Andersen gets off
- Thread starter madame_zora
- Start date
I had a bud that worked for Arthur Anderson when all that went down. He's working somewhere else now.
MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2003
- Posts
- 41,323
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 42,122
- Points
- 718
- Location
- New Jersey, USA
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
really no surprise, given how many celebs are being given a free walk nowadays, tho I must admit that pulling this after the conviction is just proof positive of corporate america in it's fucking filthiest, finest!!
Yeah, I hadn't even hear about it myself, a friend told me to look it up. I wish I could be more surprised, but instead I get more and more disassociative. If we can't prosecute real criminals that get caught red-handed, what protection do any of us have? I despise this government with every fibre of my being.
Oh yeah, and the 9/11 commission released it's findings that bush had lied about his knowledge about the terrorists and had in fact planned to invade Iraq a year before he did it. No news on that either and we still support that fucking prick. The news is finally making it's way out as to what a filthy piece of slime he is and the stupid fucking americans just ignore it. We are doomed.
Oh yeah, and the 9/11 commission released it's findings that bush had lied about his knowledge about the terrorists and had in fact planned to invade Iraq a year before he did it. No news on that either and we still support that fucking prick. The news is finally making it's way out as to what a filthy piece of slime he is and the stupid fucking americans just ignore it. We are doomed.
Ah, so Rehnquist was in favor of overturning this scum-of-the-earth bastard's conviction. Why am I not surprised?
My opinion is that everything that is owned by every motherfucker involved in this (and other similar) scam should be distributed among the poor innocent shareholders & lower-level employees.
And we still have idiots who support our current administration and immoral shitbags such as Rehnquist and Scalia. I just wish that the only ones who lost everything they own were the ones who support these assholes. In the stock market crash following the first news of the Enron scandal, my main retirement savings, in TIAA-CREF, was cut to less than half. I know I'm not the only one.
My opinion is that everything that is owned by every motherfucker involved in this (and other similar) scam should be distributed among the poor innocent shareholders & lower-level employees.
And we still have idiots who support our current administration and immoral shitbags such as Rehnquist and Scalia. I just wish that the only ones who lost everything they own were the ones who support these assholes. In the stock market crash following the first news of the Enron scandal, my main retirement savings, in TIAA-CREF, was cut to less than half. I know I'm not the only one.
I fail to see the problem- after all, Anderson was just helping Enron pursue the capitalistic ideal of raking in money at all costs.
Itâs nice to see that they got off on a technicality. Reading the rulings in recent cases where the original judge had given âfaultyâ instructions to a jury makes me believe that the judges who overturn the convictions must know that the jurors were incompetent and unintelligent people who wholly lacked common sense. I have no doubt that the jury was made up of these incompetent fools; it is better to leave things in a rich, educated elitists hands than those of 13 citizens.
Itâs nice to see that they got off on a technicality. Reading the rulings in recent cases where the original judge had given âfaultyâ instructions to a jury makes me believe that the judges who overturn the convictions must know that the jurors were incompetent and unintelligent people who wholly lacked common sense. I have no doubt that the jury was made up of these incompetent fools; it is better to leave things in a rich, educated elitists hands than those of 13 citizens.
Seeing as how the sentence was probation and a fairly small fine, I don't see how this makes much difference. The company is basically no more. The real tragedy is not that white-collar criminals get off, but that there are no proper punishments for them in the first place.
headbang8
Admired Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2004
- Posts
- 1,628
- Media
- 12
- Likes
- 821
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
- Sexuality
- 80% Gay, 20% Straight
- Gender
- Male
There are proper punishments for them. Nationalisation is the one which springs to my mind...that is, the government assumes ownership/control of all the shares. The company is effectively imprisoned by the government until it mends its ways and the shares can be returned to their rightful owners--if their rightful owners don't deserve to lose their assets anyway. That was what the British Government needed to do with the robber barons of the British East India Company, was it not?
- jonb,
Jana:
Bush was talking about invading Iraq in 1999.
This case is a typical example of Lochnering*. See also Akre and Wilson.
*Lochner (LOK'ner) v. to rule in favor of corporations citing spurious interpretation of the law, named after Lochner v. New York, a 1905 ruling that child labor laws were unconstitutional.
Bush was talking about invading Iraq in 1999.
This case is a typical example of Lochnering*. See also Akre and Wilson.
*Lochner (LOK'ner) v. to rule in favor of corporations citing spurious interpretation of the law, named after Lochner v. New York, a 1905 ruling that child labor laws were unconstitutional.
I felt the general tone of the paragraph made up for it.
What I can't understand is how we as a nation tolerate this kind of abuse when it becomes public. I am left believing that it is fear of change that leads to innaction, or else fear of admitting we were wrong. What's so hard about making a new decision based on new information? Isn't that what any intelligent person has to do? I get so fed up with just eating it, these corrupt bastards are tearing away the fabric of what our country is supposed to be made of, and the carefully constructed "agenda" we are told to follow is being used to shield us from reality.
Pay attention to Michael Jackson, Teri Schiavvo, the news of who's fucking whom in Hollywood. Every once in a while, get mad about fags and abortion, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain stealing your civil rights in order to earn huge sums of money for himself, his friends and his family. If anyone mentions this, they're labeled "Unamerican". Why are they mad about homos? They seem to want us all to take it up the ass.
There are proper punishments for them. Nationalisation is the one which springs to my mind...that is, the government assumes ownership/control of all the shares. The company is effectively imprisoned by the government until it mends its ways and the shares can be returned to their rightful owners--if their rightful owners don't deserve to lose their assets anyway. That was what the British Government needed to do with the robber barons of the British East India Company, was it not?
[post=321501]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]I don't see how that really punishes the company's wrongdoers though. It just rubs salt in the wounds of the shareholders. And such a takeover would seem to be a burden on the taxpayers too.
I propose redistribution of their shares to the other innocent shareholders, seizure of their personal assets to pay for the government's legal costs, and incarcerating the perpetrators in real prisons for terms more commensurate with the pain they inflicted on others. Twenty-five to life sharing a cell with a murderer seems appropriate.
Hockeytiger
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Posts
- 721
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 308
- Points
- 283
- Location
- Illinois (United States)
- Sexuality
- 69% Straight, 31% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I truly find it amazing that most of the posters in this thread have ignorantly condemned this decision and the Supreme Court in the exact same way Tom Delay does. You all just donât like AA (neither do I BTW) and therefore you conclude that due process of law shouldnât apply to them. Either AA is entitled to a fair trial or it isnât. I havenât seen anyone disagree with the reasoning of the Court. Rather, you just donât like the outcome, and to Hell with AAâs right to due process.
I happen to agree with the Courtâs UNANIMOUS decision in this case, and not because I have any love for the partners of AA who ordered the document shredding. The jury instructions did not require a finding of dishonesty on the part of AA by the jury even though the statute clearly required it. I want to encourage anyone who honestly disagrees with the Supreme Courtâs reasoning to plead your case in this thread, though it will be an uphill battle. In this case, the issue to be decided was whether the jury instructions were proper, not whether AA should âget offâ. Remember that the prosecution has the choice of whether or not to retry the case.
This thread was largely made up of ignorant and hypocritical corporate bashing. Iâve seen many of the same posters quite rightly condemn gay bashing by conservatives, but then turn around and make equally ignorant and hateful statements themselves. As I said earlier, please feel free to disagree with the legal reasoning of the Court, but donât condemn them merely because âcorporateâ interests won in this case. To do so, means descending to Tom Delayâs level.
I happen to agree with the Courtâs UNANIMOUS decision in this case, and not because I have any love for the partners of AA who ordered the document shredding. The jury instructions did not require a finding of dishonesty on the part of AA by the jury even though the statute clearly required it. I want to encourage anyone who honestly disagrees with the Supreme Courtâs reasoning to plead your case in this thread, though it will be an uphill battle. In this case, the issue to be decided was whether the jury instructions were proper, not whether AA should âget offâ. Remember that the prosecution has the choice of whether or not to retry the case.
This thread was largely made up of ignorant and hypocritical corporate bashing. Iâve seen many of the same posters quite rightly condemn gay bashing by conservatives, but then turn around and make equally ignorant and hateful statements themselves. As I said earlier, please feel free to disagree with the legal reasoning of the Court, but donât condemn them merely because âcorporateâ interests won in this case. To do so, means descending to Tom Delayâs level.
*snort* What we are objecting to IS the corporate win. Due process? Please, the crime and the impact on the shareholders was evident, the punishment should have been a no-brainer. When the "process" interferes with the obvious, the courts no longer serve the needs of the people.
Is it working???
I have no animosity toward AA. The melt downs did not affect my portfolio in the least. I honestly believe that justice should not boil down to technicalities. I am aware that the judge did not give perfect instructions. However, I doubt that the jury would have found them innocent if he had added that it ârequired a finding of dishonesty.â What the hell would you call ordering documents to be shredded to prevent a probe from getting them other than dishonest? The jury knew what they had done and though they did not specifically say that it was "dishonest" they did say that it was wrong and criminal in their opinions. Common sense ought to play some role in justice.
I am aware that there are processes in place and they should be followed. However, I look at some rulings and the judge knows they are guilty, the jury (or a different judge) convicted them the first time, they have failed on previous appeals, but the letter of the law says they are free. It makes me sad to think that rather than follow the spirit of the law it comes down strictly to process. When a defense lawyer can say with a straight face that it does not matter that his client is guilty as hell- his client deserves to be freed because the prosecution did not sign a certain form I get a little upset. (Again I am not referring to this case; but it is the same spirit in which this case was won.)
99% of the time that "process" serves the needs of the people. If you think that people should still be convicted when the process fails, then I'm sure there are some dictatorships that could serve your needs better.
The real issue is why a judge still can't get jury instructions right, not whether a destroyed company has to pay a fine.
dufus
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Posts
- 359
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 19
- Points
- 163
- Location
- The Briar Patch
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Male
MZ's post is timely and pertinent. Simply said, "She rocks." Arthur Anderson was once one of the Big 3. If a college grad who had passed the CPA exam didn't get a job with one of the 3, hir degree was considered worthless. Hir was delegated to becoming nothing more than a flat-ass book keeper. Even worse, hir went to work for H. & R. Block. Now that corporate greed has swallowed AA tooth and nail, more such scandals are yet to come in the present business climate in the U.S.
Similar threads
