Ok. The U.S. Judicial System Sucks. I Admit It.

[David Floyd]

besides allowing tobacco companies that lose lawsuits to raise prices to consumers in order to pay their fine, etc.

What's wrong with this?

Further, freezing all the guy's assets before he is proven guilty seems to me to be wrong (same as freezing the assets of a drug dealer, although in retrospect drug dealers shouldn't even be convicted).

[SlowwHand]

I find it curious the things some people oppose, and then turn around and endorse .
But wait. You're a lawyer in training, and Ming is ad ad man.
Never mind.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I find it curious the things some people oppose, and then turn around and endorse .
But wait. You're a lawyer in training, and Ming is ad ad man.
Never mind.

Show me an example of what you are talking about instead of just throwing around more empty words.

And your attempt to throw smoke to protect your weak arguments by attacking peoples professions instead of the argument just shows how desperate you are getting.

[SlowwHand]

The ad man and lawyer reference?
You mean like putting the spin on things people want to hear?

Or that this guy's a crook?
Show me one accountant, not even a CFO that doesn't know what's happening with the books.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The ad man and lawyer reference?
You mean like putting the spin on things people want to hear?

Or that this guy's a crook?
Show me one accountant, not even a CFO that doesn't know what's happening with the books.

And what "spin" am I putting on this?

Are any of us disputing that he is probably guilty?

No, we are defending the innocent until proven guilty nature of our court system. Which is something I strongly defend. Answer this single question... Would you prefer to live in a country where you are quilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty?

[boann]

this pretty much sums up my feelings on it



The Washington Post
A Time for Outrage . . .
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, January 15, 2002



"No, this is not a political scandal. This is a cultural event, a systemic collapse, an outrage so breathtaking that we poor scribblers have no category for it. We do not know how to say "crook" or "thief" or "creep" in describing business executives who sold $1.1 billion worth of shares in their own company while -- possibly, allegedly and just maybe -- knowing that some $600 million in debt was hidden off the books. It was in nooks and crannies where even Arthur Andersen, the totally unaccountable accounting firm, could not find it. These executives also may have sold knowing that Enron had overstated its profits year after year.

Now let me tell you something about these sales: They were perfectly legal. So says Robert S. Bennett, a lawyer for Enron. "I am unaware of any evidence that supports the allegation there was improper selling by members of the board or senior management," Bennett said. But "improper" is a word dipped in Teflon, so slippery it flips out of your hand like a thrashing fish. It does not mean "right" or, bite your tongue, "moral."

The fact remains that these guys..... made money off a shell game. They sold stock backed by smoke. They cashed out, but when their employees tried doing the same thing, they blocked them. The stock went from $85 a share to 68 cents and the employees lost everything -- their savings, their pensions, their dreams of a comfy retirement with maybe a little boat on the lake. The big shots got the boat. Their employees got the lake. They can go jump in it.

All over Washington, the pundits are wondering how this will play out for George Bush -- how should he handle it? I have an idea. He could get indignant.

Bush could scream bloody murder. He could tell the Enron executives to put that $1.1 billion in stock sales into a pool for Enron employees who now have nothing. He could tell Kenneth Lay, the chairman and chief executive, to give back the more than $30 million he got in stock sales. He could tick off the names of each and every executive and then say..... Give back the money."

But that won't happen. Instead, every agency in Washington will investigate, looking to see if the party of the first part violated section H of Article XII by, as it were, screwing the party of the second part. And all the time, your watchdogs in the press will be all over this matter, alert to the most heinous of Washington sins -- a conflict of interest.

But I am here to tell you what you already know in your gut: This is not a political scandal. It is not another Whitewater, where you can't figure out what happened. We all know what happened. A bunch of bastards picked the pockets of their own employees. That's not a scandal. It's a blinkin' outrage."

[SlowwHand]

Do you watch the news?
Have you read any transcripts of testimony?
Do I need to provide a site reference?
What would your attitude be if the operating officer's of your agency left you hanging out to dry?
Would your stance still be that the CHIEF Financial Officer knew nothing?
If you say, "well golly gosh yes", that's rubbish, Ming.

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Would your stance still be that the CHIEF Financial Officer knew nothing?
If you say, "well golly gosh yes", that's rubbish, Ming.

Again Slow... Please point out where I say he knew nothing. If you would like, I can repost my comments that I think he is guilty... but you seem to be ignoring that.

One More Time Slow... I'm defending HIS RIGHT to a fair trial. Unlike you, I'm not trying to act as Judge, Jury, and executioner... That's not my place or yours. It's up to the Courts to perform those tasks.

[David Floyd]

Do you watch the news?
Have you read any transcripts of testimony?
Do I need to provide a site reference?
What would your attitude be if the operating officer's of your agency left you hanging out to dry?
Would your stance still be that the CHIEF Financial Officer knew nothing?
If you say, "well golly gosh yes", that's rubbish, Ming.

Come on! Regardless of what the guy knows, he can't be convicted prior to the trial on the basis of negative media attention. Even if he DID know 100% of what was going on, he still can't be punished until he's convicted of a crime.

And contrary to what you seem to think, my attitude's about right and wrong don't change just because I'm getting screwed over. It would be pretty damn selfish if they did, wouldn't you agree?

[Capt Dizle]

That was not Ming's stance Slowwhand. I am begining to understand your login name.

[SlowwHand]

Try this one. For CFO's specifically.

http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,6380,00.html

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Try this one. For CFO's specifically.

http://www.cfo.com/article/1,5309,6380,00.html

So... your point?

EVERYBODY is allowed by law a FAIR TRIAL...

Again... is anybody here disputing his guilt?

[SlowwHand]

Never mind. You just don't get it.
I hope he flees the country, with what's left of the investor's and former employee's money.

[rah]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
That was not Ming's stance Slowwhand. I am begining to understand your login name.

And the AVATAR selection too

[Ming]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Never mind. You just don't get it.
I hope he flees the country, with what's left of the investor's and former employee's money.

No... you are the one that doesn't get it. It seems like you are advocating a lynch mob. Just go out and hang the guy, why let the law get in the way.

Neither you, I, or the press are the judge and jury. In this country (you know, the one you defend all the time) everybody is allowed a fair trial, whether they are guilty or innocent.