i couldn't think of anybody that would want him dead, you know, besides don. >> don, don oxley, ben oxley'syssa's mother. even as locals pointed suspicious fingers at alyssa, ben's friend stole each other -- >> everything in me said don had something to do with that. >> just a few years back, that sort of thing would've been unimaginable to don and ben's best friends, ben and cindy graham. not don. the center of any room she was in. >> i dawn't know if it was her manipulating, or what, but everybody agreed with dawn. as long as dawn was happy, then we are all happy. >> but after five years of marriage, neither ben nor dawn was happy, and the marriage went up in flames . >> penn had cheated on dawn. i can see that. this probably wasn't going to be something that she was ever going to get over. >> dawn changed after that, said cindy. didn't seem to want to act like a parent anymore. >> she met a guy and she would stay the night at his house. when her kids are calling us up saying, we dawn't have any food in the house, can you bring us food, there is a problem. >> when dawn and ben went to cou

sarbanes-oxley violation can land you 20 years in federal prison. he fought that charge. he rejected like aaron schwartz, a plea deal. he went to trial and lost the the judge, only sentenced him to 30 days in in jail. but it was over christmas. he and sandra were busy raising two grandchildren at the time. he asked, can i delay it till after? in christmas? it was. he was ready to give up at that point, as many of you would be. he served his time. he's out of the industry. i mean there's no going back to being a commercial fisherman after that. and he's pretty dejected. but central, have any of it. she is a remarkable woman. and maybe the heroine of this book. and she insists on fighting it and they fight it all the way to the supreme court of the united states and they win. but. they win by one vote in. sandra, to this day is still angry about that. she thinks she should have gotten nine, but that's what winning can look like in our system. they won. think about it. they won the vindication from the highest court of the land. all the vindication a man can receive in our l

they charge him with violating the sarbanes-oxley act, which was adopted after enron, financial accounting scandal. now, the statute says if you destroy intentionally accounting records, documents, things like that, or other tangible objects, you're guilty. the government's theory in the case apparently was that he intentionally threw overboard 72 red grouper, tangible objects, and replaced them with 69 still undersized fish. now, john thought that was about the silliesthing he ever heard, but he was found guilty by a jury, appealed and lost, spent christmas in jail. and he was ready to give up, but sandra, his wife, said, "no. you gotta appeal this, because this is just wrong." brought it all the way to the supreme court of the united states and won five to five. sandra was angry that she didn't get more votes. - yeah. (chuckles) - and what does this teach us? it teaches us, even when you win sometimes, even when you win, you lose. oh, by that time, he had lost his boat, his livelihood, his home. so those kinds of stories, cases i saw that have to do with the meaning of a statute, but wha

they charge him with violating the sarbanes-oxley act, which was adopted after enron, financial accounting scandal. now, the statute says if you destroy intentionally accounting records, documents, things like that, or other tangible objects, you're guilty. the government's theory in the case apparently was that he intentionally threw overboard 72 red grouper, tangible objects, and replaced them with 69 still undersized fish. now, john thought that was about the silliest thing he ever heard, but he was found guilty by a jury, appealed and lost, spent christmas in jail. and he was ready to give up, but sandra, his wife, said, "no. you gotta appeal this, because this is just wrong." brought it all the way to the supreme court of the united states and won five to five. sandra was angry that she didn't get more votes. - yeah. (chuckles) - and what does this teach us? it teaches us, even when you w sometimes, even when you win, you lose. oh, by that time, he had lost his boat, his livelihood, his home. so those kinds of stories, cases i saw that have to do with the meaning of a statute, but wha

it comes from a few years back ask involves the interpretation of the sarbanes-oxley case. you may have forgotten the name yates, but you won't forget the facts of this case. they're really wonderful. plus i have a fondness for cases that relate to the to fishing and fishermen. but this is the case where a fisherman caught some fish that were not the regulation size. he was pulled over by a game warden who sort of looked in the locker and saw these undersized fish. the game warden went even to the trouble of marking them with, like, an x that they were undersized and very sternly told the fisherman that he needed to take his boat and bring it over into the docker the authorities would follow him in there and do the rest of the paperwork. well, as the fisherman was pulling up to the dock, a couple of those fish found their way overboard, it's craziest with thing. [laughter] and so they weren't there when the game ward confronted him on the dock. and and so some assistant u.s. attorney thought, oh, i have the perfect solution for this. i'm going to prosecute this fisherman un

we all remember with that when post in american alta 0 during listerine of oxley was killed initially, these really governments that, that it was, palestinians will killed her. and then finally they said okey fine, we did it, but it was an accident and thorough investigation. so that she was actually targeted by a sniper, which means she was deliberately sought by these really military. and you can go on with a 1000000 examples, including by the way, the events that took place on october 7th. they're a bit uncertain as if what happened on october 7th was not about that or not. these really, governments engaged in inflammatory exaggerations as a means of testifying what was going to follow. and i think that this is very similar that we are in a moment right now where there's this mysterious rocket secure 12 kids were playing soccer. and i think all is real thought this as a useful justification launched further aggressive. that's right. this more beyond because it feels like such a sympathetic incident that within merits or response. but ultimately, we know that israel does not care ab

and that, in the years since the a 12 oxley stealth fighter, the stealth bomber the self beat 21 bonner had its first test flight in november last fall. these programs are still out there. the question to me or one of the settings the u.s. government thanks are ufo sightings? and what are the ones they can't explain? and that number over time is somewhere between as high as 20% and generally considered closer to about 5% that the government itself cannot explain it. arrow and its work with other encounters 5% of ufo sightings that cannot explain the known phenomenon the known test flights and other man-made technology. and to me of course whatever is interesting and the answer to the mystery of ufos is 2% of sightings of the government itself cannot explain. >> i wasn't wondering what your access is to find out things like a video line of these figures that were supposedly photographed at roswell. they looked like aliens. do you look into that do you have access to anything like that? >> so i think -- mckay find ross but one of least interesting ufo sightings. ite find it uninteresting

i'm going to come to john john oxley, political commentator on this one, as the man in the studio ate of this as a man? what i mean, you know, misogyny, extreme misogyny. i'm not even quite sure what that actually even means as terrorism. >> i, i find it very difficult. i mean, i can see absolutely the risk and the danger we have there , but i'm not sure how much there, but i'm not sure how much of this is an ideology in the same way being, you know , a same way being, you know, a radical islamist is or in the same way, being radically on the far right. i think there are a lot of men who are a danger to women, but i'm not sure how much thatis women, but i'm not sure how much that is driven by ideas and how much of more a personality thing. they are people who are prone to violence and actually we see a lot of overlap, you know , a lot of the people we see know, a lot of the people we see arrested for islamic terrorism, for example, or far right terrorism, have a history of violence against women. and i think it's more often that just violent men are prone to attack women for various

they were fired after a gauge and that protective conduct and brought claim under the sarbanes-oxley act. that was in october december 2020 they were terminated. in october 2022 the department of labor through osha found cause their termination was in violation of the law, ordered monetary relief, damages as well as preliminary reinstatement exxon mobil ignoring the bulimic reinstatement. appealed the osha finding. in conjunction with the national whistleblower center. in conjunction with the department of labor they thought and are fighting currently the preliminary reinstatement which is under 20 when we heard from mr. pearson covers whistleblowers as wellin the airline industry, an important law. it is a great honor and representing lindsey and her colleague damien burch. and so with that, lindsey golden. [applause] think you knew think it's a national whistleblowers were allowed me too speak remit payment was a golden climate scientist and a data scientists who spent over 10 years working for exxon mobil before i was fired reporting a 10 billion-dollar fraud. my last role at exxo

. >> let's get the views of political commentator john oxley on all of this one.or the labour party. he wanted access to a few meetings in downing street and whatever it is shouldn't that come with the role that he has? >> well, it tends to be for these sort of people that you don't get a full, downing street pass that tends to be reserved for people who are full time workers in number 10. and otherwise, if you're just going in on an ad hoc basis, you know, it's a bit unglamorous. someone has to sign you in and walk with you. but i think really, what this is, is, you know, the conservatives are getting used to opposition. they're trying to see what they can throw at the labour party. and at the moment they're latching on whatever they're latching on whatever they can, and they're trying to stir up a bit of a scandal here. so really, you know , this is so really, you know, this is someone who's been very involved in politics, someone who's a member of the house of lords. it is not someone who's sort of, you know, just sort of off the street or in any way inappropri

i think the thing i'm struck by, you're trying to pull me in with sarbanes-oxley debate, which i would absolutely love not going to let it happen. >> but i understand the lawyer version of this. >> as you are known to be a very good one, but from a political perspective on this issue, doing anything related to it seems a little bit bizarre to me. >> yeah. i mean, i think what you'll notice, he was invited. i don't know if the former president has decided to attend or not. i think there is a large contingency of america who believes that what they saw was massive hypocrisy and difference in treatment between vice island offenders at different locations. and so that is sympathetic to a portion of the country. >> this was something democrats elevated a lot and want to elevate a lot during their convention. >> yeah, i think that is a very weedsy analysis of what's going on here. i do not believe that most people will see it at that level. i think the very top line contrast something that the harris campaign should be salivating over, which is they made the theme of felon versus prosecutor

. >> so we're joined now by political commentator john oxley. a very good morning, john.this is going to have an effect when we read when we read the accounts now and they're big in the press, and they're big in the press, and they're big in the press, and the police are giving all the details and everything , that the details and everything, that if you say something vile online or incite hatred or, or whatever, you will be found and shamed and possibly even sent to jail. do you think that is going to have an effect? >> i think absolutely. i think, you know, we've seen with these protests, you know, people whether deliberately or whether they've got carried away with they've got carried away with the excitement of the moment and what they were feeling, have been, you know, quite , you know, been, you know, quite, you know, some have been quite radical in what they've been saying and some have crossed those boundaries. and i think if we start seeing there are real consequences for this, and you know, it looks like police and prosecutors are going to take it very seriously