so that the damage from this punishment may be offset.
 
2013-07-26 02:34:13 PM  
The simulations indicated there was little quite a bit of difference between using six and 21 centralizers, but the program manager "was directed to, and did, destroy these results," federal officials say.
 
2013-07-26 02:51:45 PM  

Dimensio: The actual fine was $200,000. Would you not feel punished were you ordered to pay a $200,000 fine? Would not such a monetary loss substantially inconvenience you? Moreover, you are not a Job Creator; this fine will likely substantially impact the company's ability to create jobs, further stifling unemployment. Congress should therefore investigate measures to provide further tax breaks to benefit the company so that the damage from this punishment may be offset.


Ok, that was a little too obvious. But otherwise, well done!
 
2013-07-26 03:08:02 PM  
Whenever someone says, "it was god's will" or something similar after a horrific accident or natural disaster with multiple fataliies, especially if children are involved, I say, "your god is an asshole."
 
2013-07-26 03:08:37 PM  

OgreMagi: Whenever someone says, "it was god's will" or something similar after a horrific accident or natural disaster with multiple fataliies, especially if children are involved, I say, "your god is an asshole."


wrong thread.  damn it.
 
2013-07-26 03:12:58 PM  
I bet the Gulf States wish they'd have destroyed 100% of the evidence.
 
2013-07-26 03:17:03 PM  
Destroy evidence and pay $200,000 fine vs preserve evidence and be potentially liable for millions?  Easy choice.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-07-26 03:25:38 PM  
ikanreed

They are not being punished for an oil spill. They are being punished for obstructing an investigation of an oil spill.

Similarly, the criminal case against BP was not primarily about the oil spill. The part of the plea deal covering the oil spill was a misdemeanor count of messing up the water and a misdemeanor count of getting oil on a bird.
 
2013-07-26 03:31:49 PM  
The simulations indicated there was little difference between using six and 21 centralizers

So I'm confused here:

Haliburton suggested using 21 centralizers, but BP went with 6.
Haliburton decided to check its own recommendation and found nothing contradicting BP's decision -- no difference found with either level of usage according to the article.
Haliburton decided to delete the simulation

I'm not seeing what the problem is -- if their own simulation showed no difference, did it indicate even 21 would fail?  How would a simulation that showed no difference be legally required to be kept on permanent record?

Or are we assuming that since the records were ordered destroyed, the legal assumption is that Haliburton found something that they were obligated to report or refuse to continue work on?
 
2013-07-26 03:41:12 PM  

ZAZ: ikanreed

They are not being punished for an oil spill. They are being punished for obstructing an investigation of an oil spill.

Similarly, the criminal case against BP was not primarily about the oil spill. The part of the plea deal covering the oil spill was a misdemeanor count of messing up the water and a misdemeanor count of getting oil on a bird.


Yeah, I know, but it feels covering up an investigation of something should represent an acceptance of liability for the thing being covered up.
 
2013-07-26 03:46:42 PM  

Dimensio: The actual fine was $200,000. Would you not feel punished were you ordered to pay a $200,000 fine? Would not such a monetary loss substantially inconvenience you? Moreover, you are not a Job Creator; this fine will likely substantially impact the company's ability to create jobs, further stifling unemployment. Congress should therefore investigate measures to provide further tax breaks to benefit the company so that the damage from this punishment may be offset.


hehehe 9/10

// wonder how many you will catch with this troll, nice work, next time leave "Job Creator" out, too obvious
// the bit about tax breaks made me giggle
 
2013-07-26 03:53:37 PM  

Dimensio: dionysusaur: Dimensio: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Yeah, they're gonna have to pay a $50 fine and pickup the garbage in the snow.

Then the corporation is being punished. I do not understand the reason for disapproval.

handing over whatever change is in the ashtray is a class of 'punished' very few experience in our courts.

The actual fine was $200,000. Would you not feel punished were you ordered to pay a $200,000 fine? Would not such a monetary loss substantially inconvenience you? Moreover, you are not a Job Creator; this fine will likely substantially impact the company's ability to create jobs, further stifling unemployment. Congress should therefore investigate measures to provide further tax breaks to benefit the company so that the damage from this punishment may be offset.


They deserve an apology.
 
2013-07-26 04:23:31 PM  

simplicimus: Computer simulations wouldn't be much use as evidence, I would imagine. And the nuts and bolts of what was used in the simulation would probably be incomprehensible to a jury, the lawyers and judge.


Oh... well that's different; I'm glad they took care of that for the rest of us.
 
2013-07-26 04:28:38 PM  

Pincy: Somebody in the company is ultimately responsible for destroying that evidence because, legally, "it" is a "person".  That person company needs to be "sitting in Federal prison" right now.


In a Finer World, the above would be true.
 
2013-07-26 04:33:35 PM  

dsmith42: uncleacid: I thought Halliburton moved to Dubai.

Houston and Dubai. Still a US Corp though.



img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com
 
2013-07-26 05:10:12 PM  
I'm still having problems reading this.  What evidence are we accusing Haliburton of actually destroying?  Proof that BP should have gone with 21 stabilizers?
 
2013-07-26 05:35:29 PM  

elchupacabra: I'm still having problems reading this.  What evidence are we accusing Haliburton of actually destroying?  Proof that BP should have gone with 21 stabilizers?


Knowingly destroying evidence when it was clear that it would be important in the eventual court case. It doesn't actually matter what the report/simulation said, because Halliburton went and destroyed to prevent people from seeing it.
 
2013-07-26 06:07:40 PM  
How can a company plead guilty? Either the entire company conspired to destroy evidence or a specific individual/group of individuals did. Of course, if they want to play the corporate personhood card, fine: the company should be shut down and its assets frozen for the same period incarceration of individuals for the same crime would be.

It really is as simple as that.
 
2013-07-26 07:00:20 PM  

theorellior: We can't send Halliburton the company to jail physically, but maybe we could adopt a more prison-like payscale for their executives, say, $0.25 an hour.


IF we can arrest random store clerks for selling beer to underage kids then I have no problem giving the death penalty to corporate executives for the actions of the company.
 
2013-07-26 07:26:04 PM  

elchupacabra: I'm not seeing what the problem is -- if their own simulation showed no difference, did it indicate even 21 would fail?  How would a simulation that showed no difference be legally required to be kept on permanent record?

Or are we assuming that since the records were ordered destroyed, the legal assumption is that Haliburton found something that they were obligated to report or refuse to continue work on?


Yeah, that's kind of unclear in the article, but from what I've heard elsewhere it boils down to two things.

1) It's illegal to destroy evidence no matter how good it makes you look, and
2) There's a long-established legal doctrine that permits for the presumption that willfully destroyed evidence is  not going to make you look good.

More specifically to this case, it wasn't that Halliburton's findings made Halliburton look bad (they didn't) but that they would have made BP look  better, and that's bad because Halliburton and BP are currently trying to pin the blame on each other in all the various civil and criminal suits related to the event.
 
2013-07-26 07:46:58 PM  

Two16: Pincy: Somebody in the company is ultimately responsible for destroying that evidence because, legally, "it" is a "person".  That person company needs to be "sitting in Federal prison" right now.

In a Finer World, the above would be true.


I understand what you did here, but how do you put a "company" in prison?  The people in the company who are directly responsible for this need to be in prison, that's the only way things are going to change.
 
2013-07-26 08:05:02 PM  

semiotix: elchupacabra: I'm not seeing what the problem is -- if their own simulation showed no difference, did it indicate even 21 would fail?  How would a simulation that showed no difference be legally required to be kept on permanent record?

Or are we assuming that since the records were ordered destroyed, the legal assumption is that Haliburton found something that they were obligated to report or refuse to continue work on?

Yeah, that's kind of unclear in the article, but from what I've heard elsewhere it boils down to two things.

1) It's illegal to destroy evidence no matter how good it makes you look, and
2) There's a long-established legal doctrine that permits for the presumption that willfully destroyed evidence is  not going to make you look good.

More specifically to this case, it wasn't that Halliburton's findings made Halliburton look bad (they didn't) but that they would have made BP look  better, and that's bad because Halliburton and BP are currently trying to pin the blame on each other in all the various civil and criminal suits related to the event.


Ah, now I get it -- although the outrage from Farkers still seems a bit strong.  I was expecting this level of outrage if they'd hidden proof that they knew their design was flawed, not because it would make BP look like less slimy.
 
2013-07-26 08:33:37 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Yeah, they're gonna have to pay a $50 fine and pickup the garbage in the snow.


They should have been given a medal for being so brave and honest on the telephone!

/Need to see the 27 8x10 glossy photographs with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one
//And a seeing eye dog
 
2013-07-26 08:50:48 PM  
All hail our corporate oligarchs! Nothing to see here citizen!
 
2013-07-26 09:13:27 PM  

Dimensio: dionysusaur: Dimensio: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Yeah, they're gonna have to pay a $50 fine and pickup the garbage in the snow.

Then the corporation is being punished. I do not understand the reason for disapproval.

handing over whatever change is in the ashtray is a class of 'punished' very few experience in our courts.

The actual fine was $200,000. Would you not feel punished were you ordered to pay a $200,000 fine? Would not such a monetary loss substantially inconvenience you? Moreover, you are not a Job Creator; this fine will likely substantially impact the company's ability to create jobs, further stifling unemployment. Congress should therefore investigate measures to provide further tax breaks to benefit the company so that the damage from this punishment may be offset.


That fine, prorated to my financial resources vis Halliburton's is less than the smallest denomination of US specie.  No, I would not be the least bit inconvenienced.
 
2013-07-26 09:50:37 PM  
Sure fine them, you can't jail a corporation.  How come not charge the people who did the crimes?
 
2013-07-27 12:56:52 AM  

SpectroBoy: ZAZ: Reuters is now reporting that the "maximum fine" is $200,000.

Wow, I bet Halliburton stock will take a real beating on the news that they are being required to give up the loose change under their couch cushions!


$200,000 per employee would be a start.
 
2013-07-27 03:46:13 AM  
Halliburton only had one white knight in this thread, and he was half-hearted.

They ain't payin like they used ta...
 
2013-07-27 06:13:16 AM  
I don't understand why they had to destroy evidence.  Why didn't they just tell the judge to dismiss the case, and threaten everyone with jail time if they didn't leave the courtroom immediately?
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report