Ken Lay absolved of guilt by U.S. court!

Chauncey

Civilian
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
177
Reaction score
0
Points
11
HOUSTON — A federal judge Tuesday vacated the conviction of Enron's late founder Kenneth Lay, wiping out a jury's verdict that he committed fraud and conspiracy in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history.
Lay was convicted of 10 counts of fraud, conspiracy and lying to banks in two separate cases on May 25. Enron's collapse in 2001 wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans.
Lay died of heart disease July 5 while vacationing with his wife, Linda, in Aspen, Colo.
U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, in a ruling Tuesday, agreed with Lay's lawyers that his death required that his conviction be erased and his indictment dismissed. They cited a 2004 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that a defendant's death pending appeal extinguished his entire case because he hadn't had a full opportunity to challenge the conviction and the government shouldn't be able to punish a dead defendant or his estate.
"On behalf of his estate, I'm really quite pleased with the ruling and glad this brings to a close the criminal proceeding against Mr. Lay," said Samuel Buffone, the attorney for Lay's estate. "The judge engaged in a fair and reasoned application of 5th Circuit law."
0_61_101606_lay.jpg

Tuesday's ruling thwarts the government's bid to seek $43.5 million prosecutors allege Lay took by participating in Enron's fraud. The government could still pursue those claims in civil court, but they would have to compete with any other litigants also pursuing Lay's estate.
In his ruling, Lake also denied a request from Russell Butler, who said he was a victim of Enron's collapse and had asked for an order of restitution based on Lay's conviction.
"With this ruling, the criminal case is over. It doesn't end the civil case or the ability of anyone to file or pursue a civil case against the estate," Buffone said.
Kelly Kimberly, spokeswoman for Lay's family, declined comment, referring reporters to Buffone.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.
Prosecutors offered no counter legal argument in the case, but asked Lake to hold off on a ruling until next week so Congress could consider legislation from the Justice Department that changes current federal law regarding the abatement of criminal convictions. Congress recessed for the elections without considering the legislation.
In their motion to Lake last month, prosecutors Sean Berkowitz and John Hueston wrote that certain provisions of the proposed legislation would apply to Lay's case, including "that the death of a defendant charged with a criminal offense shall not be the basis for abating or otherwise invalidating either a verdict returned or the underlying indictment."
"Although the United States argues that applicable law might change at some unknown future date, the court is bound to follow Fifth Circuit precedent," Lake wrote in his ruling.
Enron, once the nation's seventh-largest company, crumbled into bankruptcy proceedings in December 2001 when years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable.
Lay's co-defendant, former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling, is scheduled to be sentenced on Monday.

From Foxnews.com


Way to pour salt in the wounds of all those who lost nearly everything in the Enron scandal. For those who are interested, Jeff Skilling is looking at a maximum of 145 years in prison. His sentencing on Monday should be interesting.
 
That blows, but he's dead anyways so I guess it really doesn't matter much.
 
Regardless of whether or not he's dead do you think the victims want to see his name cleared? He should be remembered as the criminal ******* that he was, IMO.
 
I am really betting Chauncey did not even bother to read the article which repeatedly noted that fact that Ken Lay died of heart disease.
 
ShadowBoxing said:
I am really betting Chauncey did not even bother to read the article which repeatedly noted that fact that Ken Lay died of heart disease.
You lose. I've been following the Enron debacle for a very long while. The reason I posted the article was to bring up the fact that they cleared his name. Dead or not, he was an ******* who ruined the lives of thousands of people and he should be remembered that way. This is like clearing the name of a rapist because he died before sentencing.
 
Chauncey said:
You lose. I've been following the Enron debacle for a very long while. The reason I posted the article was to bring up the fact that they cleared his name.
uh-huh.
Dead or not, he was an ******* who ruined the lives of thousands of people and he should be remembered that way. This is like clearing the name of a rapist because he died before sentencing.
Well you should follow it a little closer, or not make dumb threads.

Criminal Cases are performed for three reasons; deterence, retribution, and rehabilitation. None of which can be of any use if the criminal is dead. So yes if you were a rapist, and you die, there are not many (if any) judges who will not throw the case out.

It's a waste of time and money to try a dead person. And if I am a Lawyer, what benefit is it to me to argue in the defense of a dead client. None, because if I lose the case I do not risk anything. My client cannot go to jail.

You cannot punish the family of the criminal (unless you can prove involvement). That would be equally as wrong.

However Lay's death came after his conviction, not before. He was in the Fifth Court of Appeals when the crime was abated. Meaning Lay himself never got the chance to appeal his own ruling. Anyone involved in the scandel can still pursue Civil suits, so really no one loses from this...
 
ShadowBoxing said:
uh-huh.
Well you should follow it a little closer, or not make dumb threads.

Criminal Cases are performed for three reasons; deterence, retribution, and rehabilitation. None of which can be of any use if the criminal is dead. So yes if you were a rapist, and you die, there are not many (if any) judges who will not throw the case out.

It's a waste of time and money to try a dead person. And if I am a Lawyer, what benefit is it to me to argue in the defense of a dead client. None, because if I lose the case I do not risk anything. My client cannot go to jail.

You cannot punish the family of the criminal (unless you can prove involvement). That would be equally as wrong.

However Lay's death came after his conviction, not before. He was in the Fifth Court of Appeals when the crime was abated. Meaning Lay himself never got the chance to appeal his own ruling. Anyone involved in the scandel can still pursue Civil suits, so really no one loses from this...
Right, I'm the one who needs to pay closer attention. Had you been following this story at all then you would know that the case had already been conducted and that Ken Lay was in fact found guilty of the crimes for which he was charged. He died in the time between the guilty verdict and the actual sentencing. His guilt was overturned "after" it had already been established. Had a man been found guilty of rape and then died before sentencing and his guilt absolved it would be comparable. I appreciate your effort though.
 
Meh, he is paying for his lies while Hitler feeds him a strawbery.
 
Well, for those of us who don't believe in magic, I'm afraid that's simply not enough.
 
Chauncey said:
Right, I'm the one who needs to pay closer attention. Had you been following this story at all then you would know that the case had already been conducted and that Ken Lay was in fact found guilty of the crimes for which he was charged.
Hence why I said "However Lay's death came after his conviction...". Reading comprehension here bud.
He died in the time between the guilty verdict and the actual sentencing. His guilt was overturned "after" it had already been established.
Not exactly. He was in Appeals. That is different from awaiting a sentence. Meaning Ken Lay was using his legal team to help change his sentencing which would have otherwise been 45 years in prison. I believe he was going to try to educate criminals in prison or something to lessen the sentence. So therefore he was unable to appeal his own case.

That is far different from a rapist who is awaiting prison time.
 
Chauncey said:
HOUSTON — A federal judge Tuesday vacated the conviction of Enron's late founder Kenneth Lay, wiping out a jury's verdict that he committed fraud and conspiracy in one of the biggest corporate scandals in U.S. history.
Lay was convicted of 10 counts of fraud, conspiracy and lying to banks in two separate cases on May 25. Enron's collapse in 2001 wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans.
Lay died of heart disease July 5 while vacationing with his wife, Linda, in Aspen, Colo.
U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, in a ruling Tuesday, agreed with Lay's lawyers that his death required that his conviction be erased and his indictment dismissed. They cited a 2004 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that a defendant's death pending appeal extinguished his entire case because he hadn't had a full opportunity to challenge the conviction and the government shouldn't be able to punish a dead defendant or his estate.
"On behalf of his estate, I'm really quite pleased with the ruling and glad this brings to a close the criminal proceeding against Mr. Lay," said Samuel Buffone, the attorney for Lay's estate. "The judge engaged in a fair and reasoned application of 5th Circuit law."
0_61_101606_lay.jpg

Tuesday's ruling thwarts the government's bid to seek $43.5 million prosecutors allege Lay took by participating in Enron's fraud. The government could still pursue those claims in civil court, but they would have to compete with any other litigants also pursuing Lay's estate.
In his ruling, Lake also denied a request from Russell Butler, who said he was a victim of Enron's collapse and had asked for an order of restitution based on Lay's conviction.
"With this ruling, the criminal case is over. It doesn't end the civil case or the ability of anyone to file or pursue a civil case against the estate," Buffone said.
Kelly Kimberly, spokeswoman for Lay's family, declined comment, referring reporters to Buffone.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.
Prosecutors offered no counter legal argument in the case, but asked Lake to hold off on a ruling until next week so Congress could consider legislation from the Justice Department that changes current federal law regarding the abatement of criminal convictions. Congress recessed for the elections without considering the legislation.
In their motion to Lake last month, prosecutors Sean Berkowitz and John Hueston wrote that certain provisions of the proposed legislation would apply to Lay's case, including "that the death of a defendant charged with a criminal offense shall not be the basis for abating or otherwise invalidating either a verdict returned or the underlying indictment."
"Although the United States argues that applicable law might change at some unknown future date, the court is bound to follow Fifth Circuit precedent," Lake wrote in his ruling.
Enron, once the nation's seventh-largest company, crumbled into bankruptcy proceedings in December 2001 when years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable.
Lay's co-defendant, former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling, is scheduled to be sentenced on Monday.

From Foxnews.com


Way to pour salt in the wounds of all those who lost nearly everything in the Enron scandal. For those who are interested, Jeff Skilling is looking at a maximum of 145 years in prison. His sentencing on Monday should be interesting.

Um moron, you do realize hes DEAD!!!! DUH!!!!!! GOD, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE SOMETHING!!!!!:cmad:
 
Mr.Census said:
Um moron, you do realize hes DEAD!!!! DUH!!!!!! GOD, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE SOMETHING!!!!!:cmad:
I know, it's sad how much he is backtreading right now.
 
Mr.Census said:
Um moron, you do realize hes DEAD!!!! DUH!!!!!! GOD, THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE SOMETHING!!!!!:cmad:
Everyone knows he's dead, *******, that's not the point.
 
Chauncey said:
Everyone knows he's dead, *******, that's not the point.
Yeah the point is he suppose continue to appeal his own case right:whatever:
 
ShadowBoxing said:
I know, it's sad how much he is backtreading right now.
:huh: You're really confused aren't you? Lay was "convicted". He had been found guilty. Now he will go down in history as a "free" man. If this is of no interest to you then avoid the thread and subject entirely, but don't berade me for bringing it to people's attention.
 
ShadowBoxing said:
Yeah the point is he suppose continue to appeal his own case right:whatever:
The point is that the appeal could have been rejected due to his death and the initial ruling of "guilty" left alone.
 
Chauncey said:
:huh: You're really confused aren't you? Lay was "convicted". He had been found guilty. Now he will go down in history as a "free" man. If this is of no interest to you then avoid the thread and subject entirely, but don't berade me for bringing it to people's attention.
I said he was convicted several times, you were confused as to what was actually going on when this ruling was passed.

Let's go through it slowly. Lay's case was in the FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS...we all on the same page, good. They were trying to lessen his sentence which would have been 45 years. So his defense team argued since there is no more chance for him to rehabilitate or repay his debt to society he should be abated. This was based on Precedent. Now this does not mean he is absolved of guilt, it means he was never indicted. period. The trial never occured in effect.

Now Civil Suits can continue, and the claimants can seek compensation for their loses. Seems a lot more logical than continuing to try a dead man who can repay nothing to society. Right?
 
ShadowBoxing said:
I said he was convicted several times, you were confused as to what was actually going on when this ruling was passed.

Let's go through it slowly. Lay's case was in the FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS...we all on the same page, good. They were trying to lessen his sentence which would have been 45 years. So his defense team argued since there is no more chance for him to rehabilitate or repay his debt to society he should be abated. This was based on Precedent. Now this does not mean he is absolved of guilt, it means he was never indicted. period. The trial never occured in effect.

Now Civil Suits can continue, and the claimants can seek compensation for their loses. Seems a lot more logical than continuing to try a dead man who can repay nothing to society. Right?
Regardless of the law which states that his death during the appeal process automatically assumes his innocence, the man was an *******. Is this not subject for discussion? A civil suit may entitle the victims to some compensation, but it will still stand that Ken Lay was an innocent man.
 
Chauncey said:
Well, for those of us who don't believe in magic, I'm afraid that's simply not enough.
Sorry, pure chance/luck? He is paying for his lies by not existing anymore...???
 
Chauncey said:
Regardless of the law which states that his death during the appeal process automatically assumes his innocence, the man was an *******. Is this not subject for discussion? A civil suit may entitle the victims to some compensation, but it will still stand that Ken Lay was an innocent man.
No it won't. I've tried to explain this to you. His guilty verdict was not overturned, the trial was abated. Meaning the trial in essence never happened, so as to render any appeals process void.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"