New York gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer, who moonlights as the state’s attorney general, continues to solidify his standing as America’s most powerful organized crime boss with this unprovoked attack against a retired department store executive:
The former CEO of Federated Department Stores, the corporate parent of Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s, pleaded not guilty Tuesday to charges he lied under oath to hide antitrust violations.James Zimmerman, 61, who retired from Federated in February 2003, was arraigned in state Supreme Court on an indictment unsealed Tuesday by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer that charged him with first-degree perjury.
Prosecutors allege Zimmerman lied under oath on April 9, when he was asked whether he had discussed ways to keep Bed Bath & Beyond stores from selling Lenox tableware and Waterford Wedgwood USA crystal and china products.
. . .
“On April 9, 2004,” the indictment says, “the defendant swore falsely” about whether he had discussed with Sir Anthony O’Reilly, chairman of Waterford, whether his company should cancel the sales test with Bed Bath & Beyond. Zimmerman said in the sworn deposition, “I recall I did not discuss Bed Bath & Beyond,” according to the indictment.
The antitrust case against Federated, May, Lenox and Waterford was settled last August when they agreed to pay a total of $2.9 million. None of the defendants admitted any wrongdoing.
Mario Puzo wrote in his classic Mafia novel, The Godfather, that “a lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns.” Spitzer, the consummate lawyer with his briefcase, stole nearly $3 million in broad daylight under the guise of an antitrust lawsuit, but that wasn’t enough. So now a 61-year man faces the loss of all personal liberty for up to seven years—the maximum penalty for perjury in New York—because he didn’t do a sufficient job of groveling when Spitzer and his thugs came to rob his company.
Apologists for Spitzer will claim there is no justification for perjury, because telling the truth is essential to maintaining our system of justice. That’s complete nonsense. Having a discussion with a business associate violates the rights of no man. It is not a crime, and therefore the state has no constitutional or ethical grounds to pursue such matters. Wielding the vast power of the state to deprive people of their liberty and property, in contrast, is a crime in every sense of the word. It is a manifest injustice to excuse Spitzer’s open criminal activity while condemning James Zimmerman for trying to conduct his business in a manner wholly consistent with private property rights and free-market principles.
{ 7 comments }
I think it has been quite obvious for some time now, that Elliot Spitzer has been attacking businesses solely for selfish ends, and his dreams of high electoralship.
What else does he gain, when he shakes down successful companies and CEO’s? It’s not like he walks away with a percentage of the settlement money. More likely, he seeks to pad his resume in a way which would make the mob-destroying Rudi Guliani jealous.
“Having a discussion with a business associate violates the rights of no man. It is not a crime, and therefore the state has no constitutional or ethical grounds to pursue such matters.”
So you are creating a new rule which says it’s OK to commit perjury if you think you are being unfairly questioned? I’m sure Bill Clinton would agree.
If he didn’t want to say anything, he should have used his right to remain silent.
Spitzer so far has stayed far away from the Real Estate industry–where there is more corruption and graft than any other industry per capita. Likely reason, it is his personal bread and butter.
“So you are creating a new rule which says it’s OK to commit perjury if you think you are being unfairly questioned? I’m sure Bill Clinton would agree.”
I’m saying it’s not a crime under an objective legal system (that is, a system that protects individual rights). It may not be a good idea to lie, but it’s unjust to punish a man for failing to cooperate with a criminal act. That the criminal won an election and holds a state office does not give his actions moral authority.
Why is James Zimmerman bound not to commit perjury, yet Eliot Spitzer can act without any constitutional restrictions on his behavior? Zimmerman’s “perjury”, if indeed he lied at all, was an act of self-defense.
If a man breaks into your house and you kill him with a gun you own in defiance of a state ban, should objective principles of justice condemn you for refusing to disarm yourself?
“If he didn’t want to say anything, he should have used his right to remain silent.”
This would not protect him from Spitzer’s criminal behavior. Had Simmerman not spoken at all, Spitzer would have threatened a criminal price-fixing indictment. Having studied federal antitrust prosecutions over the past three years, I know this is standard operating procedure. Because the courts allow antitrust cases to be proven through inference alone, the evidentiary threshhold is minimal.
Eliot Spitzer does not believe in constitutional rights, period. Accordingly, invoking such rights provide no protection against his violence.
“So you are creating a new rule which says it’s OK to commit perjury if you think you are being unfairly questioned?”
No perjury took place. It is perfectly moral to lie to a thief in order to defend an honestly earned value.
Who cares why he lied? Why should it be a crime to lie to the government, anyway?
Comments on this entry are closed.