What should her punishment be? Pt2 - Page 3

Leonis · 02-09-2003, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Donut:
Okay! In the UK this would probably be dealt with under the Trades Description Act and she would probably face a hefty fine. In fact this woman doesn't live in the UK and is currently serving a term of 24 years imprisonment with NO parole!!!

Really? That seems excessive. Which country is this in?

Donut · 02-10-2003, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Leonis:

Quote:
Originally posted by Donut:
Okay! In the UK this would probably be dealt with under the Trades Description Act and she would probably face a hefty fine. In fact this woman doesn't live in the UK and is currently serving a term of 24 years imprisonment with NO parole!!!

Really? That seems excessive. Which country is this in?[/QUOTE]Sorry Leonis - I thought I'd mentioned where it was. This happened in Texas, USA.

Masklinn · 02-10-2003, 05:29 AM

Quote:

This happened in Texas, USA

Wow she is lucky then ! 24 years only...phew !

[ 02-10-2003, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

Cerek the Barbaric · 02-10-2003, 08:41 AM

Donut - Do you have a link to the story?? I find it hard to believe that the people making the infomercial got 24 yrs with no parole just for misleading advertisement. I would think there has to be some serious fraud involving large sums of money from the consumers for them to have been punished so harshly.

Also, "No Parole" rarely actually means that (Timber may be able to correct me on this point). I would expect that - even with that stipulation - they would still be eligible for parole in 7-10 yrs.

If you have a link to the story, I would like to check it out a bit further. If they did get 24yrs with no parole just for making a misleading infomercial, I would agree that seems excessively harsh.

Donut · 02-10-2003, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Donut - Do you have a link to the story?? I find it hard to believe that the people making the infomercial got 24 yrs with no parole just for misleading advertisement. I would think there has to be some serious fraud involving large sums of money from the consumers for them to have been punished so harshly.

Also, "No Parole" rarely actually means that (Timber may be able to correct me on this point). I would expect that - even with that stipulation - they would still be eligible for parole in 7-10 yrs.

If you have a link to the story, I would like to check it out a bit further. If they did get 24yrs with no parole just for making a misleading infomercial, I would agree that seems excessively harsh.

Sorry Texas - it was in fact Florida!

Cerek - here's a link to the campaign to free her:.

As the money she got was considered to be fraudulently obtained, each time she wrote a cheque it was considered to be money laundering. Each cheque was a seperate offence carrying a mandatory sentence which has to be served concomitantly.

Annatar · 02-10-2003, 09:22 AM

In a primitave country (I will not say the name because it Might be offence towards people but..), rather alot in the news these days about ''nuclaire bombs, poisenous compends, 5 big trucks moving stuff ect, big sigares''

it will go like this:

[img]graemlins/grabblue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/beheaded.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/gore.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/smilelazer.gif[/img]

Moiraine · 02-10-2003, 10:13 AM

I have read that in the middle age, a common sentence for petty thieves was that they had to walk through the town naked, while people threw nasty things at them, not harmful but nasty, like rotten vegetables and .. stuff. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I like it a lot ! [img]smile.gif[/img] Nobody gets harmed, honest people don't have to pay for thieves staying in prison, and some people would certainly think twice before risking such an humiliation.

Sometimes I wonder if humans really do get more civilized through the centuries ... [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cerek the Barbaric · 02-10-2003, 10:52 AM

Thanks for the link, Donut. While it was somewhat informative, it was far from objective. Even the links provided regarding Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and Money Laundering were all sites against these measures. Fair enough...I understand they are trying to present Chantal's "side of the story".

A few things of interest that I did not.
1) During her first appeal, her conviction was upheld but her sentencing (the amount of time she will have to spend in jail) was overturned. She has not recieved her new sentencing yet, but it is expected to be at least somewhat less than what she originally recieved.

2) It isn't just the charges of money laundering that got her in trouble - it was also the mail fraud charges. That is a federal offense and is one that the U.S. Gov't prosecutes to the fullest extent allowed by law.

3) Chantal hired F. Lee Bailey as her attorney. The article in your link suggested that this "tainted the jury" because he had also served on O.J. Simpson's legal team. I seriously doubt that. Johnny Cochran was the one who gained infamy for his defense of O.J. Simpson. Many people (myself included) don't even remember that F. Lee Bailey was part of the team.
But putting that aside, Bailey is also one of the nations premier lawyers (soon to be joined by our own Timber Loftis, I'm sure

). He didn't gain his reputation by losing cases, he gained it by winning "high-profile" cases such as O.J. Simpson and this one. If he wasn't able to get a "Not Guilty" verdict, there must have been some pretty strong evidence against her.

4) Can't really comment on the allegation of the court baileff "tainting the jury". I do know that - if he actually did that - he could very well lose his job. As for the jury being "tainted", I can tell you from personal experience that a good defense lawyer should be able to overcome the jury's "innate prejudices". I have only served on a jury one time. It was a case of assault where an ongoing conflict between two families had finally resulted in a big "knock down drag out" fight. The couple that got the worst of it sued the other couple for punitive damages of $50,000. The defending couple were just average manual laborers and couldn't have afforded that kind of money in a lifetime. The plaintiffs were very well to do and considered $50,000 to be a rather small amount.

In the beginning of the trial, my sympathy ran towards the first couple. They took a thorough beating at the hands of the other two. But as the trial wore on, we learned that couple number one (specifically the husband) had been harassing the husband of couple #2 for a period of over 2 years. Without going into details, Husband #1 basically was trying to get Husband #2 fired from his job. When that didn't work, he finally decided to provoke Husband #2 into a fight. Well, he got a heckuva lot more than he bargained for and ended up getting a very thorough "butt whupping".

In the end, Husband #2 was charged with assault, because he threw the first punch in the fight...but Couple #1 were awarded NO DAMAGES because it was obvious that they were just as responsible for the fight occurring. If they had minded their own business, they wouldn't have had to go to the ER.

Anyway, the point is that, as I listened to the various testimonies, my initial prejudices against the defendents was changed. I don't doubt the jury my have had come pre-conceived prejudices against Chantal and her husband, but F. Lee Bailey would certainly have realized that and would have worked to overcome them.

Still, as I mentioned before, I do agree that the sentence seems excessively harsh. Of course, I never could find out how much money she and her husband supposedly "earned" from this infomercial scam.

Cerek the Barbaric · 02-10-2003, 11:52 AM

I did a little Searching of my own and found this site (William & Chantal McCorkle), which offers a slightly different perspective on the McCorkle's and their Real Estate infomercials.

It seems they DID make some excessive claims and did not honor their promises of a "full refund" to customers who requested it.

It also was not a "nickel and dime" crime as the first site seems to suggest...the McCorkle's made approx. 28 million dollars from their infomercial enterprise. I have to admit I feel a little less sympathetic towards both McCorkle's after browsing the above site.

But - since this took place in Florida - perhaps Ziroc or VulcanRider could provide a better perspective. They both live about 50 miles away from Orlando, where the McCorkle's were convicted.

Chewbacca · 02-10-2003, 12:15 PM

Reminds me of the photo shoots I did work on for certain "Miami Bass" style recording artists. These guys had average jobs and aspirations to be the next Luke and 2-Live crew. We would rent mansions and expensive cars along with models and strippers to pose with these guys for an album cover or promo photo.

While certainly the high-roller lifestyle did not represent the any of the artists I worked with finacial condition, some of them sure did want that lifestyle and did not care they were putting up a "front".

A few of them were actually embaressed to do the shoots but they had signed a contract with the label so were obligated to put out such an image.

Any way back on topic:

I dont think it is fraud if the potential to make the money that would afford the lifestyle is acheiveable within the offered business model.

02-10-2003, 08:41 AM	#24
Cerek the Barbaric Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: October 29, 2001 Location: North Carolina Age: 61 Posts: 3,257	Donut - Do you have a link to the story?? I find it hard to believe that the people making the infomercial got 24 yrs with no parole just for misleading advertisement. I would think there has to be some serious fraud involving large sums of money from the consumers for them to have been punished so harshly. Also, "No Parole" rarely actually means that (Timber may be able to correct me on this point). I would expect that - even with that stipulation - they would still be eligible for parole in 7-10 yrs. If you have a link to the story, I would like to check it out a bit further. If they did get 24yrs with no parole just for making a misleading infomercial, I would agree that seems excessively harsh. __________________ [img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth

02-10-2003, 09:22 AM	#26
Annatar Mephistopheles Join Date: January 7, 2003 Location: Holland Age: 37 Posts: 1,402	In a primitave country (I will not say the name because it Might be offence towards people but..), rather alot in the news these days about ''nuclaire bombs, poisenous compends, 5 big trucks moving stuff ect, big sigares'' it will go like this: [img]graemlins/grabblue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/uhoh1.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/awcrap.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/beheaded.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/gore.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/smilelazer.gif[/img] __________________ <br />Nau Tagnik\'zur zhal fre\'sla wun ussta i\'dol. -Annatar

02-10-2003, 10:13 AM	#27
Moiraine Anubis Join Date: March 1, 2001 Location: Up in the Freedomland Alps Age: 60 Posts: 2,474	I have read that in the middle age, a common sentence for petty thieves was that they had to walk through the town naked, while people threw nasty things at them, not harmful but nasty, like rotten vegetables and .. stuff. [img]smile.gif[/img] I like it a lot ! [img]smile.gif[/img] Nobody gets harmed, honest people don't have to pay for thieves staying in prison, and some people would certainly think twice before risking such an humiliation. Sometimes I wonder if humans really do get more civilized through the centuries ... [img]smile.gif[/img] __________________ [img]\"http://grumble.free.fr/img/romuald.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br />The missing link between ape and man is us.

02-10-2003, 10:52 AM	#28
Cerek the Barbaric Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: October 29, 2001 Location: North Carolina Age: 61 Posts: 3,257	Thanks for the link, Donut. While it was somewhat informative, it was far from objective. Even the links provided regarding Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and Money Laundering were all sites against these measures. Fair enough...I understand they are trying to present Chantal's "side of the story". A few things of interest that I did not. 1) During her first appeal, her conviction was upheld but her sentencing (the amount of time she will have to spend in jail) was overturned. She has not recieved her new sentencing yet, but it is expected to be at least somewhat less than what she originally recieved. 2) It isn't just the charges of money laundering that got her in trouble - it was also the mail fraud charges. That is a federal offense and is one that the U.S. Gov't prosecutes to the fullest extent allowed by law. 3) Chantal hired F. Lee Bailey as her attorney. The article in your link suggested that this "tainted the jury" because he had also served on O.J. Simpson's legal team. I seriously doubt that. Johnny Cochran was the one who gained infamy for his defense of O.J. Simpson. Many people (myself included) don't even remember that F. Lee Bailey was part of the team. But putting that aside, Bailey is also one of the nations premier lawyers (soon to be joined by our own Timber Loftis, I'm sure ). He didn't gain his reputation by losing cases, he gained it by winning "high-profile" cases such as O.J. Simpson and this one. If he wasn't able to get a "Not Guilty" verdict, there must have been some pretty strong evidence against her. 4) Can't really comment on the allegation of the court baileff "tainting the jury". I do know that - if he actually did that - he could very well lose his job. As for the jury being "tainted", I can tell you from personal experience that a good defense lawyer should be able to overcome the jury's "innate prejudices". I have only served on a jury one time. It was a case of assault where an ongoing conflict between two families had finally resulted in a big "knock down drag out" fight. The couple that got the worst of it sued the other couple for punitive damages of $50,000. The defending couple were just average manual laborers and couldn't have afforded that kind of money in a lifetime. The plaintiffs were very well to do and considered $50,000 to be a rather small amount. In the beginning of the trial, my sympathy ran towards the first couple. They took a thorough beating at the hands of the other two. But as the trial wore on, we learned that couple number one (specifically the husband) had been harassing the husband of couple #2 for a period of over 2 years. Without going into details, Husband #1 basically was trying to get Husband #2 fired from his job. When that didn't work, he finally decided to provoke Husband #2 into a fight. Well, he got a heckuva lot more than he bargained for and ended up getting a very thorough "butt whupping". In the end, Husband #2 was charged with assault, because he threw the first punch in the fight...but Couple #1 were awarded NO DAMAGES because it was obvious that they were just as responsible for the fight occurring. If they had minded their own business, they wouldn't have had to go to the ER. Anyway, the point is that, as I listened to the various testimonies, my initial prejudices against the defendents was changed. I don't doubt the jury my have had come pre-conceived prejudices against Chantal and her husband, but F. Lee Bailey would certainly have realized that and would have worked to overcome them. Still, as I mentioned before, I do agree that the sentence seems excessively harsh. Of course, I never could find out how much money she and her husband supposedly "earned" from this infomercial scam. __________________ [img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth

02-10-2003, 11:52 AM	#29
Cerek the Barbaric Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice Join Date: October 29, 2001 Location: North Carolina Age: 61 Posts: 3,257	I did a little Searching of my own and found this site (William & Chantal McCorkle), which offers a slightly different perspective on the McCorkle's and their Real Estate infomercials. It seems they DID make some excessive claims and did not honor their promises of a "full refund" to customers who requested it. It also was not a "nickel and dime" crime as the first site seems to suggest...the McCorkle's made approx. 28 million dollars from their infomercial enterprise. I have to admit I feel a little less sympathetic towards both McCorkle's after browsing the above site. But - since this took place in Florida - perhaps Ziroc or VulcanRider could provide a better perspective. They both live about 50 miles away from Orlando, where the McCorkle's were convicted. __________________ [img]\"http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/cerek/cerektsrsig.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Cerek the Calmth

02-10-2003, 12:15 PM	#30
Chewbacca Zartan Join Date: July 18, 2001 Location: America, On The Beautiful Earth Age: 50 Posts: 5,373	Reminds me of the photo shoots I did work on for certain "Miami Bass" style recording artists. These guys had average jobs and aspirations to be the next Luke and 2-Live crew. We would rent mansions and expensive cars along with models and strippers to pose with these guys for an album cover or promo photo. While certainly the high-roller lifestyle did not represent the any of the artists I worked with finacial condition, some of them sure did want that lifestyle and did not care they were putting up a "front". A few of them were actually embaressed to do the shoots but they had signed a contract with the label so were obligated to put out such an image. Any way back on topic: I dont think it is fraud if the potential to make the money that would afford the lifestyle is acheiveable within the offered business model. __________________ Support Local Music and Record Stores! Got Liberty?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Appropriate physical punishment	Skunk	General Discussion	10	08-12-2003 11:27 AM
What punishment should she get? (III)	Cerek the Barbaric	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	28	03-06-2003 11:10 AM
What punishment should he get ? - 4th episode	Masklinn	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	16	02-21-2003 03:20 AM
What punishment should she get?	Donut	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	52	02-04-2003 12:27 PM
Capital punishment-for or against?	Tuor	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	27	09-08-2001 07:31 AM