| ??? 07/15/06 23:47 Read: times |
#120319 - Possibly Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Richard Erlacher said:
It's the government that they wanted to keep out of the estate, 3rd party lawsuits aside. Since the purpose of a fine is to punish behavior and/or to discourage such behavior in the future, you might be correct on that point. Until the sentence, including any fines, etc, is imposed, there's no conviction, despite the guilty verdict,
I don't know where you get that idea, other than something you "heard on the radio". Got any reliable references? Lay was convicted. The conviction stands even though the sentencing won't occur. As a result, that conviction can't be used as a basis for other attacks on the estate. Maybe not fines imposed by the government, but there's nothing stopping all those who suffered because of Lay from filing civil lawsuits against his estate, based on the conviction. You can pretty much count on that happening. There's a special place in hell for people like him, and Bernie Evers (WorldCom) and others of their ilk. :-) On that we're in full agreement. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| time for more weekend stuff | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Stress? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I just heard on the radio that this make | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Harold Shipman | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Kenny Boy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I am sure | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Oh yea ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not the same thing | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Tin foil hats | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| They say it\'s not so ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Wow | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It keeps the government out of the estate | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Possibly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I'm not the only one who hear this ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Stockholders | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| nobody said this was easy ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Richard is right -- sort of | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Grred | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
There are cases ... | 01/01/70 00:00 |