• news
  • TUESDAY OCTOBER 17 2006 3:30 PM

American Hero Can Now Rest in Peace

Submitted by FearTheReaper

Edited by FearTheReaper

Tags: Ken Lay, Enron, Sim Lake, Congress

America can now celebrate and start to feel good again because a federal judge has vacated the conviction of Kenneth Lay. It totally wipes clean the record of Lay, who died prematurely from the suffering he endured at the hands of a reckless prosecutor. Lay was convicted of fraud, conspiracy and lying to banks in May. But now, thankfully, he can rest in peace.

Lay had a heart attack and left us on July 5 while on vacation in Aspen, Colo. America has not been the same since. It was as if a dark cloud drifted across this great nation, and there it remained until this day.

The world’s greatest Judge, Sim Lake, agreed with Lay's lawyers that his death required erasing his convictions.


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.


The government was looking to ferociously attack Lay’s estate and pick his bones for $43.5 million that prosecutors believe he pocketed from Enron's fraud. Prosecutors wanted the judge to delay his ruling until next week, so Congress could consider legislation that would have wiped out the Appeals Court ruling. Thankfully, Congress did not get to dig up the body of Ken Lay and rip it to shreds. As a country we are stronger today. And a hero can rest in peace.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

Comments
Andy741

Andy741

United Kingdom
July 2006

OCT 17, 2006 03:40 PM

Indeed.

I'm sure the legions of devils currently shoving all manner of sharpened fruit up the rear end of Lay's hell bound soul, will be pleased to hear about the verdict.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

OCT 17, 2006 03:50 PM

I wonder how many criminals get to have their convictions (expunged?) posthumously, because they were incapable of exhausting their appeals?!

At any rate, this sucks! I hope that his estate is sued back into the stone ages!

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

OCT 17, 2006 03:54 PM

Umm, fuck you. You stole a bunch of money Ken Lay, now that your dead it's not like you are going to use it. Give it back, assface.

I hope one or many of the employees whos pensions you destroyed dig up your grave and rape your corpse. That might be close to 1/40th of the way to making reparations.

Davegeek

davegeek

Trail, BC
December 2005

OCT 17, 2006 03:58 PM

One the one hand his estate will be allowed to profit from his malfesience. On the other he's dead. I don't know if justice has been served or not.


Ah well, he's still dead and no court ruling can overturn that. I wonder if we'll be hearing any bleatings from conservatives about "judicial activism" over this?

SirPsychoSexy

SirPsychoSexy

Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004

OCT 17, 2006 04:13 PM

Believe it or not,
I'm walking on air.
I never thought I could feel so free-.
Flying away on a wing and a prayer.
Who could it be?
Believe it or not it's just me.

Sinlover

Sinlover

Daytona Beach, FL
January 2006

OCT 17, 2006 04:16 PM

Anyone know where he's burried? I gotta take a leak.....

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

OCT 17, 2006 04:46 PM

Amazing. He died, but his next of kin get to benefit from the money he stole. Feudal, almost.

I'm with William Gates here: Tax the rich when they die. America is better served by meritocracy than dynasty.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

OCT 17, 2006 04:54 PM

I don't think that death protects a person's estate from legal liability. I could be wrong. Maybe one of the legal people can help?

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

OCT 17, 2006 04:56 PM

I thought this thread was going to be about me...because I am a true...American...hero.

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

OCT 17, 2006 05:15 PM

wildswan said:
I wonder how many criminals get to have their convictions (expunged?) posthumously, because they were incapable of exhausting their appeals?!



Strictly speaking, any of them in the jurisdiction of the 5th Appellate circuit. Which includes Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Or those in other jurisdictions with similar laws (they're not the only ones). Realistically, it depends on the dead guys lawyers making the argument.


I don't think that death protects a person's estate from legal liability. I could be wrong. Maybe one of the legal people can help?



INAL, but this apparently doesn't protect the estate from civil liability, but it does protect from certain criminal penalties.

From the article:

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.

"Today's ruling does not change the fact that Mr. Lay was found guilty after a four-month jury trial and a separate bench trial," said Bryan Sierra, a Department of Justice spokesman. "We will continue to pursue all remedies available for restitution on behalf of the victims of the fraud at Enron."
...

"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.



The victims will still get their day in court to recoup (some of) their losses. But the government will have to stand in line - they no longer get first dibs.

Not2Bright

Not2Bright

Sumter, SC
July 2006

OCT 17, 2006 05:24 PM

God bless the American court system. puke

Not2Bright

Not2Bright

Sumter, SC
July 2006

OCT 17, 2006 05:26 PM


zoom image

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

OCT 17, 2006 05:31 PM

skeptik said:

wildswan said:
I wonder how many criminals get to have their convictions (expunged?) posthumously, because they were incapable of exhausting their appeals?!



Strictly speaking, any of them in the jurisdiction of the 5th Appellate circuit. Which includes Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Or those in other jurisdictions with similar laws (they're not the only ones). Realistically, it depends on the dead guys lawyers making the argument.


I don't think that death protects a person's estate from legal liability. I could be wrong. Maybe one of the legal people can help?



INAL, but this apparently doesn't protect the estate from civil liability, but it does protect from certain criminal penalties.

From the article:

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.

"Today's ruling does not change the fact that Mr. Lay was found guilty after a four-month jury trial and a separate bench trial," said Bryan Sierra, a Department of Justice spokesman. "We will continue to pursue all remedies available for restitution on behalf of the victims of the fraud at Enron."
...

"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.



The victims will still get their day in court to recoup (some of) their losses. But the government will have to stand in line - they no longer get first dibs.



Thanks! That's as I thought. A person can't have criminal penalties levied against them if they're dead, but their estate can certainly be sued in civil court.

The Feds should be last in line. It's good to know that they are.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

OCT 17, 2006 05:34 PM

DavidAwood said:

zoom image



Boy! That's not so much a smile as it is a facial muscle spasm!

ginormous

ginormous

Bethlehem, PA
November 2003

OCT 17, 2006 05:39 PM

Davegeek said:
Ah well, he's still dead and no court ruling can overturn that. I wonder if we'll be hearing any bleatings from conservatives about "judicial activism" over this?



"Activist judges" are usually defined as those that base their rulings not on precedent but on what they consider to be "right." The term is usually applied by conservatives to judges who don't aren't strict constructionists. However, there are plenty of conservative judges that would easily fall under the activist category.
That said, this judge was not an activist. He clearly followed and stated the 5th circuit precedence. It's unreasonable to expect a judge to hold on a ruling, or rule contrary to precedent, because a new law might be passed in the future. While this is undoubtedly unfair to both Lay's victims and those defendants without the resources to pursue a similar defense, I would prefer judges to follow precedence than be "fair."

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

featured interviews