Rex Kickass Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 http://www.slate.com/id/2152518/entry/2152519/ Because he died before he could appeal his verdict, his punishment was vacated. The Lays will not have to offer any punitive compensation for the damage that Ken Lay has made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'm sure this wont be the popular opinion, but while it sucks total behind for all those he screwed she didn't do it and I don't think she should be penalized. Maybe (hopefully) she will have a heart and still make good on some of the damages and only keep what she needs to live on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 06:50 PM) Maybe (hopefully) she will have a heart and still make good on some of the damages and only keep what she needs to live on. And the chances of that are?? If the NYT info is right and the estate still owns $8 million in stock in two outside companies another $25 million in real estate holdings, various properties in Aspen, Colo., and a Houston apartment, then she's got a whole lot more than what she needs to live on. Those are ill-gotten gains as far as I'm concerned if they are the fruits of illegal business dealings. If I made millions of dollars selling drugs and got busted for it but then had teh good fortune to die before I could appeal a verdict, should my widow be allowed to keep the money I made dealing drugs bacause I was the bad guy and not her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Why bother with all the work of dealing drugs? 1) Go to your bank 2) Have the teller give you a friggin ton of money 3) Have the teller then deposit all that money into the joint account of you and your wife 4) Die in gunfight with cops You can't be convicted of bank robbery if you're dead. Your wife is rich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 07:37 PM) Why bother with all the work of dealing drugs? 1) Go to your bank 2) Have the teller give you a friggin ton of money 3) Have the teller then deposit all that money into the joint account of you and your wife 4) Die in gunfight with cops You can't be convicted of bank robbery if you're dead. Your wife is rich. It's sooo simple. My wife is going to buy me a hun and a ski mask ifr she ever gets wind of this scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 06:50 PM) I'm sure this wont be the popular opinion, but while it sucks total behind for all those he screwed she didn't do it and I don't think she should be penalized. Maybe (hopefully) she will have a heart and still make good on some of the damages and only keep what she needs to live on. If his sentence wasn't vacated, she most likely would have had to live modestly. I don't see any reason why she shouldn't have to do the same now just because her crook husband is dead. She benefitted from his ill gains when he lived, she shouldn't get to benefit from them still, just because he's dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 07:37 PM) Why bother with all the work of dealing drugs? 1) Go to your bank 2) Have the teller give you a friggin ton of money 3) Have the teller then deposit all that money into the joint account of you and your wife 4) Die in gunfight with cops You can't be convicted of bank robbery if you're dead. Your wife is rich. unfortunately tellers don't have that much money. What I would do is get a teller on the inside to find the top 10 richest bank customers and then fill out transfer slips into a joint account.....Then die in a gun fight with the cops. you could easily land 2-3 millions just like that........for your wife. Of course all of that is for speculative purposes and nothing i would advocate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 05:40 PM) unfortunately tellers don't have that much money. What I would do is get a teller on the inside to find the top 10 richest bank customers and then fill out transfer slips into a joint account.....Then die in a gun fight with the cops. you could easily land 2-3 millions just like that........for your wife. Of course all of that is for speculative purposes and nothing i would advocate. Wouldn't it be different if you hadn't been convicted before death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 30, 2006 -> 06:29 PM) And the chances of that are?? If the NYT info is right and the estate still owns $8 million in stock in two outside companies another $25 million in real estate holdings, various properties in Aspen, Colo., and a Houston apartment, then she's got a whole lot more than what she needs to live on. Those are ill-gotten gains as far as I'm concerned if they are the fruits of illegal business dealings. If I made millions of dollars selling drugs and got busted for it but then had teh good fortune to die before I could appeal a verdict, should my widow be allowed to keep the money I made dealing drugs bacause I was the bad guy and not her? Slim to none. I understand and agree. I am aware. Don't hate the player, hate the game. I got nothing else. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 05:49 AM) Slim to none. I understand and agree. I am aware. Don't hate the player, hate the game. I got nothing else. Sorry. It's not that I'm not empathetic for the family caught up in all of this. But your link noted that Lay's wife had already gone so far as to open a second-hand shop to sell off belongings because she knew she would be looking at a life that was much more modest than what she was used to. And then, wham, just because Kenny Boy beats the rap by dying at a very opportune time, his wife can relax because now the bulk of the remaining estate is going to be untouched as far as criminal penalties go (I realize civil penalties may eventually get at these assets). It's a brutal slap in the face to the thousands of people who were wiped out by the illegal acts of these guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Rex's link. I read about the shop way back when and thought "hmm, that's good. She realizes she has to step up to the plate to feed herself". I don't think she was rooting for him to kick the bucket... but who knows... and I don't think (hope) she realized she would hit the lotto again with his demise. Yes, it sucks for the innocent folks. I've said that a million times that Ken was a dirtbag scum that I wish could have somehow gotten his. But since I've got no control over the situation I'm gonna hope she does something to make good and help those her husband destroyed. Eternal optimist. Sorry, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I always marvel at how well our system works. Yes, in this case it seems wrong for her to be able to keep all the ill gotten gains. However, how wrong would it have been if she continued his appeals, while he's dead, to keep some stuff? Between the choices of allowing dead people's estates to appeal, and vacating the sentences of those who die holding a few cards and a stack of chips, this seems better. Having the government coming in and telling a citizen, sucks he died before he could appeal, give me the stuff, doesn't sound appealing for me. We allow these appeals because people sometimes (although I don't believe in this case) are convicted wrongly, and we don't know which ones are convicted wrongly until their appeals are heard. I would dislike an innocent person 's estate to suffer, especially their children, because someone dies before they could appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 I don't know why we don't allow the estate to posthumously appeal in cases like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 07:09 AM) I don't know why we don't allow the estate to posthumously appeal in cases like this. They just lost a loved one, 99.99% of the time it wouldn't involve millions and millions of dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 31, 2006 -> 05:25 AM) They just lost a loved one, 99.99% of the time it wouldn't involve millions and millions of dollars. Hence the phrase "Cases like this" which Rex used. Because very few cases involve millions and millions of dollars, there should be some sort of built in system to deal with those cases so as to avoid depriving victims of tens of millions in damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 You are all forgetting one thing...he's not dead. Cheney shuttled him in Air Force 2 to Argentina or something. Seriously, though, the money was earned illegally. I see this as almost like alimony. Mrs. Lay should be able to get, maybe, the house in Houston and then a monthly stipend, decided by the court so she can live on. We all know that some of those monthly alimony checks can be pretty hefty. Maybe take her cut, put it in some sort of trust or account that will earn interest to keep her payments at the same level. That way, she will never want, won't necessarily live modestly, but then the rest can be distributed to the people Ken Lay screwed. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 I say give her the two million she's entitled to tax free. And then what's left after the punitive damages are levied - if anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts