Thursday, March 18, 2004
Neil Young tour powered by vegetable oil
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Neil Young wants to talk about vegetable oil.
It would be reasonable to expect that the rock 'n' roll veteran has more pressing matters on his mind -- he's just launched a month-long concert tour to complement the theatrical release of "Greendale," his first film in 22 years.
But for anyone familiar with the project's storyline, which tackles such weighty subjects as religious warfare, corporate duplicity, the erosion of privacy and the destruction of natural resources, it will come as no surprise that its creator is eager to discuss not merely the tour itself but the tour's means of transportation.
"I have 17 diesel vehicles, and they're all running on vegetable oil farmed by American farmers," Young, one of the founders of the annual Farm Aid charity concerts, said in a recent interview with Reuters.
Traveling cross-country in that biodiesel caravan with Young are his longtime backing band Crazy Horse and a troupe of friends and family, most of whom are reprising roles they created in the film. In Young's visionary slant on contemporary Americana, they play the residents of an invented California town.
With its rural setting and "down-home" people, Young said, "Greendale" is "almost like Disney at first. It's pretty mellow." But there's a decidedly non-Disney resonance to the fictional story's events -- murder, civil disobedience, FBI surveillance and media voyeurism.
Old man take a look at my life
"You can read about it in any paper; it's happening right now," Young said. "They're real people. And they're being affected by what's going on."
Emblematic of that is the character of Grandpa, the outspoken patriarch of the Green family. Cutting to the heart of the matter with folksy and incisive observations, he's struck a chord with American concert audiences.
"He's having a rough time," Young said. "The whole thing that he believed in is breaking down." Young senses that, like Grandpa, his U.S. audiences "don't like America to not be free. They don't like all of this behind-the-scenes stuff," he added, referring to the Patriot Act, a controversial tool in the U.S. government's war on terror.
Young said he supported the act until he saw how it was being implemented. "It gives people who are shown to be untrustworthy -- and unworthy of having power -- way too much power."
But for all the bleak issues that "Greendale" confronts, it's not hopelessness that prevails but a powerful sense of renewal, with 18-year-old protagonist Sun Green (Sarah White) finding her voice as an artist and protester.
"I believe in youth," Young said. "It's eternally going to wash away all of the sins and start over again. It is the great thing that happens."
Young, whose four-decade career has been characterized by faithfulness to his muse rather than slavishness to audience expectations, didn't set out to create a self-described "musical novel."
Multimedia approach
He followed his instincts to new ground, and "Greendale" has evolved into a multimedia composition that includes the film and concert/stage show, plus two editions of a CD/DVD set, a book to be published in the spring and an intricately detailed Web component, complete with the Green family tree and character profiles.
Performing "Greendale's" 10-song cycle last summer in a solo acoustic tour of Europe, before the album was released, Young prefaced the numbers with explanations of the events linking them, adding and refining details with each telling. The introductions sometimes ran longer than the songs themselves and possessed a vivid visual sense.
"When the story of Greendale came out in the music and I finished the record, that's when it struck me that we could make a film," Young said.
He experimented with dialogue for a long-form video, and found the juxtaposition of dramatic scenes and band performances "no good." But director Bernard Shakey (Young's nom de film) saw "an otherworldly quality" in the acted sequences. He continued working with his cast -- among them Young's wife, Pegi -- who lip-synced to the album's tracks.
Self-distributed by Young's own Shakey Pictures, the film is set to be shown in at least 40 cities so far.
Another long hiatus between Bernard Shakey films looks unlikely. After 1982's "Human Highway" -- generally considered a novelty of a misfire -- Young didn't find a film subject that "mattered." Now, having found a way to create "a picture driven by sound," he seems energized by the medium.
"I don't have the venue that I had with radio -- it's just not there for me anymore," said Young, who's seen commercial success as a solo artist, with Buffalo Springfield and through his intermittent partnerships with David Crosby, Stephen Stills and Graham Nash.
"Rather than just make records and throw them out there and not know what's going to happen, I decided to be proactive and try to be creative in another way," he said. "I think I've stumbled upon a new way of doing it."
LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- Neil Young wants to talk about vegetable oil.
It would be reasonable to expect that the rock 'n' roll veteran has more pressing matters on his mind -- he's just launched a month-long concert tour to complement the theatrical release of "Greendale," his first film in 22 years.
But for anyone familiar with the project's storyline, which tackles such weighty subjects as religious warfare, corporate duplicity, the erosion of privacy and the destruction of natural resources, it will come as no surprise that its creator is eager to discuss not merely the tour itself but the tour's means of transportation.
"I have 17 diesel vehicles, and they're all running on vegetable oil farmed by American farmers," Young, one of the founders of the annual Farm Aid charity concerts, said in a recent interview with Reuters.
Traveling cross-country in that biodiesel caravan with Young are his longtime backing band Crazy Horse and a troupe of friends and family, most of whom are reprising roles they created in the film. In Young's visionary slant on contemporary Americana, they play the residents of an invented California town.
With its rural setting and "down-home" people, Young said, "Greendale" is "almost like Disney at first. It's pretty mellow." But there's a decidedly non-Disney resonance to the fictional story's events -- murder, civil disobedience, FBI surveillance and media voyeurism.
Old man take a look at my life
"You can read about it in any paper; it's happening right now," Young said. "They're real people. And they're being affected by what's going on."
Emblematic of that is the character of Grandpa, the outspoken patriarch of the Green family. Cutting to the heart of the matter with folksy and incisive observations, he's struck a chord with American concert audiences.
"He's having a rough time," Young said. "The whole thing that he believed in is breaking down." Young senses that, like Grandpa, his U.S. audiences "don't like America to not be free. They don't like all of this behind-the-scenes stuff," he added, referring to the Patriot Act, a controversial tool in the U.S. government's war on terror.
Young said he supported the act until he saw how it was being implemented. "It gives people who are shown to be untrustworthy -- and unworthy of having power -- way too much power."
But for all the bleak issues that "Greendale" confronts, it's not hopelessness that prevails but a powerful sense of renewal, with 18-year-old protagonist Sun Green (Sarah White) finding her voice as an artist and protester.
"I believe in youth," Young said. "It's eternally going to wash away all of the sins and start over again. It is the great thing that happens."
Young, whose four-decade career has been characterized by faithfulness to his muse rather than slavishness to audience expectations, didn't set out to create a self-described "musical novel."
Multimedia approach
He followed his instincts to new ground, and "Greendale" has evolved into a multimedia composition that includes the film and concert/stage show, plus two editions of a CD/DVD set, a book to be published in the spring and an intricately detailed Web component, complete with the Green family tree and character profiles.
Performing "Greendale's" 10-song cycle last summer in a solo acoustic tour of Europe, before the album was released, Young prefaced the numbers with explanations of the events linking them, adding and refining details with each telling. The introductions sometimes ran longer than the songs themselves and possessed a vivid visual sense.
"When the story of Greendale came out in the music and I finished the record, that's when it struck me that we could make a film," Young said.
He experimented with dialogue for a long-form video, and found the juxtaposition of dramatic scenes and band performances "no good." But director Bernard Shakey (Young's nom de film) saw "an otherworldly quality" in the acted sequences. He continued working with his cast -- among them Young's wife, Pegi -- who lip-synced to the album's tracks.
Self-distributed by Young's own Shakey Pictures, the film is set to be shown in at least 40 cities so far.
Another long hiatus between Bernard Shakey films looks unlikely. After 1982's "Human Highway" -- generally considered a novelty of a misfire -- Young didn't find a film subject that "mattered." Now, having found a way to create "a picture driven by sound," he seems energized by the medium.
"I don't have the venue that I had with radio -- it's just not there for me anymore," said Young, who's seen commercial success as a solo artist, with Buffalo Springfield and through his intermittent partnerships with David Crosby, Stephen Stills and Graham Nash.
"Rather than just make records and throw them out there and not know what's going to happen, I decided to be proactive and try to be creative in another way," he said. "I think I've stumbled upon a new way of doing it."
Thursday, March 11, 2004
How much time will Martha Stewart do?
(FindLaw) -- Now that Martha Stewart has been convicted by the jury on all counts, what sentence will she be likely to face?
Stewart's destination, at least, is clear: A minimum security federal prison camp for women -- most likely the one in Danbury, Connecticut, (inmate population 235) where hotel magnate Leona Helmsley served time. But her sentence has yet to be determined.
Nonetheless, some initial comments: It's plain that Stewart has already made some mistakes that will lead to her serving a longer sentence than she had to for her offenses. And if she is not careful, she may make additional mistakes that have the same effect.
Could an appeal keep Stewart out of prison?
Before we consider Stewart's possible sentence, we should consider briefly the possibility that her convictions will be reversed on appeal.
Statistically, that possibility is slim. According to a 2001 Special Report by the Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics on Federal Criminal Appeals, defendants convicted at trial lost their appeals 73.7% of the time. Stewart thus has only approximately a one in four chance of success.
Moreover, even if Stewart won her appeal, all she might get would be a new trial -- at which she might be convicted again. According to 2001 data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, out of 4,275 criminal appeals that year for which the Commission had adequate information, only a very modest 294 (or 6.9%) resulted in total remands for further proceedings. And only a measly 21 (or 0.5%) resulted in outright reversals of the convictions.
In sum, Stewart's statistical likelihood of success on appeal is very slight. However, her individual chances may be increased somewhat by the fact that she has retained excellent lawyers who are likely to submit strong briefs on her behalf.
Suppose Stewart does not prevail on appeal, however. What will be her fate? It will be made worse by mistakes she's already made -- and made even more unpleasant by those she may make in the future.
Misstep 1: No guilty plea
Stewart's first misstep was not to plead guilty in exchange for a shorter sentence. Shortly after she was indicted in June 2003, I wrote a column for FindLaw explaining why, upon reviewing federal statistics, my view was that "if Martha Stewart's case follows the overwhelming trend in recent federal fraud cases, she is almost certain to either plead guilty or be found guilty after a trial."
Acquittal, in other words, was pretty much out of the question. Federal charges are not generally brought lightly; the evidence against Stewart was strong.
Stewart's lawyers may well have shared my view that her chances of an acquittal were slight. Some media reports indicate that they may have urged her to accept a guilty plea. If these reports are accurate, she was doubly foolish in both declining to plead guilty of her own volition, and ignoring her attorneys' wise advice to this effect.
Had Stewart pleaded guilty, the government would doubtless have recommended a lower sentence for her than it will now. In addition, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines themselves would have counseled a significantly lower sentence for her.
Under the Guidelines, defendants who plead guilty to an offense generally get less time for "acceptance of responsibility." In some cases, in addition, these defendants may be eligible for confinement in halfway houses, rather than prisons, or just receive straight probation.
Indeed, had Stewart pleaded guilty last year to obstructing justice and accepted responsibility in a timely manner, her sentencing range could have been as low as 6 to 12 months. At that range, she could have avoided prison completely because the judge would have been able to sentence her to just six months of home detention.
Now, as I will explain below, her range may well be calculated to be as long as 37 to 46 months (a calculation that takes into account recent and more onerous changes to the Guidelines as well as several sentencing enhancements). In short, her trial gamble may end up costing her close to four years of freedom.
Misstep 2: No post-conviction admission of responsibility
Strikingly, Stewart still isn't accepting responsibility for what she did. Indeed, her response has been just the contrary.
Immediately after the guilty verdicts came down, Stewart posted the following statement on her Web site: "I am obviously distressed by the jury's verdict but I continue to take comfort in knowing that I have done nothing wrong and that I have the enduring support of my family and friends." (Emphasis added.)
Clearly, denying wrongdoing is tantamount to denying responsibility. Within an hour, the underlined phrase was deleted from the site -- likely on the advice of counsel -- in order to salvage her sentencing position.
Technically, even if Stewart were to belatedly accept responsibility for her crimes, it would still be too late. According to the Guidelines, the downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility "is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse."
Nevertheless, there's no way acceptance of responsibility could hurt Stewart at sentencing -- and it might help her. A sincere expression of guilt and remorse might convince the judge, who still has some sentencing discretion even under the Guidelines, to choose a sentence at the lower end of the permissible range.
And conversely, if Stewart continues to claim vocally that she's innocent, it seems unlikely that the judge would pick a sentence at the lower end of the range. An unrepentant Stewart would stand out as the kind of defendant who should receive a sentence at the upper end of the sentencing range.
Uncharged issues can play into sentencing
As I mentioned in my June column, conduct can still be used at sentencing even if it based on charges that were never brought, that were dismissed, or that resulted in an acquittal.
In the Stewart case, one charge that was never brought stood out to legal observers as a dog that didn't bark. Stewart's was, in essence, an insider trading case. While Stewart is facing an SEC civil action for insider trading, no corresponding criminal charge was brought.
In addition, a charge that was dismissed also stood out: Judge Cedarbaum dismissed another type of securities fraud claim that was brought -- a charge based upon allegations that Stewart's lies boosted or at least bolstered her own company's stock in the wake of the investigation.
Now both of these issues can be resurrected at sentencing. Evidence suggesting Stewart committed these two offenses -- one uncharged, the other dismissed -- may be offered by the government. And under the law, the judge can take this evidence into account in sentencing as "relevant conduct."
Likely sentence: 37-46 months
Stewart was convicted of obstructing justice and lying to authorities. Accordingly, the obstruction of justice sentencing guidelines will apply. In light of recent amendments to the Guidelines, Stewart's initial sentencing range will be 15 to 21 months. But that is far from the end of the matter.
Suppose the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Stewart's conduct, in impeding a government investigation, resulted "in substantial interference with the administration of justice." (A "preponderance of the evidence" is a relaxed "more likely than not" standard that is very different from "beyond a reasonable doubt." And under the law, that is the standard applicable here.) If so, then Stewart's sentencing range could increase to 24 to 30 months.
Stewart was also convicted of a conspiracy to obstruct justice that included her broker, Peter Bacanovic, who also was convicted. Accordingly, Stewart may be eligible for a sentencing enhancement for being "an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor" in the criminal activity. If so, that enhancement would increase Stewart's sentencing range to 30 to 37 months.
Finally, suppose the government uses the evidence supporting the dismissed securities fraud claim to show "abuse of [Stewart's] position of trust" as a member of the board of directors for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. If so, this enhancement would increase Stewart's sentencing range to 37 to 46 months.
Unlikely 'downward departure' benefit
Stewart's only hope now for a less severe sentence would be to obtain a downward departure -- that is, to hope the judge will choose to go below the applicable sentencing range. But that hope, again, is slim.
One of the avenues that I explored in my June 2003 column was to argue for a departure based on the fact that Stewart's conduct was aberrant behavior in an otherwise straight-arrow life. But as even Robert G. Morvillo, Stewart's attorney, recognized in a New York Law Journal article published last month, "[a]berrant behavior, already a difficult ground for departure for defendants to obtain[, is] now even more so under the Feeney Amendment." As I have written in another prior column, the Feeney Amendment greatly restricts federal judges in departing from the Guidelines.
In any event, as Morvillo himself points out, recent amendments to the Guidelines added "commentary that states that fraud schemes 'generally' would not meet the requirement that [such aberrant] conduct not be 'repetitious or significant planned behavior.'"
In light of this commentary, an "aberrant behavior" downward departure for Stewart would seem to be ruled out. Given that Stewart was convicted of conspiracy, her behavior was plainly "planned." And given that she was convicted of lying repeatedly, on different occasions (though about the same topic), her behavior probably also counts as "repetitious."
Stewart could still, as I also suggested in my earlier column, argue for a departure based on her susceptibility to abuse in prison, or her claim of selective prosecution. She and her supporters have repeatedly claimed she was targeted based on her celebrity, and doubtless, they will be able to point to some evidence to that effect.
Nevertheless, both of these arguments -- susceptibility to abuse in prison, and selective prosecution -- are long shots. And even if she were to succeed, such departures would not help her to avoid prison time. She only would just get a little less prison time, not none at all.
One stroke of luck for Stewart, however, is that she happens to be before a district court within a fairly liberal Circuit. The district courts within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- which include the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Stewart was tried and convicted, and where she will be sentenced -- have a somewhat higher downward departure rate (18.4%) than the national average (11.0%).
Likely real time for Stewart: 32 months
In the end, the chances of any downward departure for Stewart at this point are exceedingly slim, no matter how creative the argument. Nevertheless, creative arguments by her counsel may help -- at least to ensure that Stewart is sentenced at, or near, the bottom of the sentencing range.
And if the range is indeed 37 to 46 months, that could make a significant difference. With a 37-month sentence, and time off for good behavior, Stewart could be out in as little as 32 months. Anyway you look at it, however, she is going to federal prison.
(FindLaw) -- Now that Martha Stewart has been convicted by the jury on all counts, what sentence will she be likely to face?
Stewart's destination, at least, is clear: A minimum security federal prison camp for women -- most likely the one in Danbury, Connecticut, (inmate population 235) where hotel magnate Leona Helmsley served time. But her sentence has yet to be determined.
Nonetheless, some initial comments: It's plain that Stewart has already made some mistakes that will lead to her serving a longer sentence than she had to for her offenses. And if she is not careful, she may make additional mistakes that have the same effect.
Could an appeal keep Stewart out of prison?
Before we consider Stewart's possible sentence, we should consider briefly the possibility that her convictions will be reversed on appeal.
Statistically, that possibility is slim. According to a 2001 Special Report by the Bureau of Criminal Justice Statistics on Federal Criminal Appeals, defendants convicted at trial lost their appeals 73.7% of the time. Stewart thus has only approximately a one in four chance of success.
Moreover, even if Stewart won her appeal, all she might get would be a new trial -- at which she might be convicted again. According to 2001 data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, out of 4,275 criminal appeals that year for which the Commission had adequate information, only a very modest 294 (or 6.9%) resulted in total remands for further proceedings. And only a measly 21 (or 0.5%) resulted in outright reversals of the convictions.
In sum, Stewart's statistical likelihood of success on appeal is very slight. However, her individual chances may be increased somewhat by the fact that she has retained excellent lawyers who are likely to submit strong briefs on her behalf.
Suppose Stewart does not prevail on appeal, however. What will be her fate? It will be made worse by mistakes she's already made -- and made even more unpleasant by those she may make in the future.
Misstep 1: No guilty plea
Stewart's first misstep was not to plead guilty in exchange for a shorter sentence. Shortly after she was indicted in June 2003, I wrote a column for FindLaw explaining why, upon reviewing federal statistics, my view was that "if Martha Stewart's case follows the overwhelming trend in recent federal fraud cases, she is almost certain to either plead guilty or be found guilty after a trial."
Acquittal, in other words, was pretty much out of the question. Federal charges are not generally brought lightly; the evidence against Stewart was strong.
Stewart's lawyers may well have shared my view that her chances of an acquittal were slight. Some media reports indicate that they may have urged her to accept a guilty plea. If these reports are accurate, she was doubly foolish in both declining to plead guilty of her own volition, and ignoring her attorneys' wise advice to this effect.
Had Stewart pleaded guilty, the government would doubtless have recommended a lower sentence for her than it will now. In addition, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines themselves would have counseled a significantly lower sentence for her.
Under the Guidelines, defendants who plead guilty to an offense generally get less time for "acceptance of responsibility." In some cases, in addition, these defendants may be eligible for confinement in halfway houses, rather than prisons, or just receive straight probation.
Indeed, had Stewart pleaded guilty last year to obstructing justice and accepted responsibility in a timely manner, her sentencing range could have been as low as 6 to 12 months. At that range, she could have avoided prison completely because the judge would have been able to sentence her to just six months of home detention.
Now, as I will explain below, her range may well be calculated to be as long as 37 to 46 months (a calculation that takes into account recent and more onerous changes to the Guidelines as well as several sentencing enhancements). In short, her trial gamble may end up costing her close to four years of freedom.
Misstep 2: No post-conviction admission of responsibility
Strikingly, Stewart still isn't accepting responsibility for what she did. Indeed, her response has been just the contrary.
Immediately after the guilty verdicts came down, Stewart posted the following statement on her Web site: "I am obviously distressed by the jury's verdict but I continue to take comfort in knowing that I have done nothing wrong and that I have the enduring support of my family and friends." (Emphasis added.)
Clearly, denying wrongdoing is tantamount to denying responsibility. Within an hour, the underlined phrase was deleted from the site -- likely on the advice of counsel -- in order to salvage her sentencing position.
Technically, even if Stewart were to belatedly accept responsibility for her crimes, it would still be too late. According to the Guidelines, the downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility "is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse."
Nevertheless, there's no way acceptance of responsibility could hurt Stewart at sentencing -- and it might help her. A sincere expression of guilt and remorse might convince the judge, who still has some sentencing discretion even under the Guidelines, to choose a sentence at the lower end of the permissible range.
And conversely, if Stewart continues to claim vocally that she's innocent, it seems unlikely that the judge would pick a sentence at the lower end of the range. An unrepentant Stewart would stand out as the kind of defendant who should receive a sentence at the upper end of the sentencing range.
Uncharged issues can play into sentencing
As I mentioned in my June column, conduct can still be used at sentencing even if it based on charges that were never brought, that were dismissed, or that resulted in an acquittal.
In the Stewart case, one charge that was never brought stood out to legal observers as a dog that didn't bark. Stewart's was, in essence, an insider trading case. While Stewart is facing an SEC civil action for insider trading, no corresponding criminal charge was brought.
In addition, a charge that was dismissed also stood out: Judge Cedarbaum dismissed another type of securities fraud claim that was brought -- a charge based upon allegations that Stewart's lies boosted or at least bolstered her own company's stock in the wake of the investigation.
Now both of these issues can be resurrected at sentencing. Evidence suggesting Stewart committed these two offenses -- one uncharged, the other dismissed -- may be offered by the government. And under the law, the judge can take this evidence into account in sentencing as "relevant conduct."
Likely sentence: 37-46 months
Stewart was convicted of obstructing justice and lying to authorities. Accordingly, the obstruction of justice sentencing guidelines will apply. In light of recent amendments to the Guidelines, Stewart's initial sentencing range will be 15 to 21 months. But that is far from the end of the matter.
Suppose the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Stewart's conduct, in impeding a government investigation, resulted "in substantial interference with the administration of justice." (A "preponderance of the evidence" is a relaxed "more likely than not" standard that is very different from "beyond a reasonable doubt." And under the law, that is the standard applicable here.) If so, then Stewart's sentencing range could increase to 24 to 30 months.
Stewart was also convicted of a conspiracy to obstruct justice that included her broker, Peter Bacanovic, who also was convicted. Accordingly, Stewart may be eligible for a sentencing enhancement for being "an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor" in the criminal activity. If so, that enhancement would increase Stewart's sentencing range to 30 to 37 months.
Finally, suppose the government uses the evidence supporting the dismissed securities fraud claim to show "abuse of [Stewart's] position of trust" as a member of the board of directors for Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. If so, this enhancement would increase Stewart's sentencing range to 37 to 46 months.
Unlikely 'downward departure' benefit
Stewart's only hope now for a less severe sentence would be to obtain a downward departure -- that is, to hope the judge will choose to go below the applicable sentencing range. But that hope, again, is slim.
One of the avenues that I explored in my June 2003 column was to argue for a departure based on the fact that Stewart's conduct was aberrant behavior in an otherwise straight-arrow life. But as even Robert G. Morvillo, Stewart's attorney, recognized in a New York Law Journal article published last month, "[a]berrant behavior, already a difficult ground for departure for defendants to obtain[, is] now even more so under the Feeney Amendment." As I have written in another prior column, the Feeney Amendment greatly restricts federal judges in departing from the Guidelines.
In any event, as Morvillo himself points out, recent amendments to the Guidelines added "commentary that states that fraud schemes 'generally' would not meet the requirement that [such aberrant] conduct not be 'repetitious or significant planned behavior.'"
In light of this commentary, an "aberrant behavior" downward departure for Stewart would seem to be ruled out. Given that Stewart was convicted of conspiracy, her behavior was plainly "planned." And given that she was convicted of lying repeatedly, on different occasions (though about the same topic), her behavior probably also counts as "repetitious."
Stewart could still, as I also suggested in my earlier column, argue for a departure based on her susceptibility to abuse in prison, or her claim of selective prosecution. She and her supporters have repeatedly claimed she was targeted based on her celebrity, and doubtless, they will be able to point to some evidence to that effect.
Nevertheless, both of these arguments -- susceptibility to abuse in prison, and selective prosecution -- are long shots. And even if she were to succeed, such departures would not help her to avoid prison time. She only would just get a little less prison time, not none at all.
One stroke of luck for Stewart, however, is that she happens to be before a district court within a fairly liberal Circuit. The district courts within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- which include the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Stewart was tried and convicted, and where she will be sentenced -- have a somewhat higher downward departure rate (18.4%) than the national average (11.0%).
Likely real time for Stewart: 32 months
In the end, the chances of any downward departure for Stewart at this point are exceedingly slim, no matter how creative the argument. Nevertheless, creative arguments by her counsel may help -- at least to ensure that Stewart is sentenced at, or near, the bottom of the sentencing range.
And if the range is indeed 37 to 46 months, that could make a significant difference. With a 37-month sentence, and time off for good behavior, Stewart could be out in as little as 32 months. Anyway you look at it, however, she is going to federal prison.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
School District To Consider 'Family Friendly' School Start Times
A plan to change the start and departure times for every Greenville County school is officially off the table for the next school year.
Superintendent Bill Harner said late Monday that he will not implement a plan to begin middle and high schools at 7:30 a.m. and elementary schools at 8:30 a.m.
Harner announced his plan Feb. 24 to school board trustees. Many parents and teachers said they heard nothing of the plan until they saw news reports about it. Many called the school district and school board trustees to complain.
The next day, Harner said that the plan would be reviewed and public input would be solicited before it was put in place.
"The vast majority of parents and teachers who voiced their concerns do not support a 7:30 a.m. start time for school. We have listened and are moving forward to examine other school start options that will improve delivery of services to students and families. Community and school input will be heavily considered in developing those options," Harner said in a press release on the Greenville County School District Web site Tuesday.
Two meetings are being held about the issue at the school district main offices Thursday, with public comment times at 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Todd Gladfelter will have more about this issue at 5 and 6.
A plan to change the start and departure times for every Greenville County school is officially off the table for the next school year.
Superintendent Bill Harner said late Monday that he will not implement a plan to begin middle and high schools at 7:30 a.m. and elementary schools at 8:30 a.m.
Harner announced his plan Feb. 24 to school board trustees. Many parents and teachers said they heard nothing of the plan until they saw news reports about it. Many called the school district and school board trustees to complain.
The next day, Harner said that the plan would be reviewed and public input would be solicited before it was put in place.
"The vast majority of parents and teachers who voiced their concerns do not support a 7:30 a.m. start time for school. We have listened and are moving forward to examine other school start options that will improve delivery of services to students and families. Community and school input will be heavily considered in developing those options," Harner said in a press release on the Greenville County School District Web site Tuesday.
Two meetings are being held about the issue at the school district main offices Thursday, with public comment times at 9 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Todd Gladfelter will have more about this issue at 5 and 6.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
Michael Jackson and ex-wife ask judge to settle "family matter"
LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Accused pop legend Michael Jackson and his ex-wife Debbie Rowe have asked a retired judge to settle a "family matter" that the star's aides said was linked to the custody of their two children.
The move came following reports that Rowe was seeking custody of the children because of her alleged objections to Jackson's links with the radical black group Nation of Islam since he was accused of child molestation.
The pair, who have remained close since their three-year marriage ended in October 1999, filed documents with Los Angeles Superior court on Friday agreeing to appoint retired judge Stephen Lachs, to hear the case, court documents showed.
Lachs was appointed "judge for all purposes" by the court in order to mediate in the affair, the documents obtained by AFP said.
A source in the Jackson camp told AFP the "family matter" under discussion was linked to custody of Prince Michael I, aged seven, and their five-year-old daughter Paris.
But Jackson's spokeswoman Ramone Baines refused to comment on the case that emerged in the wake of Jackson being charged in December with seven counts of child molestation against a 13-year-old boy and two counts of plying him with alcohol.
"We don't address legal issues," she said. There have been reports that his ex-wife is seeking custody of her children ... but we don't want to comment on legal issues."
Reports said the Jewish Rowe wants to change the terms of the custody order which gave Jackson, 45, custody of their children after reports said that the Nation of Islam, which has espoused anti-Semitic views, was taking daily control of Jackson's affairs.
Jackson's former spokesman Stuart Backerman, who was ousted from his entourage late last year, said at the time that the superstar had been "isolated by the nation of Islam" and to which he had become linked through his children's longtime nanny.
"She convinced him they were threats against the children. Nobody has had access to him since then. The Nation of Islam isolated him," he told AFP in January.
Jackson and his attorney Mark Geragos, who is defending him in the child abuse case that could see him jailed for years, have dismissed claims that the radical NOI runs his affairs, saying that they simply provide security for him.
Rowe has said that she wanted to have the children for Jackson but did not want to have custody of them or for them to call her "mom."
The "King of Pop" has a third child, Prince Michael II, but the identity of his mother has not been disclosed.
Rowe and Jackson were married in November 1996 in Sydney, Australia, after announcing that Rowe, who was nurse to Jackson's plastic surgeon, was carrying the pop star's first child.
Rowe filed for divorce just under three years later, citing irreconcilable differences. Custody arrangements made at the time were confidential, but Rowe has said she wanted Jackson to keep them and has consistent defended him as a good father in the face of child abuse allegations.
LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Accused pop legend Michael Jackson and his ex-wife Debbie Rowe have asked a retired judge to settle a "family matter" that the star's aides said was linked to the custody of their two children.
The move came following reports that Rowe was seeking custody of the children because of her alleged objections to Jackson's links with the radical black group Nation of Islam since he was accused of child molestation.
The pair, who have remained close since their three-year marriage ended in October 1999, filed documents with Los Angeles Superior court on Friday agreeing to appoint retired judge Stephen Lachs, to hear the case, court documents showed.
Lachs was appointed "judge for all purposes" by the court in order to mediate in the affair, the documents obtained by AFP said.
A source in the Jackson camp told AFP the "family matter" under discussion was linked to custody of Prince Michael I, aged seven, and their five-year-old daughter Paris.
But Jackson's spokeswoman Ramone Baines refused to comment on the case that emerged in the wake of Jackson being charged in December with seven counts of child molestation against a 13-year-old boy and two counts of plying him with alcohol.
"We don't address legal issues," she said. There have been reports that his ex-wife is seeking custody of her children ... but we don't want to comment on legal issues."
Reports said the Jewish Rowe wants to change the terms of the custody order which gave Jackson, 45, custody of their children after reports said that the Nation of Islam, which has espoused anti-Semitic views, was taking daily control of Jackson's affairs.
Jackson's former spokesman Stuart Backerman, who was ousted from his entourage late last year, said at the time that the superstar had been "isolated by the nation of Islam" and to which he had become linked through his children's longtime nanny.
"She convinced him they were threats against the children. Nobody has had access to him since then. The Nation of Islam isolated him," he told AFP in January.
Jackson and his attorney Mark Geragos, who is defending him in the child abuse case that could see him jailed for years, have dismissed claims that the radical NOI runs his affairs, saying that they simply provide security for him.
Rowe has said that she wanted to have the children for Jackson but did not want to have custody of them or for them to call her "mom."
The "King of Pop" has a third child, Prince Michael II, but the identity of his mother has not been disclosed.
Rowe and Jackson were married in November 1996 in Sydney, Australia, after announcing that Rowe, who was nurse to Jackson's plastic surgeon, was carrying the pop star's first child.
Rowe filed for divorce just under three years later, citing irreconcilable differences. Custody arrangements made at the time were confidential, but Rowe has said she wanted Jackson to keep them and has consistent defended him as a good father in the face of child abuse allegations.
