Official Enron (Ken Lay) Trial Thread

headscratcher4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or as Lay will claim at the trial:

"I really didn't know that was going on and yes, I cashed my Enron checks without ever questioning the huge sums".;)
 
In a 9-0 opinion, the justices concluded that "jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing." Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion, saying, "Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required."
Click to expand...

Andersen conviction overturned
 
Luke T. said:
Andersen conviction overturned
Click to expand...

Besides...as noted...even the vindication here does little for Anderson. It crashed and burned, its reputation shattered...so, even with the SCOTUS decision, the marketplace was going to take its toll/punishment of Anderson.

Even if there'd never been a Court case, investors all over the country would have been demanding that Anderson be jettisuned...why, after Enron, would any investors (especially the big institutional investors) ever buy a Adnerson audit or certification that an accounting practice was kosher?

In short, Anderson may have been vindicated, but they were also rightfully ruined. Justice was served..as too, apparently was the law. Not a bad end really.
 
headscratcher4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some articles with excerpts from the tapes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml

"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her a------ for f------g $250 a megawatt hour."
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/02/eveningnews/main620795.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/08/eveningnews/main621856.shtml

"What we need to do is to help in the cause of, ah, downfall of California," an employee is heard saying on the tapes. "You guys need to pull your megawatts out of California on a daily basis."

"They're on the ropes today," says another employee. "I exported like a f------g 400 megs."

"Wow,'' says another employee, "f--k 'em, right!"

Traders can be heard manipulating the market, using now-infamous schemes with names like death star, ricochet and fat boy.

One employee is heard asking, "You want to do some fat boys or, or whatever, man, you know, take advantage of it."

In fat boy, Enron traders used fake power sales to hide megawatts, shrinking the supply of energy and driving up prices. They also used the oldest trick in the book: lies.

"It's called lies. It's all how well you can weave these lies together, Shari, alright, so," an employee is heard saying.

The other employee says, "I feel like I'm being corrupted now."

The first employee adds, "No, this is marketing,"
Click to expand...
 
headscratcher4 said:
Besides...as noted...even the vindication here does little for Anderson. It crashed and burned, its reputation shattered...so, even with the SCOTUS decision, the marketplace was going to take its toll/punishment of Anderson.

Even if there'd never been a Court case, investors all over the country would have been demanding that Anderson be jettisuned...why, after Enron, would any investors (especially the big institutional investors) ever buy a Adnerson audit or certification that an accounting practice was kosher?

In short, Anderson may have been vindicated, but they were also rightfully ruined. Justice was served..as too, apparently was the law. Not a bad end really.
Click to expand...

But the conviction would have been helpful for further prosecutions of Enron executives. Another nail in their coffin.

At least one has changed his plea from "guilty" to "not guilty" as the result of the overturning.
 
Mr. Ramsey also noted that the government list did not include David Duncan, who had served as the lead partner for Arthur Andersen on the Enron account. He had originally pleaded guilty, but after the Supreme Court overturned Andersen's conviction last May, Mr. Duncan sought last November to change his plea to not guilty. His request is pending with the court.
Click to expand...

Cached internet article

Duncan would probably have been on the witness list against Lay if the Anderson conviction had not been overturned.
 
Manny, Luke - Thanks.

I've only read over the Luke T link at the moment but (from a UK perspective) whether his idiot defence would stand would be if it was shown that his direct responsibilities didn't include the areas the indictment covered. If they did then the idiot defence wouldn't stand a chance - being incompetent at your job is not a defence!
 
Ultimately, Lay was the man and what occured in his company was his responsibility. You might say that in a sexual harressment suit in a branch office he would not be directly responsible (unless he knew) but even there he bears some responsibility. In a case like this that involves the elemental business practices and well being of the company he is completely responsible. WTF is the role of a CEO in the first place.

He is fortunate that I am not on his jury.
 
Mark said:
The Supreme Court made a decision favoring major Republican allies? Wow...what are the odds of that?
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm more likely to believe that the jury which convicted Anderson decided that the company's case didn't pass the smell test, and that the company was guilty of what it was being accused of.

Problem is, Anderson probably didn't technically violate the law. Supposedly, it followed its document retention policy, and supposedly, people stopped shredding when informed that the SEC was investigating.

I'm willing to bet a dollar that a lay-person wouldn't understand why Anderson got the unanimous decision.
 
Ed said:
Ultimately, Lay was the man and what occured in his company was his responsibility. You might say that in a sexual harressment suit in a branch office he would not be directly responsible (unless he knew) but even there he bears some responsibility. In a case like this that involves the elemental business practices and well being of the company he is completely responsible. WTF is the role of a CEO in the first place.

He is fortunate that I am not on his jury.
Click to expand...

I saw an article about what some of the potential jury members had to say on their jury questionairre's for the trial. Funny stuff along the lines of "hanging's too good for 'em". I'll see if I can find it again.
 
specious_reasons said:
Nah, I'm more likely to believe that the jury which convicted Anderson decided that the company's case didn't pass the smell test, and that the company was guilty of what it was being accused of.

Problem is, Anderson probably didn't technically violate the law. Supposedly, it followed its document retention policy, and supposedly, people stopped shredding when informed that the SEC was investigating.

I'm willing to bet a dollar that a lay-person wouldn't understand why Anderson got the unanimous decision.
Click to expand...

You're probably right...but when one party gets to stack the court this way, is it unreasonable to be at least suspicious?
 
Here we go:

He said in court papers that potential jurors called Lay and Skilling "guilty — criminally and morally," and "guilty and personally involved in this whole mess." Some jurors called Skilling "the devil," and "a high class crook" while Lay was labeled by some as "a snake in the grass", "a selfish, greedy man" and "holier-than-thou."
Click to expand...

Lay, Skilling facing tough jury pool
 
Picky point of information.

It was the accounting firm called Arthur Andersen which was involved in Enron.

It's all about devious Scandinavians, not innocent Scots ;)


....edited to add....

I'm expecting a mistrial will be called when they can't find 16 people who haven't already formed an opinion of Enron
 
Last edited:
Mark said:
You're probably right...but when one party gets to stack the court this way, is it unreasonable to be at least suspicious?
Click to expand...

It's reasonable to be suspicious, but probably not in this case, as I understand the facts of the case. Besides, it was unanimous - if I would be suspicious, I'd be suspicious that the majority of the Supremes got burned by the Andersen conviction, like Andersen did consulting for them. :)
 
The Don said:
I'm expecting a mistrial will be called when they can't find 16 people who haven't already formed an opinion of Enron
Click to expand...

Fortunately, my recollection is that the law generally doesn't call for potential jurrors to have "no" opinion, it calls on them to be able to rationally put that opinion and any natural predjudices aside and try to judge a case based on the law and the evidence.

A jury with no opinioins is a jury made-up of people who live in caves...or idiots. While there have been plenty of idiot jurries throughout history, fortunately, most struggle with their bias, the evidence and the law and generally come to fair conclusions.

Lay wants idiot jurrors, of course, because his defence is that his is an idiot, so he's hopping for the sympathy vote.
 
If you want some interesting reading, click here.

When Skilling quit Enron for no apparent reason, Watkins warned Lay that there were some serious accounting problems in the company in this memo.

I am incredibly nervous that we will implode in a wave of accounting scandals. My 8 years of Enron work history will be worth nothing on my resume, the business world will consider the past successes as nothing but an elaborate hox. Skilling is resigning now for 'personal reasons' but I think he wasn't having any fun, looked down the road and knew this stuff was unfixable and would rather abandon ship now than resign in shame in 2 years.
Click to expand...

She then suggests they do their best to hide the problems.

Watkins is a witness for the prosecution in Lay's trial. The media will probably try to make her out to be a hero, but if you read the memo, you will see she is anything but.

ETA: This is "allegedly" the memo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom