Of course, you could wind up just being a head in a jar.
Posted on 10/17/2006 1:01:03 PM PDT by jmc1969
A federal judge in Houston this afternoon wiped away the fraud and conspiracy conviction of Kenneth L. Lay, the Enron Corp. founder who died of heart disease in July, bowing to decades of legal precedent but frustrating government attempts to seize nearly $44 million from his estate.
The ruling worried employees and investors who lost billions of dollars when the Houston energy trading company filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2001. It also came weeks after Congress recessed for the November elections without acting on a last-ditch Justice Department proposal that would have changed the law to allow prosecutors to seize millions in investments and other assets that Lay controlled.
With the judge's order, Lay's conviction on 10 criminal charges will be erased from the record. "The indictment against Kenneth L. Lay is dismissed," U.S. District Judge Simeon T. Lake III wrote in a spare, 13-page order.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Just dam!
The dems must be having fits.
Get ready for replayed TV footage of some former Enron employees weeping about how Ken Lay destroyed their lives - with an obligatory reiteration of the claim that Lay and the President were buddies.
Am I oversimplifying?
The questions remain: how much is left after litigation and how much of it has been placed in tax-sheltered vehicles?
My guess is that the government's aggressiveness stems from the likely tax efficiency of Lay's financial planning.
How Enron Worked the President ... (This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear much about.)
A. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office.
B.. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.
C.. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.
D.. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
E.. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest level and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.
F.. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction
Scandalous!!
( G.. BUT...the president under whom all this happened WASN'T George W. Bush.
SURPRISE It was Bill Clinton!
"changed the law to allow prosecutors to seize millions in investments and other assets that Lay controlled."
I guess they don't teach "ex post facto" in law schools any more.
I know that one, and I'm an engineer. (But I have read the Bill of Rights.)
So when he shows up in Paris or Rome alive, can he be tried again? Or is he protected by double jeopardy?
The government won't pursue the $44 mill+, but you can bet that civil attnys for every plaintiff will sue the estate. If they can prove that the proceeds were obtained illegally, then they can make a case..Mrs Lay and the assets will be tied up in court for years..spending big $$$ for defense attys..The smartest thing she could do would be to offer the defendants , say..$30 mill..she gets to keep $14...no litigation..
>>>Kenneth Lay's Conviction Erased From Record.<<<
Lay was most likely innocent, anyway. Fastow was the crooked one.
The ruling worried employees and investors who lost billions of dollars when the Houston energy trading company filed for bankruptcy protection in December 2001.
Like $44 million is going to make up for the billions of dollars that were "lost". They'll spend more money than that trying to get it from the estate. The government might as well call it quits...
Well, they "seek to change law", but obviously have not yet succeeded in changing it. Since the changed law would not be retroactive anyway, the judge did not have any choice, and did everything by the book.
Since when can federal judges issue pardons? I think I read somewhere that that was only for the President.
>>>Kenneth Lay's Conviction Erased From Record.<<<
Lay was most likely innocent, anyway. Fastow was the crooked one.
From what I read, most of the money "lost" by the employees was largely paper losses from the great increase in the value of their stock, not money they had invested. And when the stock value was appreciating, the employees were very silent about management's lack of ethics.
Somehow I have a tough time getting all worked up over this "scandal".
I must have missed that episode...
The stock went from 3 to 40 in five years and then back to 3. Personal responsibility should dictate investments, not whining greedy investors or arm chair lawyers looking for extortion after the fact.
The case was on appeal when he died and not final.
Ergo, it is wiped away.
(Because you cannot prosecute the dead.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.