By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Former presidential candidate and long time consumer rights advocate Ralph Nader talked with Michael Ruhl to discuss the status of his lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC). This was immediately following the circuit court argument for Nader vs. DNC. Nader claims that he was harassed and burdened in 2004 presidential election by the DNC, in what he calls “an abuse of the legal process” and malicious prosecution. In this interview, Nader explained background of the case, and the case’s current status. He said, “there is no other western democracy that comes close to obstructing voters and obstructing candidates as is the case in our country.”

Nader also spoke about the two-party system, and the effect that his case has on future third party candidates in the presidential process. He said that his case is designed to draw boundaries, to make sure that third party candidates can exercise their First Amendment rights. Nader also referred to the issue as one of democracy, because he said in limiting ballot access, one is truly limiting the right of the people to decide who they want to represent them. Nader called for national ballot standards, instead of ballot standards which vary state by state. He also advocated instant runoff voting and public funding of public campaigns.

Nader said that the two-party system is not allowing third parties access to the higher tiers of federal government, and this two-party system is moving gradually to a one-party system, where gerrymandered districts make reelection almost certain for many members of Congress. He called this a system that can be rented by the rich. In spite of the stronghold that the two parties have on the system, Nader said that he has talked with several members of Congress who may be interested in helping to move legislation on election reform. He mentioned by name: John Conyers (D-Mich.), Ron Paul (R-Texas), Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), and Jessie Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.). He anticipates this reform effort to be difficult, because as he said, “the foxes are guarding the chicken coop.” Nader seems ready for a fight.

(08:50)

 

 Standard Podcast [08:50m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Today one of Enron’s former executives found himself back in the lime light as the Supreme Court heard his case of being unjustly prosecuted. F. Scott Yeager, an executive at Enron Broadband Services, was caught up in the hunt for white-collar wrongdoing after the Enron scandal. He was charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, money laundering, and conspiracy to engage in securities fraud and wire fraud. The original trial saw Yeager acquitted of three of the charges, but the jury couldn’t agree on the charges of insider trading and money laundering.

The United States government then tried to re-try the insider trading and money laundering charges, since the jury was undecided on the matter, something that Yeager says violates his rights against being prosecuted twice for the same matter. Yeager moved to have the case thrown out. He argued that he is protected by collateral estoppel, which prohibits the same issue from being tried twice, and is similar to double jeopardy. Yeager’s legal team relied on a good-faith defense in his initial trial, saying he was not guilty because he had a reasonable belief in his company’s financial stability. The argument for collateral estoppel was that since he was acquitted based on the good-faith defense, it would not be possible to prosecute him on insider trading, since the jury established he could not have illegality at the heart of his actions.

Both the District and Circuit Courts denied Yeager’s motion to have the case thrown out. Yeager then took the matter before the Supreme Court, in Yeager v. United States.

The Justices were undecided in the courtroom about whether or not the acquittal on the similar charges was enough to remove Yeager from any shadow of wrongdoing. Justices Samuel Alito and David Souter felt that he might have been acquitted for other reasons than simply the good-faith defense, although it was self evident that they could not know with certainty why the jury did what it did. The counsel for the United States said that the jury should have said Yeager was not guilty on the two undecided charges if they really meant it. Chief Justice John Roberts showed concern at the effect this decision could have on the Seventh Amendment in the Constitution, which protects the right to jury trials. Roberts questioned whether or not retrial of the undecided charges would undermine the jury’s decisions in the acquitted charges. Although Justice Stephen Breyer did not display a firm position on the case at large, he did say that he can’t think of why this wouldn’t be a second trial, and why collateral estoppel should not apply.

The Court is expected to return a decision on this case in May or June of this year.