# CEO PRISON GARB



## matthewfw (Mar 31, 2004)

WHat will Skilling and Lay be wearing in the Federal Penn for being found guilty of Enron fraud.

Can they do the Horizontal stripes in a Diagonal?


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

I predict some kind of broadstripes or perhaps some shade of orange.


----------



## familyman (Sep 9, 2005)

Watch out for the cornhole man.


----------



## samblau (Apr 2, 2005)

Watever it is it will be too good....another expense for the taxpayers...those clowns should have to pay for the costs of whatever sentence they get....perhaps instead of going to prison they can just be relieved of their savings and possessions and be forced to find real jobs. The Officers and Directors of the future have them to thank for Sarbanes Oxley as well as all of the associated costs and liabilites.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

familyman said:


> Watch out for the cornhole man.


Is that like the Ether Bunny?

Will Skilling and pals be in real prison like Riker's or country club prison?


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

samblau said:


> Watever it is it will be too good....another expense for the taxpayers...those clowns should have to pay for the costs of whatever sentence they get....perhaps instead of going to prison they can just be relieved of their savings and possessions and be forced to find real jobs. The Officers and Directors of the future have them to thank for Sarbanes Oxley as well as all of the associated costs and liabilites.


It's truly amazing what these clowns get away with, even after conviction. Typically their homes are protected from confiscation, along with some other assets.

These guys' families should get a 1,000 square foot house in some poor neighborhood. Maybe then these crooks would start to get the picture.

I've read that some assets can't be protected. However, it looks like some of these folks still do fairly well, even afterwards.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Oh well, only Ken's cell mate will know for sure if he's a good Lay.

These two deserve everything they get.


----------



## Tom Bell-Drier (Mar 1, 2006)

cell mate Bub (6`4", 250 lbs pure muscle) : were going to have a game of mummys & Daddys, Do you want to be mummy or daddy?

Skilling (trembling in fear): I`ll be daddy

cell mate bub: well get over here and suck mummys co*k

I appologise for the crudity but thought it was not out of place under the circumstances.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

*History*



pendennis said:


> It's truly amazing what these clowns get away with, even after conviction. Typically their homes are protected from confiscation, along with some other assets.


That's because they work for a company, any malfeasance they perpetrate while working for the company becomes the problem of the company, not them personally. This is what civil part is for 



> These guys' families should get a 1,000 square foot house in some poor neighborhood. Maybe then these crooks would start to get the picture.


So, because her husband is a crook, Mrs. Lay and her children should be punished? That's rather nasty, you need to read Johnny Tremain again.



> I've read that some assets can't be protected. However, it looks like some of these folks still do fairly well, even afterwards.


They'll have all the money they can spend in prison. I guess they'll be up to their eyeballs in cigarettes


----------



## samblau (Apr 2, 2005)

The 1000 sq. ft. house made me chuckle.....I live in a 550 sq. ft. apt. albeit in a very nice area that I am ashamed to admit most people in the US could not afford! (Thats NY for you) As far as I know the primary residence is protected but cash bonuses and other ujust payments should be or could be subject to disgorgement etc. As for the wife...if she is truly innocent than I do feel bad, but stealing is stealing, if you steal money and give it to the poor the ends may be justified but not the means. At any rate, if you gave her 1-2% of what these crooks stole thats more money than many of us will see at one time and more than enough to get back on track.
-sam


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I don't have a problem with their families being forced into poverty. 

1. Their families probably won't have to go into poverty. They will get a lot of consideration that the average thug won't get and a lot of money has probably been skillfully hidden from the authorities.

2. They should have thought of this before they stole. Their families would be entitled to the same safety net anyone else would get. I'm sure that this would be galling to their (probably) snobbish egos, but hey.)


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Capitalism at its Best*

All kidding aside, the verdict today seems to demonstrate one of the advantages of capitalism. It is self cleansing.

Lay and Skilling have each been sentenced to over 100 years, hard time. All of the money that they stole, and earned is gone.

Two arrogant clowns have been publically humiliated.

In addition, a dramatic example, to anyone else that thinks that the rules don't apply to them.

In a totalitarian system such as the Peoples Republic of China, the banking industry is rife with undrecapitalized banks that would fail and cease doing business in a capitalist society.

To paraphrase Churchill, Capitalism may not be the best economic system in the world, but is better that anything else in existence.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> All kidding aside, the verdict today seems to demonstrate one of the advantages of capitalism. It is self cleansing.


Well, I think it shows that _regulated_ capitalism is self cleansing, not capitalism itself.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Unregulated Capitalism*



GT3 said:


> Well, I think it shows that _regulated_ capitalism is self cleansing, not capitalism itself.


Couldn't agree with you more, GT3.

Unregulated capitalism is essentially anarchy.

The plague in the US,involving street drugs, seems to be a perfect example of unregulated capitalism, run amok.

There are a few of us that have the unpopular view, that as odious as the sale of street drugs is, that industy would be much less harmful as a lisenced, regulated industry, than it is in it's present state of unregulated capitalism.


----------



## GT3 (Mar 29, 2006)

Intrepid said:


> Couldn't agree with you more, GT3.
> There are a few of us that have the unpopular view, that as odious as the sale of street drugs is, that industy would be much less harmful as a lisenced, regulated industry, than it is in it's present state of unregulated capitalism.


You know I never thought of it that way, I will ponder that. I think you could have a point. Thanks Intrepid!


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Controlled Capitalism*



GT3 said:


> You know I never thought of it that way, I will ponder that. I think you could have a point. Thanks Intrepid!


Since you have an open mind on the subject, consider what happened during prohibition. Again, uncoltrolled capitalism, run amok. People drank just as much, but the industry was in the hands of organized crime.

The government spent huge sums trying to stop the distribution of alcolol, got no tax revenue from lisencing a product that people were determined to use anyway, and the product was available 24 hours a day, to anyone that wanted it.

Essentially, this is how the street drug industry operates today. In addition, we spend huge sums on things like helicopters in places like Columbia, to absolutely no avail.

Even if you come to agree with me, we will never prevail, because it is easy to demonize the position, stating that we favor the use of street drugs.What we (at least I, favor), is regulating the sale, lisencing it, cutting the profit out of the product, which will dry up the supply, and taking the distribution out of the hands of organized crime. I know, dream on!

In the last 5 years, Trenton NJ, has been almost completely taken over by gangs. According to the Trenton law enforcement officials, the raison d etre for the gangs, is the industry of distributing street drugs.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

*What?*



Intrepid said:


> There are a few of us that have the unpopular view, that as odious as the sale of street drugs is, that industy would be much less harmful as a lisenced, regulated industry, than it is in it's present state of unregulated capitalism.


I'm not exactly sure I'd call a market sector essentially banned by the government "unregulated capitalism." The government is creating artificial scarcity by banning the product, leading to all the crime.

I agree with you that, if you could get cheap cocaine at the local drugstore, you wouldn't have as much of a problem with gangs and cokeheads stealing to feed their habit.

I'm not sure what everyone's problem with Enron is. The execs were shady, and now they're going to prison. Problem solved, the system worked.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*System Worked*



jbmcb said:


> I'm not exactly sure I'd call a market sector essentially banned by the government "unregulated capitalism." The government is creating artificial scarcity by banning the product, leading to all the crime.
> 
> I agree with you that, if you could get cheap cocaine at the local drugstore, you wouldn't have as much of a problem with gangs and cokeheads stealing to feed their habit.
> 
> I'm not sure what everyone's problem with Enron is. The execs were shady, and now they're going to prison. Problem solved, the system worked.


jbmcb, the system did work beautifully. The problem was uncovered, not by any regulatory agency, but by a front page article in the Wall Street Journal. As a mtter of fact, Lay blamed the WSJ for his problems.

The regulators usually don't uncover problems, but do a magnificant job of administering justice, which was on vivid display, yesterday.

As you say, the system worked beautifully.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

The system does occasionally work correctly. Kudos to the WSJ and others who uncovered the crimes. 

From another board on which I sometimes post, I think the type of prison they'll be living at might be called a PMITA* prison. I love internet abbreviations.

CT

* PMITA = Pound Me ... (I'll let you figure out the rest.)


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Don't US prisons have VIP sections? Well educated white-collar criminals don't mix with the riffraff, do they? Seriously though, I can't imagine these two gentlemen being made to rub shoulders (or anything else) with lower class folk.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Rich said:


> Don't US prisons have VIP sections? Well educated white-collar criminals don't mix with the riffraff, do they? Seriously though, I can't imagine these two gentlemen being made to rub shoulders (or anything else) with lower class folk.


Never seen 'OZ' have you?
Time to kiss da baby.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Segregated Prisions*



Rich said:


> Don't US prisons have VIP sections? Well educated white-collar criminals don't mix with the riffraff, do they? Seriously though, I can't imagine these two gentlemen being made to rub shoulders (or anything else) with lower class folk.


Rich, no vip sections in prisions.

Supposedly, the federal prisions are more humane than the state prisions. I guess it depends on what state you are in.

Federal prisions do have low security prisions for those that are not considred to be a risk for escape, and where it is felt that their lives would be at risk elsewhere. I believe that describes the Martha Stewart imprisionment. She had a sentence of something like 18 mos. Lay and Skilling have what amounts to life sentences.

The only actual segregation that apparently occurs, doesn't involve VIPs, but those that would be at risk in the general prision population, such as child molesters. They are usually kept apart from the general population, but often don't survive, anyway.


----------



## fashionrookie (Nov 25, 2004)

I would hold off on the champagne until the sentences are in and the appeals have been heard. Frank Quattrone was convicted and had his conviction overturned. There is a strong possibility that they may remain free pending appeal.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Gentlemen. An ironic usage, no?



mpcsb said:


> Never seen 'OZ' have you?
> Time to kiss da baby.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Some very big guy named bubba!


----------



## Rich (Jul 10, 2005)

Intrepid said:


> Rich, no vip sections in prisions.
> 
> Supposedly, the federal prisions are more humane than the state prisions. I guess it depends on what state you are in.
> 
> ...


Interesting. If these gents really do have to live day to day for the rest of their lives with an average cross-section of prison inmates, in the same conditions, then I take my hat off to US justice. Some years ago in France a prominent businessman-politician was jailed for fraud but was kept apart from the other prisoners on the grounds that, being intelligent and charismatic, as well as dishonest, he would have a "bad influence" on them!

The isolation, for their own safety, of child molesters and the like is usual practice in France too - interesting example of international consensus.


----------



## Intrepid (Feb 20, 2005)

*Thanks, Rich*

Your posts are always an insightful view, for me, on other systems of justice, etc.

There is only one caveat to my earlier post. I heard the US Attorney for NJ address the issue in a speech about a year ago.In his speech, he made the point that certain white collar prisioners were segegated , to an extent, not for any kind of special treatment, but to prevent their certain demise.

His point was that these high profile prisioners deserved the same punishment as the rest, however they didn't deserve a certain death sentence.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Intrepid,

I am disappointed by your last comment. Certainly the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church is shameful but it doesn't call for a cheap shot against the Roman Catholic clergy. I expected more from a gentleman such yourself.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Intrepid,

If I am hypersensitive on the subject then forgive me. But the sex abuse scandal has been painful for Catholics and it has created a real crisis in confidence in the leadership. Most of the criticism of the Church in this regard is valid but I do think the media and the critics focus only on the problems within the Church and neglects to mention the ovewhelming good that the Church does.

I will never forget in 1989 when ACT-UP interupted mass at St. Patrick's bc Cardinal O'Connor refused to condone homosexual sex or the use of condoms. Forgotten in the high drama of the incident was at the time the New York Diocese provided over half of the AIDS related hospice beds in the city.

It is very hard for Catholics to see so many take seeming glee in this problem - whether it be Leno and Letterman, the anti-Catholic Left (I don't mean to imply the Left in general is anti-Catholic) or some of the more extreme Christian fundamentalists.

So perhaps now you may understand why many Catholics are senstive on this issue. Thanks for your understanding.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Intrepid,

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I do not think those with a homosexual oreintation should be excluded from Holy Orders.

Two things - first the current reforms under consideration would not exclude current homosexual clergy but rather would exclude future seminarians with a "strong homosexual tendencies." Some of this is a reaction to a so called lavender mafia that has emerged in the seminaries post Vatican II, some of it is an incorrect lingage between pedophilia and homosexuality. Secondly after this proposal was floated ( I don't think it is official policy yet) it met with such strong protest from clergy and the lay community alike that it has undergone further review.

I think if anything the sex abuse scandal in the Church highlights that sexual abuse is huge, often hidden problem in our country, where neglected victims often repeat the cycle of abuse.

Karl


----------



## jeansguy (Jul 29, 2003)

I really don't think those two will ever spend a day in prison.

They would be stupid if they didn't have money stashed away, and really...if you were going to spend the rest of your life in jail and had the resources to flee...wouldn't you? Or would you willingly sign yourself over? They are off to an island somewhere IMO.


----------

