Originally Posted By smeeeko ^well they are still awaiting toxicology report.. so I'm holding out thoughts of cut & dry death til then.. don't throw out the tinfoil hats just yet.. the thing is that his family won't appreciate having to sell off all the extra homes and the 20foot (or whatever it was) yacht he just bought his wife despite being in MILLIONS of dollars of debt (although not sure why he's in debt since uhhh he had all that ENRON money) I told hubby this morning it's just like a Christmas Carol without the ghosts of Christmas past present & future to teach Ebenezer about how greed ruins people. Also I hear that he won't need to be pardoned because of some thingy that says that since he was never SENTANCED his conviction is null. If anyone can find out for certain if this is the case? SURE is CONVENIENT! (anyone watch the 4400 lately?)
Originally Posted By SuperDry ^^^ Yea, I agree. It sounds like you really do need to keep your tinfoil hat around. I'm sure the death by heart attack was nothing more than a carefully-orchestrated scheme to be able to go to his grave with a clean criminal record. What nerve: after all he did in life, to be deceptive even in death.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy People can actually think his death is made up? (I ask this out of curiosity, not insult) You mean we can't just take this story at face value and believe it? Wow...I didn't think death could be a corrupt subject. I guess I'm a lot more naive about the world than I relized...(but I kinda like it that way).
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<People can actually think his death is made up? (I ask this out of curiosity, not insult) You mean we can't just take this story at face value and believe it? Wow...I didn't think death could be a corrupt subject. I guess I'm a lot more naive about the world than I relized...(but I kinda like it that way).>> I agree. I've kind of read this thread with my jaw dropped in disbelief. I finally decided that my thoughts on this were so radically different from everyone else's that I would not comment further. I'm not for one instant defending what Lay did. But IMHO some of the thoughts expressed here totally lack any humanity. I also have to find the ENRON employees and shareholders somewhat complicit in this mess. As they say, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. There were a whole lot of people not asking questions they should have asked because they wanted the profit figures to be true just as much as Ken Lay did.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Lay in effect received a death sentence for his crimes.>> I was sick to my stomach when I heard this news. This criminal destroyed not just Enron but my employer and numerous others. I wanted to see the guy die in jail after years of pain. See him suffer for what he did. This was an easy way out IMO.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I also have to find the ENRON employees and shareholders somewhat complicit in this mess.>> Sorry RoadTrip that is plain wrong. How on earth can you blame EVERYONE connected with Enron? I wasn't employed by them but my firm disappeared quicker than Enron itself. I had nothing whatsoever to do with Enron but I'm complicit?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Any investor needs to ask questions. It seems like with ENRON the relevant questions were never asked. To think that one or two men can bring down a huge corporation is ludicrous. There were a lot of 'silent players' in the fall. Whether it was some schmuck in accounting who didn't raise a red flag when he should have or some investor who foolishly stayed invested in ENRON thinking that the outrageous rate of return was REAL. Lay was a crook. But there are many current heads of industry that are as big a crook as he was. Employees and investors need to be vigilant. I would mistrust any company that way out-performed the industry.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom My first thought is that it really upsets me if his family financially profits from all this mans stealing and lieing. I really don't think his family should profit from his ill gotten gains.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I really don't think his family should profit from his ill gotten gains. >>> I think you have to draw the distinction between monetary gains from when he cashed out shares or options at the peak (which are probably totally encumbered by lawsuits at this point) and anything that they could potentially gain through things like movie or book rights. We generally speaking don't believe in collective punishment for criminal acts of individuals in this country. <<< This criminal destroyed not just Enron but my employer and numerous others. >>> So leemac, what do you think about the British bankers that they're trying to extradite to the US to face charges relating to Enron wire transfer fraud?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<We generally speaking don't believe in collective punishment for criminal acts of individuals in this country.>> We also in this country believe that no one should be benefiting from lieing and stealing. Hence the term I used, ill gotten gains.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>We also in this country believe that no one should be benefiting from lieing and stealing. Hence the term I used, ill gotten gains.<< Just because Lay is dead does not mean that his estate is no longer liable.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom As well it should be. Including freezing ALL assets ( like the place in Aspen ).
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I agree. I've kind of read this thread with my jaw dropped in disbelief. I finally decided that my thoughts on this were so radically different from everyone else's that I would not comment further.> You're not alone, RT. I mean, I think the man was pond scum, so I understand where people are coming from, especially if you know someone who was ruined by his crimes. Still, I can't take glee in his death.
Originally Posted By leemac <<So leemac, what do you think about the British bankers that they're trying to extradite to the US to face charges relating to Enron wire transfer fraud?>> Tough call. I do actually know the NatWest Three and I have two main issues with the extradition: 1) The US still hasn't reciprocated on the treaty and so British residents can be sent to the US without evidence being presented to a UK court but not vice versa; and 2) The crime was committed by British nationals in Great Britain. Plus the UK has not brought any charges against the individuals (although that could be due to the fact that the investigation was on-going in Houston). Ultimately I want anyone criminally liable for the collapse of Enron and Arthur Andersen to pay the penalty and I don't care where or when.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< We also in this country believe that no one should be benefiting from lieing and stealing. Hence the term I used, ill gotten gains. >>> Assuming they weren't actually involved, I'm not sure I see the difference between a relative of Lay benefiting from the situation and something like a neutral third party that makes a documentary about it. Money is made all the time in this country over other people's tragedy. Again, as long as they weren't involved in the wrongdoing, I don't see how Lay's family is responsible. As someone else pointed out, it's likely that Lay's estate will continue to have to pay claims made against it, which almost certainly will bring it to zero value.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Tough call. I do actually know the NatWest Three and I have two main issues with the extradition: 1) The US still hasn't reciprocated on the treaty and so British residents can be sent to the US without evidence being presented to a UK court but not vice versa; and >>> The US does this in a lot of situations. But you should be finding fault with your own government, who should not have agreed to such a system until the other side reciprocated. <<< 2) The crime was committed by British nationals in Great Britain. Plus the UK has not brought any charges against the individuals (although that could be due to the fact that the investigation was on-going in Houston). >>> There is a rapidly-growing problem of extra-territorial application of law. The US seems to be leading the way in this respect, but the very people who promote this are staunchly against the US ever submitting to any other juristictions' laws. There can be some argument made that extra-territorial laws are necessary in certain limited situations involving national security, especially those with worldwide implications. But wire transfers involving the Enron collapse hardly rise to this standard. <<< Ultimately I want anyone criminally liable for the collapse of Enron and Arthur Andersen to pay the penalty and I don't care where or when. >>> But therein lies the problem. People are often opposed to unfair legal process of any number of types, until such a practice becomes handy in getting their pound of flesh out of whoever they think needs to be taken down in a given situation. As you point out, if the crimes are so serious, then I'm sure that UK financial laws can bring perpetrators to justice.
