Do his relatives or other benificiarie in any way benefit from the fact that, now, there is no fine that is going to be levied?
-Kris
It’s a damned shame that he died. I was adopted by my grandparents when I was 13 months old (my unwed mother died in a car wreck that we were in.) Six years later, my grandfather was dying of cancer in hospital, and his last phone call was from Ken Lay.
My “mom” kept our Enron stock (which doubled every other year) for my college tuition.
In short, she still has a pension. But our stock, which was worth more than 100k (and doubling every 2 years) is gone, her medical insurance is gone, and our family friends with younger husbands have all lost their life savings.
I’m helping manager friends right now by working in their KFC for pennies above minimum wage. I’m a member of MENSA. I’m a National Merit Scholar. And my professors (pre-Enron) were grooming me for a chance to be a Rhodes scholar.
I had to leave school. My husband had to leave school. We owe more than 50,000 dollars for education we cannot use. We cannot access or transcripts due to our academic debts.
I hated Ken Lay, but damn him for dying because his victims are now even less likely to get justice.
stalks off, growling
easy answer:
mrs lay may get somewhere close to half. lay’s estate would pay any debts against it, inheritance tax, mrs lay and those mentioned in his will would get what ever is left.
long answer:
feds are gonna be all over this estate trying to find any possible legal way to get something… anything from his estate.
tinfoil I think Lay killed himself, or was killed by someone “close” to him. The timing, and the consequences of the event, are just too suspicious.[/tinfoil]
-Kris
(Who also suspects Bin Ladin (or anyway, the “Bin Ladin” people") pretty much won on september 11th and the administration is taking orders from him/them. So pay no attention to me.)
I’ve honesly been thinking the same thing. That has caused me to call a dead man a bastard more times than I care to admit this past week.
You should correct that to say “I would live it if one U.S. lawyer would chime in.” If there’s more than one, they will argue about it until the cows come home and we will all just walk away with a headache.
Here’s what the Los Angeles Times had to say (you probably need to create an account with their website to read the article, and soon the article will be archived):
His children won’t be punished, they just won’t inheirit. His family has no right to his ill-gotten gains.
But if the conviction is wiped out there are no ill-gotten gains.
A civil suit against his estate is still possible (just harder).
True.
Not true.
Here’s why. While it’s true that for purposes of an appeal he’s lost the presumption of innocence – that is, his posture before the appeals court is that the burden is on HIM to show why his verdict is flawed – it’s also true that he no longer has a chance to exercise that right. He cannot go to the appeals court and say, for example, “Yes, the verdict was guilty, but the trial court admitted this piece of evidence in error, failed to exclude this other piece of evidence as it should have, and announced to the jury before they began deliberations that they should have a short day because I was obviously guilty as hell.”
(Not that this actually happened, of course, for any readers that may be hypothetical-challenged).
Because he is denied that basic part of his rights, and because he cannot possibly exercise them, the general remedy is to void his conviction.
It’s not, and it may proceed. But there is a problem of proof – the nice thing about a criminal conviction is that it makes the civil case for you. Without that, going after the assets is a bit more of a battle. Normally, you sue the wrongdoer, and obtain a judgement against him; he must then satisfy the judgement with his ill-gotten gains.
Now, you can’t sue the wrongdoer - he’s dead. You have to sue the assets themselves, in a kind of a civil in rem procedure. (I welcome correction on this point from those more versed in civil law than I).
Were civil action to be taken against those assets, is there again a time constraint at play here? Does an action need to be started before the assets are inherited by his relatives or would that be considered suing the wrongdoer?
Also, how must Lay be refered to now by the media, the courts, etc? He’s not exactly “innocent”, yet he’s no longer a “convicted felon” either is he?
Sorry to sidetrack the conversation, but I don’t understand this. Why did you have to leave school? I owe student loans as well, but it is not keeping me from accessing any transcripts. Why do you owe anything if there was $100k set aside for your schooling? I understand that the money isn’t there now, but how did you rack up $50,000? Were you just going to wait until you graduated to pay it all off? If you are really that smart, even without a degree, you could find something better than KFC.
Sorry if this is too personal or inappropriate. It just seems too disturbing, I had to ask.
The media can refer to him however they like. He’s dead and the dead cannot be defamed.
-
My guess is that **Northern Piper ** lives on Lunt Street in Chicago.
-
Amazingly enough, my wife told me today that there is, in fact, a conspiracy theory floating around Snowmass (where our daughter lives) that matches C K Dexter Haven’s peculiar idea, above. I, for one, think that aliens probably abducted him and his money and have him stashed in a freezer on planet Zork.
Oh, I understand this fully. I don’t believe that his family should receive any money that wasn’t rightfully his. That wasn’t the question, though. I doubt that the Lay family would be totally destitute, with grandchildren driven to prostitution, just by taking away “ill-gotten gains.” SandyHook was digging for something much deeper than just taking back money Lay shouldn’t have had. The statement I was responding to called for taking his money, his children’s, and his grandchildren’s. All of it. Not just “ill-gotten” money. Here, re-read the quote:
::sniff:: 
The civil cases now pending against Lay, including the SEC cases, can still proceed, with one important caveat: compensatory damages only. Punitive damages aren’t allowed since there’s really nobody to punish. The conviction can’t be used in a civil trial, but Lay chose to testify in his defense, and that testimony can come in. The plaintiff’s lawyers believe that testimony should be more than enough to support a civil judgment. They’re probably right, but plaintiff’s lawyers are notoriously optimistic. 
Wouldn’t he have put a whole lot of ill-gotten money in his wife and children’s names so that it doesn’t look like he earned (for want of better term) it? You know, like most crooks do?
oh my good heavens! how could I have forgotten pravnik! :eek: :smack: pravnik, who once nicely complimented me on my explanation of criminal procedure in a civil jurisdiction!
My humble apologies! (it was three in the morning). There, there [hands pravnik a nice little hanky] Blow your nose and dash a little cold water on your forehead. You’ll feel much better.
no, no - rhymes with, not synonom for.