Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Washington Post)   Your tax dollars at work: Supreme Court to determine whether Sarbanes-Oxley financial reporting law can be applied to fish   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 64
    More: Obvious, Sarbanes-Oxley, Supreme Court, dollars, fish  
•       •       •

3433 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Apr 2014 at 1:12 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-28 12:06:10 PM  
The Supreme Court said Monday that it will decide next term whether a Florida fisherman who got rid of three undersized grouper was improperly prosecuted under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which Congress passed in response to a series of financial scandals at Enron and other major corporations.

Hmm, screw over a small businessman who isn't wealthy vs. find SOX regulations unconstitutional.

Does the majority rule in favor of the fascist state or a pro-corporate agenda? This one is truly a coin toss.
 
2014-04-28 12:22:06 PM  
I hope the courts are getting their money's worth over this. What was the worse thing that they could have done to the fisherman? Fine him a few hundred bucks? Take away his license? Make him not drink more than 7 beers while fishing?
 
2014-04-28 12:24:24 PM  
A chance to overturn, or at least neuter, a law inhibiting corporate shenanigans? No way they're going to pass on this opportunity.
 
2014-04-28 12:30:06 PM  
I know the law tries to discourage fishing expeditions, but throwing Sarb-Ox at them seems a bit much.
 
2014-04-28 12:33:43 PM  

Nabb1: I know the law tries to discourage fishing expeditions, but throwing Sarb-Ox at them seems a bit much.


You got me hook, line, and sinker you troll.
 
2014-04-28 12:40:53 PM  
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully."
 - George W Bush
 
2014-04-28 12:42:38 PM  

R.A.Danny: Nabb1: I know the law tries to discourage fishing expeditions, but throwing Sarb-Ox at them seems a bit much.

You got me hook, line, and sinker you troll.


I'm just worried about the net effect of overzealous prosecutions.
 
2014-04-28 01:15:40 PM  
Abe Vigoda is  alive
 
2014-04-28 01:19:22 PM  
"Several legal groups, including the association of criminal defense lawyers, urged the court to take the case. One group, Cause of Action, said the case was about government overreach. "


Unpossible.  I've been assured repeatedly by old men in suits with white hair on TV that our government is incapable of overreach.
 
2014-04-28 01:22:47 PM  
The salmon roe futures are worth whatever I say they're worth!
 
2014-04-28 01:23:29 PM  

MrBallou: A chance to overturn, or at least neuter, a law inhibiting corporate shenanigans? No way they're going to pass on this opportunity.

Yeah, this totally looks like the prosecution is setting up for a dive.  This is the sort of case the USSC should turn down on principle, but there's nothing they won't do to carry out their political agenda.
 
2014-04-28 01:24:15 PM  
If they were legal groups there would be no case.
 
2014-04-28 01:24:57 PM  
Complying with SOX can be a PITA. To get into our server room you had to entry a 5 digit code. Nope, not good enough. It had to have individual access control. If anyone entered the room, we had to show who it was, and how long there were in the room. Which sucked, cause the best napping area was in the back of the server room.
 
2014-04-28 01:24:59 PM  

R.A.Danny: I hope the courts are getting their money's worth over this. What was the worse thing that they could have done to the fisherman? Fine him a few hundred bucks? Take away his license? Make him not drink more than 7 beers while fishing?


Courts? There are a whole lot of businesses who would like to get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley. I'm betting there's some big money behind getting this to the Roberts Court.
 
2014-04-28 01:25:34 PM  
Sarbanes Oxley is completely meaningless anyway.  Oh, you get to make up what rules you want to follow then self-regulate?  Awesome!
 
2014-04-28 01:27:22 PM  
Of course fish are not exempt!

media.monstersandcritics.com
 
2014-04-28 01:29:30 PM  
I believe you must do the consideration of this in scale. When the decision of they is made the winning side will have the victory hook and line and sinker.

It just seems to me that the lawyerd in the case of this are sharks. They learned of this in the school but I am doing the guessing that the losing attorneys floundered. Still in the legal world of this the attorneys must believe they are the big fish in the little pond.

Fin.
 
2014-04-28 01:29:48 PM  
Separate article with a little more detail:  http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/supreme-court-hear-case - three-missing-groupers-n91506

"The tale begins in 2007 on board the Miss Katie, a commercial fishing boat out of Cortez, Fla., on the Gulf of Mexico.  A Florida fish and wildlife officer boarded the Miss Katie in the Gulf for a routine inspection, according to court documents. The officer noticed several fish that appeared to be too small and eventually counted 72 red grouper that were under 20 inches long. He ordered those fish to be set aside so that authorities could seize them when the boat returned to port. Four days later, after a federal inspector got involved in the case, the same Florida officer measured the fish again and this time counted only 69 that were too small. The officer suspected that the undersized fish he looked at in port were not the same ones he measured at sea.A member of the boat's crew was questioned by federal agents and eventually said Yates ordered the undersized fish to be thrown overboard, according to a federal appeals court opinion. A jury convicted Yates of getting rid of the undersize fish and a judge sentenced him to 30 days in jail. The federal appeals court based in Atlanta upheld the conviction.Yates disputed that any fish were too small, but the Supreme Court case turns only on the use of the federal law against him."

If this story is true it is a matter of 3 fish missing that an inspector insists were under the length limit.  If the captain did give orders to throw fish overboard, only THREE out of 72 were disposed of?  And the officer came back 4 days later and suspected the fish he again inspected were not the same fish, so what happened to a chain of custody in this matter?  These are 69 DIFFERENT fish that were substituted by the captain/crew, and it just so happens that they are complete idiots who substituted fish that are also undersized?
 
2014-04-28 01:30:08 PM  

R.A.Danny: Make him not drink more than 7 beers while fishing?


Then it's not really fishing then is it?
 
2014-04-28 01:34:19 PM  
Does not pass the smell test.
 
2014-04-28 01:35:01 PM  
Subby there was a headline involving SOX for Fish that was just sitting there like a hanging curveball, and you whiffed.

The HOTY contest is sad for you
 
2014-04-28 01:36:01 PM  
Being unfamiliar with this case and there being insufficient information in the article, can anyone enlighten me as to the nature of the charges?  I understand why financial documents shouldn't be destroyed but what purpose was it supposed to serve to retain 3 fish?
 
2014-04-28 01:36:21 PM  

probesport: R.A.Danny: Make him not drink more than 7 beers while fishing?

Then it's not really fishing then is it?


It's monstrous
 
2014-04-28 01:37:45 PM  

Mr. Right: Being unfamiliar with this case and there being insufficient information in the article, can anyone enlighten me as to the nature of the charges?  I understand why financial documents shouldn't be destroyed but what purpose was it supposed to serve to retain 3 fish?


http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/supreme-court-hear-cas e- three-missing-groupers-n91506
 
2014-04-28 01:38:22 PM  
A license? For your pet fish?
 
2014-04-28 01:38:54 PM  
A normal Supreme Court's reaction:
"Don't be farking ridiculous, we're not going to take this over three farking fish."

The Roberts Court's reaction:
"Don't be farking ridiculous, we're not going to pass on this chance to neuter Sarbanes-Oxley."
 
2014-04-28 01:39:59 PM  
There's also the more likely scenario that the court rules fish are not documents and SOX does not apply.
 
2014-04-28 01:40:46 PM  

bdub77: The Supreme Court said Monday that it will decide next term whether a Florida fisherman who got rid of three undersized grouper was improperly prosecuted under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which Congress passed in response to a series of financial scandals at Enron and other major corporations.

Hmm, screw over a small businessman who isn't wealthy vs. find SOX regulations unconstitutional.

Does the majority rule in favor of the fascist state or a pro-corporate agenda? This one is truly a coin toss.


Fark that guy; the Washpo story does a terrible job of relating the actual facts. The guy was catching undersized grouper in federal waters. A federal inspector came aboard the ship and put SEVENTY-TWO undersized fish in labeled crates and told the guy not to touch them, that they'd be picked up by the feds at the dock. The guy then had his crew throw those fish overboard to hamper the prosecution. If that's not tampering with evidence in a federal investigation, what the hell is?
 
2014-04-28 01:42:50 PM  

R.A.Danny: I hope the courts are getting their money's worth over this. What was the worse thing that they could have done to the fisherman? Fine him a few hundred bucks? Take away his license? Make him not drink more than 7 beers while fishing?


It's a federal crime. That means prison time is a possibility, not to mention having a federal felony on your rap sheet.

This sounds like one of those, "I don't like you (or I'm trying to look good so I can get promoted or run for office)" deals where for whatever reason a prosecutor casts around for the most serious thing available to smack the target with. Like the case of the woman who unknowingly violated the Honduran law that lobsters can't be shipped in clear plastic bags. Convicted by the feds and sentenced to 2 years in federal prison.
 
2014-04-28 01:43:41 PM  

mrmopar5287: Separate article with a little more detail:  http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/supreme-court-hear-case - three-missing-groupers-n91506



I'm betting 70 fish above limit is a new much higher fine. He told his crew to limit it to 69 and hoped to argue that they had simply counted wrong. 72->69 can be argued as a miscount, 72->0 can't.
 
2014-04-28 01:43:54 PM  

LazyMedia: bdub77: The Supreme Court said Monday that it will decide next term whether a Florida fisherman who got rid of three undersized grouper was improperly prosecuted under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which Congress passed in response to a series of financial scandals at Enron and other major corporations.

Hmm, screw over a small businessman who isn't wealthy vs. find SOX regulations unconstitutional.

Does the majority rule in favor of the fascist state or a pro-corporate agenda? This one is truly a coin toss.

Fark that guy; the Washpo story does a terrible job of relating the actual facts. The guy was catching undersized grouper in federal waters. A federal inspector came aboard the ship and put SEVENTY-TWO undersized fish in labeled crates and told the guy not to touch them, that they'd be picked up by the feds at the dock. The guy then had his crew throw those fish overboard to hamper the prosecution. If that's not tampering with evidence in a federal investigation, what the hell is?


Oh, I read further. He had the undersized fish in the crates replaced with bigger fish. I don't know if Sarbanes-Oxley should apply here, but if the prosecutor's facts are right, that guy is a fraud who tried to obstruct a federal investigation into widespread violation of federal fisheries law. He should go to jail and lose his boat.
 
2014-04-28 01:44:07 PM  
I had to check the source to make sure this wasn't The Onion or something.
 
2014-04-28 01:46:33 PM  

mrmopar5287: Mr. Right: Being unfamiliar with this case and there being insufficient information in the article, can anyone enlighten me as to the nature of the charges?  I understand why financial documents shouldn't be destroyed but what purpose was it supposed to serve to retain 3 fish?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/supreme-court-hear-cas e- three-missing-groupers-n91506


Thanks.  I hadn't refreshed before I posted and didn't see your earlier post. Even with the information you've provided, I'm having a hard time understanding how Sarbox applies.  I can understand that Fish and Wildlife might have something to say, not Sarbox.
 
2014-04-28 01:47:52 PM  
One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Sue Fish
 
2014-04-28 01:48:20 PM  

mrmopar5287: Separate article with a little more detail:  http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/supreme-court-hear-case - three-missing-groupers-n91506

"The tale begins in 2007 on board the Miss Katie, a commercial fishing boat out of Cortez, Fla., on the Gulf of Mexico.  A Florida fish and wildlife officer boarded the Miss Katie in the Gulf for a routine inspection, according to court documents. The officer noticed several fish that appeared to be too small and eventually counted 72 red grouper that were under 20 inches long. He ordered those fish to be set aside so that authorities could seize them when the boat returned to port. Four days later, after a federal inspector got involved in the case, the same Florida officer measured the fish again and this time counted only 69 that were too small. The officer suspected that the undersized fish he looked at in port were not the same ones he measured at sea.A member of the boat's crew was questioned by federal agents and eventually said Yates ordered the undersized fish to be thrown overboard, according to a federal appeals court opinion. A jury convicted Yates of getting rid of the undersize fish and a judge sentenced him to 30 days in jail. The federal appeals court based in Atlanta upheld the conviction.Yates disputed that any fish were too small, but the Supreme Court case turns only on the use of the federal law against him."

If this story is true it is a matter of 3 fish missing that an inspector insists were under the length limit.  If the captain did give orders to throw fish overboard, only THREE out of 72 were disposed of?  And the officer came back 4 days later and suspected the fish he again inspected were not the same fish, so what happened to a chain of custody in this matter?  These are 69 DIFFERENT fish that were substituted by the captain/crew, and it just so happens that they are complete idiots who substituted fish that are also undersized?


It's called a camera. Point and shoot. Makes the evidence. Even works on a boat.

/stupid inspectors.
 
2014-04-28 01:49:07 PM  

LazyMedia: The guy was catching undersized grouper in federal waters. A federal inspector came aboard the ship and put SEVENTY-TWO undersized fish in labeled crates and told the guy not to touch them, that they'd be picked up by the feds at the dock. The guy then had his crew throw those fish overboard to hamper the prosecution. If that's not tampering with evidence in a federal investigation, what the hell is?


It strikes me as incredibly suspicious that they would be stupid enough to throw undersized fish overboard and not replace them with fish that wouldn't measure undersize when inspected at the dock.  I mean, if you're going to go into that kind of fraud wouldn't you at least tamper with evidence enough to attempt to get you out of a jam?
 
2014-04-28 01:51:47 PM  

a_feral_duck: There's also the more likely scenario that the court rules fish are not documents and SOX does not apply.


Note to self: shred and eat all my records while the Feds raid but retain the resultant poop ....for SOX compliance.
 
2014-04-28 01:51:53 PM  
jlyssens.files.wordpress.com

"Won't somebody please think of the groupers!"
 
2014-04-28 01:52:49 PM  

NightOwl2255: Complying with SOX can be a PITA. To get into our server room you had to entry a 5 digit code. Nope, not good enough. It had to have individual access control. If anyone entered the room, we had to show who it was, and how long there were in the room. Which sucked, cause the best napping area was in the back of the server room.


People still use access codes by themselves?  We've been using RFID cards for least 15 years.
 
2014-04-28 01:53:26 PM  

Rhino_man: A normal Supreme Court's reaction:
"Don't be farking ridiculous, we're not going to take this over three farking fish."

The Roberts Court's reaction:
"Don't be farking ridiculous, we're not going to pass on this chance to neuter Sarbanes-Oxley."


More likely, it's "Why on earth is Sarbanes-Oxley being used for three fish?" Federal prosecutors can sometimes be like a kid with a new toy with some of these laws. Back in the 1980's, they started hitting everyone with RICO for everything under the sun. What had started out as an anti-racketeering law aimed squarely at the mafia morphed into this behemoth that they started piling on RICO charges into all sorts of prosecutions. Federal defense attorneys would often joke that the threshold for a RICO charge was whether the defendant's name ended in a vowel.

Then the late 1990's saw mail fraud and wire fraud charges to be de rigeur. Let's say you burned down your house for the insurance money. Insurance fraud is a crime in its own right. But, did you call that claim in? One charge of wire fraud. Did you email the adjuster some details about your claim? There's another charge of wire fraud. Mail your proof of claim form in? There's a count of mail fraud. One federal crime ended up having dozens upon dozens of counts of wire and mail fraud piled on for anything mailed or anything communicated by telephone or electronically in connection with the crime. A routine embezzlement case could end up with HUNDREDS of those charges on the indictment.

So, now it looks like Sarbanes-Oxley is the flavor of the month with the DOJ.
 
2014-04-28 01:54:27 PM  
this is as bizarre as congress chasing Rodger Clemans
spend my money.........
 
2014-04-28 01:54:51 PM  
Not big on over regulating things but as an avid fisher I say throw the book at this guy. Size and bag limits are there to protect fish populations for future generations. Also wouldn't tampering or obstruction be easier to go for?
 
2014-04-28 01:55:51 PM  

LazyMedia: bdub77: The Supreme Court said Monday that it will decide next term whether a Florida fisherman who got rid of three undersized grouper was improperly prosecuted under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, which Congress passed in response to a series of financial scandals at Enron and other major corporations.

Hmm, screw over a small businessman who isn't wealthy vs. find SOX regulations unconstitutional.

Does the majority rule in favor of the fascist state or a pro-corporate agenda? This one is truly a coin toss.

Fark that guy; the Washpo story does a terrible job of relating the actual facts. The guy was catching undersized grouper in federal waters. A federal inspector came aboard the ship and put SEVENTY-TWO undersized fish in labeled crates and told the guy not to touch them, that they'd be picked up by the feds at the dock. The guy then had his crew throw those fish overboard to hamper the prosecution. If that's not tampering with evidence in a federal investigation, what the hell is?


Lighten up Francis. Next you'll be making outrageous claims like ranchers can't have federal resources for free.
 
2014-04-28 01:57:25 PM  

mrmopar5287: LazyMedia: The guy was catching undersized grouper in federal waters. A federal inspector came aboard the ship and put SEVENTY-TWO undersized fish in labeled crates and told the guy not to touch them, that they'd be picked up by the feds at the dock. The guy then had his crew throw those fish overboard to hamper the prosecution. If that's not tampering with evidence in a federal investigation, what the hell is?

It strikes me as incredibly suspicious that they would be stupid enough to throw undersized fish overboard and not replace them with fish that wouldn't measure undersize when inspected at the dock.  I mean, if you're going to go into that kind of fraud wouldn't you at least tamper with evidence enough to attempt to get you out of a jam?


As Seen in FARK: The Ron Popeil pocket fish-stretcher.

Tired of lying about the length of your fish? No problem! This patent pending device will stretch your undersized fish to a compliant length in minutes.
 
2014-04-28 01:57:44 PM  

LazyMedia: Oh, I read further. He had the undersized fish in the crates replaced with bigger fish. I don't know if Sarbanes-Oxley should apply here, but if the prosecutor's facts are right, that guy is a fraud who tried to obstruct a federal investigation into widespread violation of federal fisheries law. He should go to jail and lose his boat.


Whatever happened to the good old days when destruction of evidence simply got you hit with obstruction of justice?
 
2014-04-28 02:01:48 PM  
You guys do know that the SCOTUS has decided absurd cases before. Hell, they decided that, legally speaking, tomatoes are a vegetable.
 
2014-04-28 02:07:25 PM  

Aar1012: You guys do know that the SCOTUS has decided absurd cases before. Hell, they decided that, legally speaking, tomatoes are a vegetable.


Or when they had to decide "What is golf?":

"We Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States ... to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution ... fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? Either out of humility or out of self-respect (one or the other) the Court should decline to answer this incredibly difficult and incredibly silly question."

That's from the case involving Casey Martin when he sued the PGA to be allowed to ride a cart in tournaments. He won, but ultimately, he wasn't a very good pro golfer.
 
2014-04-28 02:25:39 PM  

DeaH: R.A.Danny: I hope the courts are getting their money's worth over this. What was the worse thing that they could have done to the fisherman? Fine him a few hundred bucks? Take away his license? Make him not drink more than 7 beers while fishing?

Courts? There are a whole lot of businesses who would like to get rid of Sarbanes-Oxley. I'm betting there's some big money behind getting this to the Roberts Court.


Amazing how many of you liberals seem to enjoy prosecutorial over reach as long as you can take a dig at John Roberts.
 
2014-04-28 02:26:49 PM  
For cryin' out loud LEAVE HIM OUT OF IT!!!

media1.break.com
 
2014-04-28 02:30:47 PM  

Nabb1: LazyMedia: Oh, I read further. He had the undersized fish in the crates replaced with bigger fish. I don't know if Sarbanes-Oxley should apply here, but if the prosecutor's facts are right, that guy is a fraud who tried to obstruct a federal investigation into widespread violation of federal fisheries law. He should go to jail and lose his boat.

Whatever happened to the good old days when destruction of evidence simply got you hit with obstruction of justice?


This. SOX is prosecutorial over reach. It is what is wrong with our federal system. SOX got brought in in order to tack on number of years being faced to make the plea deal a slam dunk. Our system is farked up. Agree to 5 years or face life due to 30 loosely related charges. And yet liberals here defend it.
 
Displayed 50 of 64 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