| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/5 |
| 2006/5/25-28 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:43188 Activity:kinda low |
5/25 Ken Lay convicted on all 6 counts (conspiracy to commit wire/securities
fraud, wire+securities fraud).
Jeffrey Skilling convicted on 19 of 28 counts (conspiracy to commit
wire/securities fraud, securities fraud, making false statements,
1 out of 10 counts of insider trading).
Judge separately finds Lay guilty on all 4 counts of bank fraud.
\_ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12973712
Conviction of Enron's founder marks another dark moment in the
Bush era. The jurors took a chain saw to the moral claims of the
Texas-based corporate culture that had helped fuel the rise to
power of President George W. Bush.
\- you know just the the prosecution did in the enron case, it
is better to stick to your strong claims when making a case
than dilluting it with iffy claims. invading a country on
false pretenses, shooting the us reputation in the foot
by torturing people, dispensing with separation of powers,
and putting us on the road to plutocracy is enough to hang
on BUSHCO.
\_ obviously, Kenneth Lay is a bad CEO. A good and effective CEO
would have bribed the judge and jury and kept its shareholders
happy. That's the job of a CEO. Even Al Capone would have
done better than Kenneth Lay.
\_ Maybe the judge gave erroneous instructions to the jury, and
the case will be thrown out two years later
\- some commentators seem to think the jury is really
solid, and by example use the fact that they acquitted
SKILLING on many counts, suggesting they were carefully
assessing the evidence in teh cases they voted to convict,
rather than having some kind of shutgun approach.
\- commentators feel the jury in this case was pretty careful.
the use the fact that SKILLING was acquitted on quite a
few counts to suggest they were deliberate in their findings
rather than doing things in a shotgun manner.
\_ it doesn't matter how competent the jury was if they
were given erroneous instructions from the judge.
the supreme court will agree unanimously to throw out
the case if it happened in the same way as:
\_ it doesn't matter how competent the jury was if the
judge, uh, innocently gave the jury the wrong instructions
http://csua.org/u/fzu (Wash Post)
\- sure it could happen but if ever you believe the
but there are reasons to believe the jury this time
was "better than average" rather than worse than
average. i dont know if the appeals based on judge's
instructions look more like "per se" or "rule of
reason" type violations [do you have to hit some
fuckup threashold or is it purely technical] but
there is one view from HPITT, the former SEC chief:
fuckup threashold or is it purely technical].
here is one view from HPITT, the former SEC chief:
http://csua.org/u/fzx
ok tnx.
ok tnx. i think the real outrage in a sense is
it seems clear those two illegal CEOs will go
to a cushy prison rather than weekly beatings/
sodomy/hepatitis/hiv+ prison. ok tnx.
\_ For many centuries, greedy big oppressive imperialistic
penises who have absolute control of the institutions they
inherited, altered the lives of many that they touched for worse.
Case in point, American Natives, Blacks, Indians, Asians, Iraqis,
Arabs, etc, all for what? The bottom line-- PROFIT. They raised
profits without regard to humanity, by bringing drugs (opium,
alcohol), diseases (blankets with smallpox), prejudice (Manifest
Destiny), greed, humiliation to non-whites, and other evils of
humanity. They implemented regime change to pillage resources
like oil, they broke up tribes and families for cotton labor,
they forced people to follow their religions, they rewrote text
books that glorified the white race, so on and so forth. It's
about time these white oppressive imperialists pay for what they
and their ancestors have done for centuries.
In short, I'm very very happy with the outcome of the trial.
I hope it is one of the many trials to come. Down with all evil
white hypocrits like GWB. Equality and justice for all!!!
\_ white, jblack is, but small penis, he has. what say you?
\_ You know, this sounds like an insane rant... except, it's,
well, true.
\_ There is no need to apologize for our actions. The only
thing true is that this is written by an angry minority.
\_ All this and still the best, sanest, society created.
\_ History is written by the victors, and you seem to
\_ History is written by the victors (written by the victors
dipping their large white penises in ink), and you seem to
know your history well.
\_ Yep, study history so you can be the victors.
Otherwise, you're dead (or maybe a slave).
\_ Thanks. I'm trying my best. I've been educating
people on why we should oppress evil white men and
the movement is growing strong. Wish me luck! -pp
\_ Are you that naive? Do you like what you have? I mean
think about it. There are so many resources in the world.
You knew it was dog-eat-dog growing up. And you complain
and complain and complain? What has all that leftist crap
brought to the world? Nothing. What has all this greed and
evil brought? Sure some profit more than others. But geez!
\_ somebody has a tiny little penis.
\_ Agreed. It is a God given right and our destiny to get
land, lumber, and petroleum. If little people happen to
get in the way, it is our duty to use our God given
powers to re-educate them.
\_ perfect is the enemy of best.
\_ Next stop: pound me in the ass prison
\_ Like hell. They go to min. security pound-me-in-the-chessboard
"prison"
\_ Cool. When is their public hanging?
\_ "As I told him, we've just begun to fight" -Skilling's lawyer |
| 4/5 |
|
| www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12973712 Kenny Boy, meet Brownie Conviction of Enron's founder marks another dark moment in the Bush era FILE PHOTO OF US PRESIDENT BUSH WITH FORMER ENRON CEO KEN LAY Jeff Mitchell / REUTERS file President George W Bush and former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay at an economic forum in January of 2001. They were joined by Nancy Lazar of International Strategy and Investments. Howard Fineman E-mail If you want a date to mark the beginning of the end of the Bush Era in American life, you may as well make it this one: May 25, 2006. The Enron jury in Houston didn't just put the wood to Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. The jurors took a chain saw to the moral claims of the Texas-based corporate culture that had helped fuel the rise to power of President George W Bush. There's no evidence that the president or anyone in his entourage knew about or benefited financially from the house of cards that Lay and Skilling built - and that a federal jury now has found to have been an edifice of fraud. Most of what Enron concocted was assembled in the go-go Clinton years. Bush's idea of an oil man was his old Bible Study buddy, the upright, clean-as-a-whistle Don Evans. As the Enron scam was falling apart, Lay frantically sought help from Evans - by then the Commerce Secretary -- among others (including Democrats such as former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin). He got nowhere, and had the chutzpah to be bitter about it. Ultimately, Bush's Justice Department pressed the case against Enron - and won. Still, when the history books are written, the debit side of the Bush Era ledger will include a line labeled "Kenny Boy." That's the nickname Bush gave the guy he later claimed he barely knew. As Texas governor from 1995 to 2000, Bush and consiglieri Karl Rove cultivated the Enronites for their vast connections and money; more than that, Bush linked arms with Lay in the belief that market forces alone should guide the production, distribution and use of energy. But the theory ran riot at Enron, giving license to corporate buccaneers who blithely screwed consumers, employees and shareholders alike. The old saying applies to Enron: you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. More columns by Howard Fineman There are almost three years left of the Bush presidency, so it's obviously premature to close the book, but it isn't too early to start writing it. Here are a few of the headlines in the entries that have accumulated so far. On the plus side * ECONOMIC RESILIENCE: Commentators made fun of Bush for advising Americans to go shopping after 9/11, but he had a valid aim in saying so. Osama Bin Laden himself said that his goal was to cripple the American economy, and since two thirds of that economy is based on consumer spending, the president's instincts were on target. Analysts rightly wring their hands about the twin deficits in the federal budget and in the balance of trade. But in the face of the most devastating attack on the American homeland ever, the economy's overall recovery was - and is - remarkable. The Bush Administration is smart not to make any sweeping claims on this front - they would look not only silly but tragic in an instant. The various Patriot Act and security measures the administration has undertaken are controversial, but voters seem to be willing to give the president considerable leeway - and a measure of approval (the best of all his numbers) for being a Tough Cop. Are we safer here because we are fighting the bad guys "over there?" On the minus side * KENNY BOY CULTURE: Lay was among the people Dick Cheney consulted as part of his off-the-record task force on energy policy -- and they were brothers-in-arms in opposition to price caps. Beyond Lay is the growing sense that wealthy CEOs and others in their vicinity are prospering out of proportion to, and at the expense of, average Americans. Overall growth rates are strong, and the rising tide has lifted most boats, but there's a sense in the country that the gap is growing between the Rich and the Rest. Even though the gap has been growing for years - it was characteristic of Bill Clinton's time in office - Bush's tax cuts leave him open to the accusation that he exacerbated the problem. It has come to encapsulate everything that was wrong, or dubious, about the decision to go to war in Iraq - one of the most important decisions any president has ever made. Now we know why Dick Cheney was so upset about attempts to undermine the Niger story: it provided a pathway into deeper questions about the justifications - or lack of them - for war. But it turned out to be a distinction without a difference, and, in retrospect, the image of him strutting his stuff on the Abraham Lincoln became the photo op from hell - an ironic reminder not of success but of failure. But the enduring legacy of Katrina is an eroded faith in leadership at all levels, including the presidency. This latest audiotape was a reminder that, nearly five years after 9/11, the mastermind of Al Qaeda remains out there, somewhere. Initially, Americans liked the idea of a president who talked tough about capturing the evildoer, "dead or alive." |
| csua.org/u/fzu -> www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100491.html All RSS Feeds Justices Overturn Andersen Conviction Advice to Enron Jury On Accountants' Intent Is Faulted By Charles Lane Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 1, 2005; The court ruled unanimously that the Houston jury that found Arthur Andersen LLP guilty of obstruction of justice was given overly broad instructions by the federal judge who presided at the trial. The Supreme Court's ruling may ease Arthur Andersen LLP's task of fighting shareholder lawsuits related to its work for Enron Corp. The Supreme Court's ruling may ease Arthur Andersen LLP's task of fighting shareholder lawsuits related to its work for Enron Corp. Supreme Court Overturns Arthur Andersen Conviction Transcript: Roma Theus, vice chair of the Corporate Integrity and White Collar Crime Committee at the Defense Research Institute, discussed the Supreme Court decision to overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction. Ruling Won't Deter Prosecution of Fraud The Supreme Court's resounding decision in favor of disgraced accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP is a harsh rebuke for federal prosecutors but will not force a retreat in the Justice Department's three-year-old effort to prosecute corporate fraud, legal experts said yesterday. Sign Up Now As a result of the faulty instructions, the justices ruled, the firm was convicted without proof that its shredding of documents was deliberately intended to undermine a looming Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry in fall 2001. US District Judge Melinda Harmon should have instructed the jury that the law required the government to prove that Andersen knew it was breaking the law, the court ruled. "To lose a case like this is huge," said William B Mateja, a former official of the Justice Department's corporate fraud task force. "Arthur Andersen was the poster-child case of all the corporate fraud cases." More broadly, some lawyers said the court's decision shows its sympathy for corporate America's view that companies should be freer to engage in routine document destruction -- often under the ironic title of "document retention policy." That is important because the statute under which the Justice Department prosecuted Andersen was amended by Congress in the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law to make it easier for the government to prosecute wrongful document destruction. "The Supreme Court may be using this as a vehicle to signal some concern" about Sarbanes-Oxley, said Henry TC Hu, a professor of corporate and securities law at the University of Texas. But Mateja, now in private practice, said that Congress's intent to prevent improper document destruction was clear. "I'm still going to counsel clients to be extremely careful if and when they dust off document-retention policies," he said. Although a rebuke to the government, the court's decision is little comfort for Andersen and its former employees. The Chicago-based firm has a staff of only 200 left out of the 28,000 people who once worked there. But the company said the ruling may help the firm in its main remaining task: fighting shareholder lawsuits related to its work for Enron, Global Crossing Ltd. "We pursued an appeal of this case not because we believed Arthur Andersen could be restored to its previous position, but because we had an obligation to set the record straight and clear the good name of the 28,000 innocent people who lost their jobs at the time of the indictment and tens of thousands of Andersen alumni, as well as to help secure a fair resolution of the civil litigation facing the firm," company spokesman Patrick Dorton said in a statement. Acting Assistant Attorney General John C Richter said in a statement that the Justice Department had charged Andersen because of its "determination that the substantial destruction of documents in anticipation of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission violated the law." |
| csua.org/u/fzx -> www.forbes.com/home/ceonetwork/2006/05/25/qna-pitt-enron-cx_hc_0525dissectingtheverdict.html Jeffrey Skilling and Ken Lay, two former leaders of the disgraced energy firm, will surely appeal the guilty verdicts handed down today. Perhaps more importantly, their legacy lives on in the regulatory reforms passed after the corporate scandals of 2001 and 2002. But Harvey Pitt, who chaired the Securities and Exchange Commission while Enron unraveled and now leads consulting firm Kalorama Partners, says anyone concerned with corporate governance should still sleep with one eye open. While he thinks the conviction will stand up on appeal, new Enrons are just around the corner, waiting quietly for the right moment to pounce. Options backdating, Pitt says, will cause the next big corporate scandal. com spoke to Pitt about the trial, the verdict and the eternal problem of corporate greed. It's obvious the jury was very thoughtful and very careful. With respect to Skilling, for example, they acquitted on nine counts of insider trading and only found him guilty of one. I think that makes the case even harder to overturn on appeal because it shows the jury understood the different counts, and they were thoughtful and careful in going through them. Were you surprised that Lay's lawyers didn't ask the judge for a new trial once the lead attorney became sick? It was an opportunity to defer the trial and separate Lay from Skilling, and I think they made a calculated misjudgment in not seeking to have the cases severed. Why should Lay's attorneys have severed his case from Skilling's? Skilling had 28 counts against him, and most people thought he really bore much of the responsibility. Of course, everything that Skilling does in a trial like that spills over onto Lay. For Lay to have had at least the possibility of going to trial separately is something that many criminal defendants would seek to exploit if they could. No, because they were the ones who decided they should go forward. The judge allowed the jury to consider whether the defendants were "willfully blind" as a basis for conviction. In other words, the jury could convict them for simply refusing to see wrongdoing, even if they weren't otherwise active participants. I think it will stand up on appeal, but it's a fertile field for review. Also, certain witnesses wouldn't testify without a grant of immunity. The defense will likely argue that the judge should have forced the prosecution to grant immunity to those witnesses. Nevertheless, I think that a jury this decisive, but also this thoughtful and careful, is going to be very, very hard to overturn. Is this a story of two greedy men or a story of regulatory failure? Almost every decade we see some form of scandalous corporate behavior. In terms of regulatory failure, I guess I would say that it's always easy for people to assume that if we just throw another rule or another regulation at the problem, maybe it won't happen again. The sad truth is that everything that occurred at Enron was illegal before Sarbanes-Oxley. And this prosecution proves that, because Lay and Skilling were prosecuted under pre-Sarbanes-Oxley laws. The thing that's most surprising to me about Sarbanes-Oxley is that it took the US government to tell businessmen and businesswomen that they should have sound internal controls in order to run their businesses. Unfortunately, you get people who sit around and wait for the government to tell them what they're doing wrong, why it's wrong and how they have to fix it. Will it embolden prosecutors to go after executives when businesses fail for nefarious reasons? Over the last 30 years, there has been an increasing prosecutorial interest in the criminal side of corporate misconduct. I think that the prosecution here gave every prosecutor across the country a road map on how to put together a case, how to present it to the jury and how to get a guilty verdict. They really pared down their case and only brought the essential elements. I thought they put the case in a very comprehensible form. I think with corporate executives, people have been paying attention. And I think this will cause them to pay even more attention. Nobody wants to become the next cautionary tale splayed across the pages of Forbes. If you are a corporate executive at a company that goes belly up, this is not a good time to stand trial. I think the Enron case really proved that the four-monkey defense is dead. It sounds like you're pretty confident that another catastrophe will occur. Will options backdating be the Next Big Thing in corporate scandals? Yes, it's kind of like the sun coming up, and we're already witnessing it in the form of stock options backdating. I am amazed that people who make as much money as senior executives do would cheat so they could make more. I believe that, therefore, the next scandal is really only some time away. Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes for Nasdaq, at least 20 minutes for NYSE/AMEX US indexes are delayed at least 15 minutes with the exception of Nasdaq, Dow Jones Industrial Average and S&P 500 which are 2 minutes delayed. |