Official Enron (Ken Lay) Trial Thread

Luke T.

Unregistered
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
14,716
Wow. I can't believe no one has started a topic about this yet.

Today is jury selection day for Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling's trial. The judge is hoping it will take one day. (insert laughing dog here)

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=3850261

Any Lay apologists here, or shall we just make this a topic to throw barbs and cheer on the prosecution?
 
Something I did not know until this past weekend: Arthur Anderson's conviction was overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

You remember Arthur Anderson. The accounting firm that shredded literally tons of accounting documents in the wake of Enron's collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2047122.stm
 
Ken Lay will claim he had no idea Fastow and Skilling did those things and he relied in good faith on subordinates and outside professionals who "lied" to him about the financial status of the company.

As the head of Enron he will claim he knew nothing...just watch.;)

schultz.jpg


"I know nothing....nnnnothing!"​
 
Ken Lay will claim he had no idea Fastow and Skilling did those things and he relied in good faith on subordinates and outside professionals who "lied" to him about the financial status of the company.
Actually, it looks like he's going to stick with Skilling. But yeah, the two of them are going to say, "Everything we did was on the up and up. We had no idea what that awful Andy was doing."
 
Ken Lay will never be indicted or tried. He's one of the corporate bigwigs who have bought off the GOP. The government is beholden to the corporate sector who owns everything and the media.

Wait, you mean all the crap isn't true?
 
Actually, it looks like he's going to stick with Skilling. But yeah, the two of them are going to say, "Everything we did was on the up and up. We had no idea what that awful Andy was doing."
Either Ken Lay plays stupid - which he will - and "claims" he knew nothing about the company he ran for years... or he incriminates himself and goes to jail. Lay will admit "there were criminals at Enron" but he is a innocent victim, not a villain.

p.s. My ex-inlaw lost huge on the Enron collapse and instead of enjoying retirement he is back working full time to pay the bills at 78.
 
Of course, it is a documentary with all its own inherent bias, but "The Smartest Guys in the Room" is deffinitely worth watching. Very compelling...if it is only half right, they should go away for a long, long time.

The problem is going to be: clear violation of law + knowledge. Most of the case is going to rest, it seems to me, on the minutia of accounting practices and law. I.E. if they argue that the Corp. Counsel and outside Counsel told them that a scheme was legal, than they've got a defence as to intent, etc.

On the other hand, and it won't be part of the trail, if you hear the tapes of the manipulation of Califonia's energy grid, it is truly scary and obscene. Clearly, Arnold is governor today because Davis got sucker-punched by a crisis made in large part by Enron trying to drive the market and profit (not to suggest that Davis handled it well, just to suggest that his problems cascaded as a result of public anger over the whole affair -- which is funny because there are documented meetings between Lay and people like Arnold S. during the crisis urging improtrant citizens to lobby the governor to leave the energy sector unregulated).

Anyway, I highly recommend the documentary, it will leave you very sad, very troubled, and wondering more about Lay and the Bush family...funny, Gerogie can barely remember Kenny Boy, yet, in the movie a clip from a video that Geroge cut specifically to say good-by to a retiring senior Enron exec. would suggest that he at least was on failry familiar/friendly grounds with the company.
 
Either Ken Lay plays stupid - which he will - and "claims" he knew nothing about the company he ran for years... or he incriminates himself and goes to jail. Lay will admit "there were criminals at Enron" but he is a innocent victim, not a villain.
Sad thing is, he just might get away with it. He's got a real "well, I believed it too -- I'm just the salesman" demeanor about him.

Skilling's strategy is a good one, and the only one available to him. He's set on convincing the jury that every thing he did was legal and he's going to make the government go through every transaction, step-by-step, and admit that Anderson allowed each of them. Don't know if that will work, but it allows Lay to look at the jury and basically say, "I don't know if all that stuff convinced you, who have the benefit of hindsight, but it sure convinced me at the time."
 
Ken Lay will never be indicted or tried. He's one of the corporate bigwigs who have bought off the GOP. The government is beholden to the corporate sector who owns everything and the media.

Wait, you mean all the crap isn't true?

Nah, that crap ain't true...

Letters from George Bush to Ken Lay and vice versa:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0708042lay4.html

More important, however, Schwarzenegger still won’t respond to questions about why he was at the Peninsula Hotel in Beverly Hills two years ago where he, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and junk bond king Michael Milken, met secretly with former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay who was touting a plan for solving the state’s energy crisis. Other luminaries who were invited but didn’t attend the May 24, 2001 meeting included former Los Angeles Laker Earvin “Magic” Johnson and supermarket magnate Ron Burkle.

While Schwarzenegger, Riordan and Milken listened to Lay’s pitch, Gov. Davis pleaded with President George Bush to enact much needed price controls on electricity sold in the state, which skyrocketed to more than $200 per megawatt-hour. Davis said that Texas-based energy companies were manipulating California’s power market, charging obscene prices for power and holding consumers hostage. Bush agreed to meet with Davis at the Century Plaza Hotel in West Los Angeles on May 29, 2001, five days after Lay met with Schwarzenegger, to discuss the California power crisis.

At the meeting, Davis asked Bush for federal assistance, such as imposing federally mandated price caps, to rein in soaring energy prices. But Bush refused saying California legislators designed an electricity market that left too many regulatory restrictions in place and that’s what caused electricity prices in the state to skyrocket. It was up to the governor to fix the problem, Bush said. However, Bush’s response appears to be part of a coordinated effort launched by Lay to have Davis shoulder the blame for the crisis. It worked. According to recent polls, a majority of voters grew increasingly frustrated with the way Davis handled the power crisis. Schwarzenegger has used the energy crisis and missteps by Davis to bolster his standing with potential voters. While Davis took a beating in the press (some energy companies ran attack ads against the governor), Lay used his political clout to gather support for deregulation.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0817-07.htm
 
Last edited:
Something I did not know until this past weekend: Arthur Anderson's conviction was overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court decision.

You remember Arthur Anderson. The accounting firm that shredded literally tons of accounting documents in the wake of Enron's collapse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2047122.stm

Well, vinidcation was a little late as Anderson crashed and burned before this decision -- though, arguably, their reputation was shot before the original conviction.
 
Ken Lay will claim he had no idea Fastow and Skilling did those things and he relied in good faith on subordinates and outside professionals who "lied" to him about the financial status of the company.

As the head of Enron he will claim he knew nothing...just watch.;)

schultz.jpg


"I know nothing....nnnnothing!"​

You have your tenses all wrong.

Ken Lay has claimed...
 
Oddly enough, Luke, I'll go to bat for Ken Lay. :)

Ken Lay will claim he had no idea Fastow and Skilling did those things and he relied in good faith on subordinates and outside professionals who "lied" to him about the financial status of the company.

As the head of Enron he will claim he knew nothing...just watch.;)

Oh, I'm sure he will, and in some way, it's probably accurate. My impression of Ken Lay was that he didn't want to run his company, he wanted to be a massive figurehead, gladhanding Presidents and Saudi princes, and influencing elections and energy policy. He was hoping to get Commerce Secretary when GWB was elected, but Bush had already filled too many cabinet positions with Houston oilmen, so he was told. Maybe Bush did a better job of separating out the wheat from the chaff than I previously gave him credit for....

From what I've read, Lay just didn't involve himself with the daily activities of Enron. When Enron started into it downward spiral, Lay thought it was a simply a public relations problem - heck that's probably why he was selling the company's stock, even as it sliding down.

If you want a poster child for the damage magical thinking can cause, Lay is a good candidate.

Skilling, on the other hand, is probably more culpable. Nothing I've read implicates him directly, but Skilling was the man Fastow had to convince to generate those illegal structured finance schemes. The key answer in Skilling's case is whether or not he knew they were building a house of cards at the same time he was still touting the company as CEO.

Well, they should have known.
 
Well, vinidcation was a little late as Anderson crashed and burned before this decision -- though, arguably, their reputation was shot before the original conviction.

I'm not sure they deserved vindication, and I wonder what technicality they got off on from the Supremes. Quite frankly, Anderson, while shredding the documents, may have not have been violating the letter of the law, they were certainly violating the spirit. The knew they would be investigated on their dealings with Enron, but decided that since it they weren't officially under investigation, they could shred documents, as long as they followed their "document retention policy." I have trouble believing that they followed any policy, if the stories of frantic shredding, purchasing new shredders, and then outsourcing what the office couldn't handle, are true.

If Anderson, as a company, really cared for their own existence, they would have shut down the Enron team and refused to audit Enron's books. They were addicted to the high consulting fees Enron paid, and couldn't see the forest for the trees.
 
Last edited:
Of course, the big problem for Lay and Skilling, as it was in the Tycho trial and the Adelphia trial...is that it becomes difficult for jurors looking at people who commanded big corporations and made millions personally to believe that they "didn't know..." In short, they made their money...more than any juror will ever see...by essentially dumb luck. Given the Magazine articles and good press they got while the company was flying high..the lucky idiot senario is tough to swallow.
 
I'm not sure they deserved vindication, and I wonder what technicality they got off on from the Supremes. Quite frankly, Anderson, while shredding the documents, may have not have been violating the letter of the law, they were certainly violating the spirit. The knew they would be investigated on their dealings with Enron, but decided that since it they weren't officially under investigation, they could shred documents, as long as they followed their "document retention policy." I have trouble believing that they followed any policy, if the stories of frantic shredding, purchasing new shredders, and then outsourcing what the office couldn't handle, are true.

If Anderson, as a company, really cared for their own existence, they would have shut down the Enron team and refused to audit their books. They were addicted to the high consulting fees Enron paid, and couldn't see the forest for the trees.

The Supreme Court made a decision favoring major Republican allies? Wow...what are the odds of that?
 

Back
Top Bottom