Real Time Media

I have been sitting on these comments for a nearly a week. Having sat through one of the highest profile securities cases in our Legal Systems history it is clear that the process is broken. The complexity of the topic exceeded the ability of the jurors to accurately deliberate. What lies in the balance is the ability of our system to properly administer justice. As I witnessed first hand that is not possible if the panel does not have the technical experience. The myth is if the facts are presented jurors can understand them and weigh them against the corresponding law. Really? Are you kidding me? I had a hard time following the case and forget applying the law…that added a dimension that put this into orbit complexity wise.

The founding fathers had it mostly right…having your peers settle disputes in open court would more often than not result in an unbiased resolution. But, they could never have fore-seen the complexities of today’s cases and need for experts to adjudicate (my word of the week) such complex issues as FAS123 vs APB25 etc.

The balance of a man’s life was held by people who on average do not even balance their checkbook on a monthly basis. How in Lord’s name could they be capable enough to render a decision in this case. They could render an opinion but not an informed decision. Then you add in the hubris of the Prosecution to win not administer justice and the dilemma begins. How can one receive a fair trial? You can’t. My advice stay out of court, away from the long arm of the Govt and move to Peru (JK). So what do we do now? I think its time for Legal reform. Change the process, incent the players to help find the truth not convict the accused. I know I’m dreaming their is to much money, ego and power in the current system for it to ever to be abandoned. Thought I would try.

How is it possible to be guilty of the follow on charges but not the key to the case…CONSPIRACY? Wow…if Reyes was judged by his peers this would have been done over in an afternoon. More later….

Seems the Jury has some more questions for the Court….stay tuned.

So Day 4 ends and no verdict.

So far no verdict from the Jury just a few notes asking for clarification on a few points….will keep on it until they come back in.

Wonder what the Jurors are talking about? Seems like their may be a few folks looking at the evidence…should be a good think for the Defense.

Still no verdict folks… Are you as anxious as I am?

Neal talked about the “Dirty Dozen” today and I loved it.  It was a list of 12 things (witnesses or documents) that have been distorted by the government throughout the trial, and I couldn’t agree more.  Of the “Dirty Dozen” topics such as the Beyer testimony, Reyes granting options to himself, Craig Martin’s story, FAS 123 footnotes, Cudgma’s options, Cuevas and Lee’s testimonies, to name a few.

Closing arguments are done. Jury instructions in the am then its in the Jury’s hands.

Reeves states that in deed APB 25 was discredited.  However, he states that tech companies like Brocade did everything in their power to keep APB 25 because FAS 123 would hurt their earnings, performance, and stock price.  Well then why did Reyes and Brocade use FAS 123 throughout the 2000-2004 periods?

Of the points Reeves made in his rebuttal he stated that Reyes lied in the Craig Martin interview.  He referred to emails between Reyes and Bidzos where Reyes stated that backdating is in fact illegal.  Well what he did not reveal to the jury, the most critical part, the subject of those emails, Section 16 Officers.  This is when it is actually illegal to backdate because the grants need to be reported to the SEC within 48 hours.  Well Reyes, new this, reported appropriately, and broke no laws.

Not to many surprises by Pros Reeves…a lot of speculation and a few new theories. Oh yeah, he asked the Jury to ignore Defense Atty Neal’s arguments based on speculation…but not his.

Does this guy write this stuff in a vacuum. I wish I could find the book he pulls these new theories from…scary he is in a position of power.

I am amazed the Govt can make such misleading statements in a rebuttal but that is the process….no wonder Neal spent so much time creating doubt on what the Govt would say….its with the Jury have faith they can see through the smoke…our system does work…we should all pray it does.!!!

Pros. Reeves tells the jury that “Reasonable doubt is based on reason, not speculation.”  However, in my opinion, that is exactly what he has put into the jurors minds with all of the witnesses they have called, with all the misleading testimonies.  Def. Atty. Neal states that speculation is not credible evidence, a speculation testimony has no place in a court room.  Hopefully the jury will see this and be aware of what is going on!

I know we are supposed to wait for the Govt’s rebuttal but I felt like clapping. Amazing closing argument. I will recap his long closing later…bottom line the Govt has so many defects with its case its kind of scary the case is still going on.

It will be interesting to see what the Govt says in their 90 minute rebuttal.

Here comes the kitchen sink, get the waiters out, the stories and BS I’m sure will be flyin.

We are on break.

Should be the last bit before the jury deliberates…Tuesday.

Wow…Neal is tough.
I love his 20 questions…I wonder how the Jury will review them?

Once again Defense Atty Neal has established Finance know what was going on. Everyone at Brocade received these options. was not in questions. The assertion that Reyes misled and hid the fact from Finance is….with this one notion the GOVT’s case FALLS APART….think about it.

If Finance knew:
1. No conspiracy then
2. If they understood backdating was going on then ACCT choose to use FAS123 knowingly instead of APB 25.
3. False books and records- the Audit Committee understood what was going on so they did not have a problem with the 10K’s to Reyes signed in GOOD FAITH.

No legs to stand on…so if Finance was so important why not even mention them in your closing? Because you know what they were going to say….they knew…and so the cheap suit they are trying to hand on Reyes begins to unravel.

Break for lunch….

Prosecution makes a point that Greg Reyes is innocent if “he possessed a good-faith belief that the alleged false or misleading statements were accurate.”  Well then he is innocent because there is no evidence that states that Reyes knowing or willfully cheated or deceived his finance department.  They knew everything, they were all over it.

I would seem based on the govt’s closing statements today they would have you believe backdating was illegal and Reyes hid the whole process from the Finance department…wow not true.

The Govt would have you believe that Reyes cashed in backdated options and that is why he concocted up the scheme. When in reality 99.7 % of the options were never cashed in. So all of this for 40K options?

The Govt attempted to show Reyes understood APB25 when all of the Govt witnesses were confused themselves and the accounting boards themselves abolished the standard.

Back to our comments from two weeks ago…why are we here? What did Reyes do except grant options to attract employees. Where are the Govt witnesses to say they didn’t know about this?

I guess I could keep going through the Govt’s case….but why….I am still befuddled why they could assert criminal intent.

Everyone know….accounting elected to reflect that comp charges under FAS 123….hello!!!

According to the prosecution Greg Reyes’ Crime is:

1. Scheme to Defraud

2. Conspiracy

3. False SEC Filing

4. False Statements to an Accountant

5. False Books and Records

However, I feel they are missing one key piece… The LINK that ties Reyes to any of this.

BIG NEW FLASH!!!!

CLOSING ARGUMENTS MONDAY March 22, 2010.

Seems like the Jury will begin deliberations on Tuesday.

Wow…lets hope they have seen what we have from the behind the bar.

If they are fair minded folks this should be an acquittal.

There were five motions on the table today for the Judge to decide the Defense did not get the big one a MISTRIAL even though another Govt witness fabricated some of their testimony (BREYER).

Lets see how closing arguments go Monday.