tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post2232708228813569052..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Judges Make All the Difference in Alabama Federal Corruption Trialslegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-27354413473009403452012-04-20T06:32:54.064-05:002012-04-20T06:32:54.064-05:00Excellent blog you have got here.. It's diffic...Excellent blog you have got here.. It's difficult to find high-quality writing like yours these days. I seriously appreciate individuals like you! Take care!!<br /><i>My page</i>: <b><a href="http://www.venture-escape.com" rel="nofollow">Over 100 ideas to make money and save money!</a></b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-72748476856078427662012-03-22T11:28:39.247-05:002012-03-22T11:28:39.247-05:00MMW:
Thanks for making a good point. In my view, ...MMW:<br /><br />Thanks for making a good point. In my view, your comment helps drive home the need for the U.S. Supreme Court to address this issue and clarify the law. The general finding in McCormick was that a "quid pro quo" is required for a conviction in the context of a campaign oontribution. And the McCormick court describes a "quid pro quo" this way:<br /><br />"McCormick's contention that conviction of an elected official under the Act requires, under all circumstances, proof of a quid pro quo, i. e., a promise of official action or inaction in exchange for any payment or property received . . . "<br /><br /><br />That's where the case seems to focus on the importance of a promise, and that's why I stated that the crime largely is about a corrupt agreement as opposed to a corrupt act. But you are correct that the term "undertaking" in the passage cited in the post seems to imply that a "specific action" is enough. <br /><br />One could make a legit argument, I think, that the court contradicts itself in McCormick.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-54267898664173124362012-03-22T00:53:55.626-05:002012-03-22T00:53:55.626-05:00Not to take issue with your conclusion or particul...Not to take issue with your conclusion or particular political bent concerning the two judges and two differing outcomes, I instead wish to comment on your misstatement re the crux of McCormick being an "explicit promise". The ruling clearly reads "....OR undertaking....", which is inclusionary - and not exclusionary language. Since an undertaking can most certainly be an 'act' and explicit is interchangeable with the word specific, I think you do your readers an injustice by completely ignoring a vital and substantive portion of the McCormick quote: the explicit promise OR UNDERTAKING should be read as exactly that. Your conclusion that the crux of the judgment is solely an explicit promise is therefore inaccurate.<br /><br />Just bugs me when people carve out particular words due to convenience, general ignorance in reading law or honest mistake. I fully believe you fall into the final category, not that my opinion matters (or should matter) to you. I feel oddly compelled to point out your error, perhaps because it forms the basis for your comparison. Explicit/specific promises or undertakings/acts are both covered by a strict reading of McCormick.<br /><br />Love reading your blog, btw. I'm a former Magic City resident and discovered you two years ago.<br /><br />MMW, J.D. (non-practicing sort)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-88799812265399879502012-03-14T12:59:52.315-05:002012-03-14T12:59:52.315-05:00Interesting, David. Thanks for the info.Interesting, David. Thanks for the info.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-59177569239062046062012-03-14T12:17:07.000-05:002012-03-14T12:17:07.000-05:00After Fuller leftvand one of the other partners re...After Fuller leftvand one of the other partners retired, the remaining partner Joe Cassady, Sr. and his son changed the name ofthe firm to Cassady & Cassady, L.L.P.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-28395126022133545282012-03-13T21:07:57.114-05:002012-03-13T21:07:57.114-05:00David:
Interesting. Does that firm still exist?David:<br /><br />Interesting. Does that firm still exist?legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-29594310603397687152012-03-13T20:01:07.389-05:002012-03-13T20:01:07.389-05:00While Fuller was a student at the University of Al...While Fuller was a student at the University of Alabama, his father was still living and practicing ing the firm Fuller would later inherit, The firm represted Milton McGregor when he was starting his dog track in Shorter, AL. McGegor Even moved from Geneva to Enterprise and lived in the the same part town as members of the firm. Bingo!Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-54218503043073703752012-03-13T17:45:47.817-05:002012-03-13T17:45:47.817-05:00So much for "..equal protection under the law...So much for "..equal protection under the law.." Guess our forefathers never foresaw such a sad state of affairs in the judgeship arena.<br /><br />Danny MullenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-78826243042742101152012-03-13T17:43:57.492-05:002012-03-13T17:43:57.492-05:00There is also the Feaga-Franklin Factor: The F-se...There is also the Feaga-Franklin Factor: The F-sey twins were pulled off the case by USA Beck, preventing the coaching of witnesses Gilley, Pouncey for trial testimony. No "Baileyesque" question rehearsals x 70. Sucks for them. Hope they enjoy prison.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com