• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Felony charge dropped because it could affect wealth manager's job

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face a felony charge in Colorado for an alleged hit-and-run because it could jeopardize his job, the Summit Daily News reports, quoting the district attorney.

Martin Joel Erzinger, 52, director in private wealth management at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney in Denver, now faces two misdemeanor traffic charges for allegedly hitting bicyclist Steven Milo from behind then speeding away, according to court documents.

You know, if you or I (Joe Ordinary) had hit this man, we would be going to prison. Never mind our jobs, we would be screwed. But, it's good to know that, if you are rich, the prosecutor will give you a hand up, and reduce the charges. I mean, this "innocent" man only hit the bicyclist, causing severe injury, then fled, leaving him on the road for dead. He didn't do anything that could be considered a felony, did he? After all, he has money, and an important job, which is way too important to jeopardize for the sake of some regular guy on a bicycle.

This prosecutor should be fired. Period. He should also be ordered to stop receiving blow jobs from important people at Morgan-Stanley. :mrgreen:

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
The gaping chasm between the rich and the poor pandiculates yet again.
 
The gaping chasm between the rich and the poor pandiculates yet again.

not really-in many cases-especially federal ones-rich white collar frauds get far more time than poor mopes.
 
THIS is what the wealthy get for paying more taxes
 
You know, if you or I (Joe Ordinary) had hit this man, we would be going to prison. Never mind our jobs, we would be screwed. But, it's good to know that, if you are rich, the prosecutor will give you a hand up, and reduce the charges. I mean, this "innocent" man only hit the bicyclist, causing severe injury, then fled, leaving him on the road for dead. He didn't do anything that could be considered a felony, did he? After all, he has money, and an important job, which is way too important to jeopardize for the sake of some regular guy on a bicycle.

This prosecutor should be fired. Period. He should also be ordered to stop receiving blow jobs from important people at Morgan-Stanley. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Absolutely outrageous. What in God's name is going on there?
 
THIS is what the wealthy get for paying more taxes

that is the sort of silliness I was expecting. The rich do have the advantage of being able to afford better-or at least perceived as better-lawyers though there are few private attorneys-especially in federal courts (where the big fraud cases end up) who have the experience that federal public defenders do. But that doesn't come from the government giving the wealthy any advantage--rather it comes from the wealthy being able to afford 500 an hour counsel
 
that is the sort of silliness I was expecting. The rich do have the advantage of being able to afford better-or at least perceived as better-lawyers though there are few private attorneys-especially in federal courts (where the big fraud cases end up) who have the experience that federal public defenders do. But that doesn't come from the government giving the wealthy any advantage--rather it comes from the wealthy being able to afford 500 an hour counsel

Seems it also comes from the wealthy being able to afford paying for a prosecutor as well. LOL.
 
41SS6GDVGDL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg
 
that is the sort of silliness I was expecting. The rich do have the advantage of being able to afford better-or at least perceived as better-lawyers though there are few private attorneys-especially in federal courts (where the big fraud cases end up) who have the experience that federal public defenders do. But that doesn't come from the government giving the wealthy any advantage--rather it comes from the wealthy being able to afford 500 an hour counsel
Their wealth gives them access to the part of our legal system that allows $500 an hour attorneys that enable clients to buy their way out of trouble.
 
You know, if you or I (Joe Ordinary) had hit this man, we would be going to prison. Never mind our jobs, we would be screwed. But, it's good to know that, if you are rich, the prosecutor will give you a hand up, and reduce the charges. I mean, this "innocent" man only hit the bicyclist, causing severe injury, then fled, leaving him on the road for dead. He didn't do anything that could be considered a felony, did he? After all, he has money, and an important job, which is way too important to jeopardize for the sake of some regular guy on a bicycle.

This prosecutor should be fired. Period. He should also be ordered to stop receiving blow jobs from important people at Morgan-Stanley. :mrgreen:

Article is here.

This is why I like mandatory sentencing laws.
 
mandatory sentencing is exactly that... sentencing... after a guilty verdict. You can't give someone a mandatory sentence if they are not charged with a level of crime that the sentence would apply to.
But if the crime carries a certian number of years in prison then some prosecutor or judge can not lower the crime.
 
Seems it also comes from the wealthy being able to afford paying for a prosecutor as well. LOL.

If that is the case then the prosecutor should be investigated and charged. But that's hardly a government provided advantage to the rich as some claim. I was responding to a socialist's claim not your original post.
 
Their wealth gives them access to the part of our legal system that allows $500 an hour attorneys that enable clients to buy their way out of trouble.

that is not a government provided advantage

that comes from the rich being able to afford counsel

and here in my district a 10 million dollar defense bill did not save Steve Warshack (Smiling Bob-the trouser snake oil salesman) from getting 25 years in the federal slammer.
 
that is not a government provided advantage

that comes from the rich being able to afford counsel
And it is the system that allows such counsel to manipulate it to favor his client.

and here in my district a 10 million dollar defense bill did not save Steve Warshack (Smiling Bob-the trouser snake oil salesman) from getting 25 years in the federal slammer.
Compared to how many other millionaires that have gone free?
 
And it is the system that allows such counsel to manipulate it to favor his client.


Compared to how many other millionaires that have gone free?

tell me all the cases where "millionaires who were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" managed to go free versus say poor black gangbangers who went free because witnesses were killed or afraid to testify

I have seen a few hundred felony federal criminal trials in my career and they mainly involve "poor" (in the sense that the 1040s filed by the mopes don't indicate much money-few report cocaine sales proceeds) defendants charged with drug, robbery or weapons offenses and somewhat prosperous white collar fraud defendants. And I have yet to see anyone in the latter get off because they had really good lawyers or they "bought" their way out

has that happened? I am sure it has but I can also tell you the guy who did most of the Federal public defender cases in the SD of OHio is now a partner in one of the best firms in the country doing the same work.
 
tell me all the cases where "millionaires who were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" managed to go free versus say poor black gangbangers who went free because witnesses were killed or afraid to testify
Not being an encyclopedia of legal case histories, I couldnt possibly answer this question.

I have seen a few hundred felony federal criminal trials in my career and they mainly involve "poor" (in the sense that the 1040s filed by the mopes don't indicate much money-few report cocaine sales proceeds) defendants charged with drug, robbery or weapons offenses and somewhat prosperous white collar fraud defendants. And I have yet to see anyone in the latter get off because they had really good lawyers or they "bought" their way out
You aren't familiar with the concept of settling out of court?
 
Not being an encyclopedia of legal case histories, I couldnt possibly answer this question.

You aren't familiar with the concept of settling out of court?

in civil cases that happens most of the time

in criminal cases that means a plea bargain. under the current federal sentencing guidelines (no longer mandatory after "Booker") the breaks Mopes get are far less meaning many more are going to trial especially if they have a PD or an EAJ (appointed by the court free lawyer) counsel. wealth doesn't play much if any role in plea bargaining in criminal cases from what I have seen
 
in civil cases that happens most of the time

in criminal cases that means a plea bargain. under the current federal sentencing guidelines (no longer mandatory after "Booker") the breaks Mopes get are far less meaning many more are going to trial especially if they have a PD or an EAJ (appointed by the court free lawyer) counsel. wealth doesn't play much if any role in plea bargaining in criminal cases from what I have seen
Wealth can get one a better counsel that can manipulate a broken system and get a lower sentence or the case dismissed
 
Wealth can get one a better counsel that can manipulate a broken system and get a lower sentence or the case dismissed

prove it. I haven't seen it to any extent that makes it relevant

and it has nothing to do with de jure benefits huge tax payers get for paying 1000 times more taxes than the average voter.

do you know what the average income tax bill is in the USA?
 
prove it. I haven't seen it to any extent that makes it relevant

and it has nothing to do with de jure benefits huge tax payers get for paying 1000 times more taxes than the average voter.

do you know what the average income tax bill is in the USA?

I also deny that the system is broken, the USA criminal justice system is the envy of the world. not perfect but far better than just about any other system. especially at the federal level
 
prove it. I haven't seen it to any extent that makes it relevant
And what extent would you consider it relevant.

I also deny that the system is broken, the USA criminal justice system is the envy of the world. not perfect but far better than just about any other system. especially at the federal level
Our justice system has a backlog of cases longer than a man can see and a bankroll of costs larger than the GDP of most small countries. We've become an overly-litigious society where our legal system is looked on like the lottery; a quick way to get rich. We've traded legal knowledge for ambulance chasers and Twinkie defenses. Our legal system is one in which a thief can fall through a skylight, hurt himself when he lands, and successfully sue the owner of the home he tried to rob.

You're right, our legal system isn't broken. It's burning.
 
And what extent would you consider it relevant.


Our justice system has a backlog of cases longer than a man can see and a bankroll of costs larger than the GDP of most small countries. We've become an overly-litigious society where our legal system is looked on like the lottery; a quick way to get rich. We've traded legal knowledge for ambulance chasers and Twinkie defenses. Our legal system is one in which a thief can fall through a skylight, hurt himself when he lands, and successfully sue the owner of the home he tried to rob.

You're right, our legal system isn't broken. It's burning.

that's the tort law and civil docket not the criminal docket we were first talking about. and what party is the party that represents most plaintiff's attorneys?

not the GOP

but lets get back to what I was actually talking about-the criminal system because that is what the OP is about.
 
I also deny that the system is broken, the USA criminal justice system is the envy of the world. not perfect but far better than just about any other system. especially at the federal level

Envy of the world? What do you base that on?
 
Envy of the world? What do you base that on?

how much do you know about the legal systems in other countries when it comes to criminal law?
 
Back
Top Bottom