Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Frankly, for the crime of this sentence alone: "...I didn’t do none of the things that usually you are very used to seeing in the other guys that get in this situation,” I would have sentenced her to 3 years.

Hitch

For the sentiment or for the grammar?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ApK

For the sentiment or for the grammar?

Grammar, with the second coming in as the lesser-included.

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I would think that the book was thrown (with which I disagree, more below) not for "following the American Dream" inasmuch as abusing that concept as part of a court submission, by someone who used that sham marriage to a) become an elected official of her state of residence, and b) defraud a bankruptcy court.

I think that Cote's indignation would have been lit by the idea that following the American Dream is some sort of justification for these types of acts. Not the fraudulent, perjurious marriage, mind you; the other acts. If that is true, we can fondly look upon Al Capone as the same as she; someone who simply wanted to follow the American Dream and leave an empire to his children.

Cote hardly "threw the book" at her; she was eligible for up to 10 YEARS in Prison, and Cote abided by the plea agreement, which stated "12-18 months." In fact, she could easily have made it the 18 months (or, mind you, abrogated the plea agreement altogether--she has that authority). She, Cote, sentenced her simply for the year--not even the 18 months. That falls, in my opinion, FAR outside the idea of "throwing the book" at her.

Frankly, for the crime of this sentence alone: "...I didn’t do none of the things that usually you are very used to seeing in the other guys that get in this situation,” I would have sentenced her to 3 years.

Hitch

Originally Posted by ApK

For the sentiment or for the grammar?

Originally Posted by Hitch

Grammar, with the second coming in as the lesser-included.

Hitch

(Dang it, I wanted to ask that! )

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I would think that the book was thrown (with which I disagree, more below) not for "following the American Dream" inasmuch as abusing that concept as part of a court submission, by someone who used that sham marriage to a) become an elected official of her state of residence, and b) defraud a bankruptcy court.

I think that Cote's indignation would have been lit by the idea that following the American Dream is some sort of justification for these types of acts. Not the fraudulent, perjurious marriage, mind you; the other acts. If that is true, we can fondly look upon Al Capone as the same as she; someone who simply wanted to follow the American Dream and leave an empire to his children.

Cote hardly "threw the book" at her; she was eligible for up to 10 YEARS in Prison, and Cote abided by the plea agreement, which stated "12-18 months." In fact, she could easily have made it the 18 months (or, mind you, abrogated the plea agreement altogether--she has that authority). She, Cote, sentenced her simply for the year--not even the 18 months. That falls, in my opinion, FAR outside the idea of "throwing the book" at her.

Frankly, for the crime of this sentence alone: "...I didn’t do none of the things that usually you are very used to seeing in the other guys that get in this situation,” I would have sentenced her to 3 years.

Hitch

All I can go by is what the article says. The first sentence that I quoted says "The federal Probation Department recommended no prison sentence...". Of course Federal judges are free to follow their whims whenever they wish, but the article does make it clear that Judge Cotes' issue was that she didn't like the idea that someone would say that the defendant was trying to follow the American Dream. It will be interesting to see if there is an appeal on the sentence.

As far as the rhetoric about Al Capone, I'm pretty sure that following the American Dream was not mentioned with regards to Al Capone's sentencing.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

All I can go by is what the article says.

[...]

but the article does make it clear that Judge Cotes' issue was that she didn't like the idea that someone would say that the defendant was trying to follow the American Dream.

Oh for Pete sake, that's not what it says at all. It was AN issue, yes, but THE issue was all the laws she broke, and the federal sentencing guidelines of 12-18 months in prison.
And, by the way, the reason it was legitimately AN issue was you can't ask for leniency based on how remorseful you are and how you take responsibility for what you did, then turn around and claim you think you had noble reason for doing what you did, and were following the guiding light of the 'American Dream.'

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

As far as the rhetoric about Al Capone, I'm pretty sure that following the American Dream was not mentioned with regards to Al Capone's sentencing.

And yet nothing is more American than tax evasion!

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

All I can go by is what the article says. The first sentence that I quoted says "The federal Probation Department recommended no prison sentence...". Of course Federal judges are free to follow their whims whenever they wish, but the article does make it clear that Judge Cotes' issue was that she didn't like the idea that someone would say that the defendant was trying to follow the American Dream. It will be interesting to see if there is an appeal on the sentence.

As far as the rhetoric about Al Capone, I'm pretty sure that following the American Dream was not mentioned with regards to Al Capone's sentencing.

It seems the Judge has committed the heinous crime of not following a Departmental recommendation. Of this crime I would think even Judges whose opinions you agree with are sometimes guilty. In fact, if they were not and simply followed recommendations made by officials one would have to wonder whether they were properly performing their role in the judiciary.

The "American Dream" submissions offend me, and I am not even an American. They are very relevant to the question of the appropriate sentence, as they go to issues of remorse and of the Defendant's understanding of their wrong doing and even arguably to the likelihood of re-offending. In fact, prima facie the sentence seems to be far too lenient, though I do not presume to condemn the Judge for this, as I did not sit through the trial and am not privy to all of the facts and circumstances, nor am I familiar with the relevant sentencing guidelines which applied.

I also agree with Hitch. The crimes against the English language remain unpunished.

[CommonReader]

How exactly do the statements above concern the topic of this thread? The "American Dream" is no political topic?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by ApK

Oh for Pete sake, that's not what it says at all. It was AN issue, yes, but THE issue was all the laws she broke, and the federal sentencing guidelines of 12-18 months in prison.
And, by the way, the reason it was legitimately AN issue was you can't ask for leniency based on how remorseful you are and how you take responsibility for what you did, then turn around and claim you think you had noble reason for doing what you did, and were following the guiding light of the 'American Dream.'

As I read the story, it wasn't the defendant who claimed she was trying to follow the American dream but supporters of the defendant. If true, then she was being punished for what others said, not what she said.

[Rizla]

The evangelical title of this thread is absurd. As if Amazon is on anybody's side but their own. Amazon the class warrior

[ApK]

Originally Posted by rhadin

As I read the story, it wasn't the defendant who claimed she was trying to follow the American dream but supporters of the defendant. If true, then she was being punished for what others said, not what she said.

It was her lawyer, Ms. Peduto. Her 'mouthpiece' as it were, making her case for her.

And again, she was not punished for it. She was punished for all the laws she broke. Her lawyer simply did not make a convincing argument for why the judge should set aside the sentencing guidelines and be extra lenient.
The argument sounds to me, as apparently it did to the judge, to be, in part, the implication that the judge should be lenient, because "she only committed these crimes to make a better life for herself and her family. Isn't that what all immigrants want?"

Epic fail. Kudos to Judge Cotes.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by darryl

I also agree with Hitch. The crimes against the English language remain unpunished.

Word Crimes.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by ApK

"she only committed these crimes to make a better life for herself and her family. Isn't that was all immigrants want?"

I think not. If you are a real legal immigrant you will freewilly stay away from breaking any laws. That is if you plan on staying. Not a good idea to draw attention to yourself when the FBI already got your fingerprints and police background checks from the country you came from.

As for the illegal kind, well the word "illegal" should already be enough. I have no sympathy for those at all.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I think not. If you are a real legal immigrant you will freewilly stay away from breaking any laws.

That was sort of the judge's point, I'd say.

What the lawyer SHOULD HAVE SAID (and I say this with my vast experience of exactly no legal training and no experience in arguing before a court ) is that she STARTED OUT here wanting the American Dream, never INTENDED to break any laws (because, your honor, as we all know, that is NOT how to chase the American Dream, no sir-ee Bob!), and THEN she went astray, fell in a dark place, now sees the error of her ways...blah...blah...remorse, responsibility, back on the path, never do it again, etc.

[murg]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And, of course, in two out of three of the cases you mention, the case was eventually dismissed (IBM and Microsoft). AT&T was a regulated monopoly, a rather unusual case.

Going from memory, they all entered into consent agreements: The Bell System broke up into the baby bells; Microsoft has various editions of Windows, with and without Internet Explorer and Media Player, and doesn't default search to Bing; and I don't remember what IBM agreed to, but it agreed to something because Bill Gates was afraid that Microsoft would become as cautious as IBM after running afoul of the monopoly laws.