Art Andersen settles AZ lawsuit
Jim Hudspeth
> Arthur Andersen Settles Arizona Lawsuits
>
> http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46936,00.html
>
>
> Arthur Andersen, the accounting firm involved in the Enron debacle,
> agreed Friday to pay $217 million to settle lawsuits filed after the
> 1999 collapse of an Arizona investment group.
>
>
> The settlement resolves a case brought by a bankruptcy trust for
> investors in the failed Baptist Foundation of Arizona. Its collapse
> cost 13,000 mostly elderly investors nearly $590 million.
>
> The trust had sought $155 million in compensatory damages.
>
>
-------------- copy / paste from article -----------
Arthur Andersen said the firm had made a business decision to settle the
cases without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
"This settlement is an important step in building confidence in our firm,"
the firm said in a statement.
-------------- copy / paste from article -----------
This thing was scheduled to go to trial Monday. This looks like a
settlement "on the court house steps", mainly to keep the damages from
getting any worse.
--
Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA
http://survivalworks.com
BiddleLC
malpractice you could imagine. Andersen of course failed to see any problems
with the books, but it had not one, not two but at least three seperate
instances where insiders told them they might wanna check the books for the big
scam management is pulling. I understand that Andersen's defense, if this case
had gone to trial was the following: When informed of possible fraud, we asked
management if it was true and they assuerd us it wasn't. We relied on the
representations of mangement!! We were duped! Ay carumba. I think $217 million
was cheap.
I feel truly sorry for Andersen employees. If I didn't know better (an i do
know and respect several), I'd think the company was populated with morons.
Ed Zollars
<jdhcpa@att.(NO-SPAM)net> wrote:
>This thing was scheduled to go to trial Monday. This looks like a
>settlement "on the court house steps", mainly to keep the damages from
>getting any worse.
Well, actually it may also have been a settlement achieved because the
plaintiffs were worried about making sure they got *something* in case
the Enron situation evolves into a worst case scenario for
Andersen--that is, an award isn't worth anything if it's not
collectible...
From the Andersen perspective--I suspect they now would have preferred
to have settled this *before* the Enron situation broke, even though
it would have taken more dollars to do so. Because, from a PR
perspective, this settlement is going to get a lot more publicity than
it would have a year ago, when it probably would only have been big
news in Arizona. And that may have an impact on client's decisions
about deciding whether to retain Andersen for audit work.
Paul A. Thomas
BiddleLC <bidd...@aol.com> wrote
> "When informed of possible fraud, we asked
> management if it was true and they assuerd us
> it wasn't. "
When confronted by the police who asked if there were any bank robbers
lurking about, the bank robbers said "I haven't seen any around here."
And you have to wonder how much damage the AICPA is going to cause with
their "media blitz" to "shine our image".
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
tax...@negia.net
http://www.pat-cpa.com
Ed Zollars
>I feel truly sorry for Andersen employees. If I didn't know better (an i do
>know and respect several), I'd think the company was populated with morons.
Quite often it becomes clear that one of three things was true in a
situation like this:
1. We were incredibly stupid
2. We were crooked and didn't care
3. Both of the above
Defense attorneys almost always end up pushing for the first
explanation <grin>.
Reality is that a long run of "no problems" in these areas (such as we
have in a long run of good economic times) eventually allows auditors
to keep increasing their tolerance for problems without encountering
any bad results.
Additionally, when problems are pointed out, there is a reflex to deny
they really exist. Because, in most of these cases, the problem that
eventually was brought to the auditor's attention by the insiders was
one that had existed for a while--and which the auditor would have to
admit their work had missed if they call it material. That produces
an incredible incentive to find that the problem truly *isn't*
material and/or simply doesn't exist. So we end up with
rationalizations about how it wasn't really a problem.
At the individual employee level this actually "makes sense" to
them--because they know that raising a fuss about this issue when they
are arguably partially to blame to failing to find it previously is
probably not a good long term career move.
Note that none of this justifies doing things that way, at least in
terms of saying it was the "right" thing to do. But if we don't get a
good grasp on the reasons why these things happen and the thought
process that surrounds them, we'll continue to see these things happen
no matter what "solution" we bring forward.
Jim Hudspeth
>
>
> And you have to wonder how much damage the AICPA is going to cause with
> their "media blitz" to "shine our image".
>
At this point my perception is more "dismay" than "wonder". Those people
are drowning in a sea of denial.
Jim Hudspeth
I'm sure you are correct on all counts.
Ron Todd
addition to the current wave, my conclusion is that they have been and
are willing co conspirators.
You really should consider the concept of a rotten organization. All
bad, no good, not worth saving.
BiddleLC wrote:
...
> I feel truly sorry for Andersen employees. If I didn't know better (an i do
> know and respect several), I'd think the company was populated with morons.
--
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
* Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A. *
* Unemployed for six years, mistake of being an accountant. *
* From the Socialist People's Republic of Kalifornia, *
* the Seventh worst state for business, *
* Ayn Rand was right *
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Paul A. Thomas
Jim Hudspeth <jdhcpa@att.(NO-SPAM)net> wrote
> Paul A. Thomas wrote:
> > And you have to wonder how much damage the AICPA is going to cause with
> > their "media blitz" to "shine our image".
> At this point my perception is more "dismay" than "wonder". Those people
> are drowning in a sea of denial.
And now I know I made the right decision many years ago to drop out of the
AICPA.
What the hell are they thinking?
Jim Hudspeth
>
> Jim Hudspeth <jdhcpa@att.(NO-SPAM)net> wrote
>> Paul A. Thomas wrote:
>
>> > And you have to wonder how much damage the AICPA is going to cause with
>> > their "media blitz" to "shine our image".
>
>> At this point my perception is more "dismay" than "wonder". Those people
>> are drowning in a sea of denial.
>
>
> And now I know I made the right decision many years ago to drop out of the
> AICPA.
>
> What the hell are they thinking?
>
They aren't thinking.
The real tragedy is they have long since lost the ability to think.
It's over - the corpse just hasn't stopped twitching yet.
Ron Todd
what there selling is the only thing they have left. They have no
alternative and there is a slight probability that it will get pulled
off. If you study history, you will find that many people have been
pushed off the gallows by the next big thing that comes along. We live
in interesting times, there are things that could happen tomorrow that
would end all interest in Enron & Andersen & AICPA.
Also, please realize the public organism has a short memory, a short
attention span, and is easily distracted.
--
A. L. Meyers
> I don't agree. They are running a PR campaign based on the fact that
> what there selling is the only thing they have left. They have no
> alternative and there is a slight probability that it will get pulled
> off. If you study history, you will find that many people have been
> pushed off the gallows by the next big thing that comes along. We live
> in interesting times, there are things that could happen tomorrow that
> would end all interest in Enron & Andersen & AICPA.
>
> Also, please realize the public organism has a short memory, a short
> attention span, and is easily distracted.
>
> Jim Hudspeth wrote:
>>
>> Paul A. Thomas wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Jim Hudspeth <jdhcpa@att.(NO-SPAM)net> wrote
>> >> Paul A. Thomas wrote:
>> >
>> >> > And you have to wonder how much damage the AICPA is going to cause with
>> >> > their "media blitz" to "shine our image".
>> >
>> >> At this point my perception is more "dismay" than "wonder". Those people
>> >> are drowning in a sea of denial.
>> >
>> >
>> > And now I know I made the right decision many years ago to drop out of the
>> > AICPA.
>> >
>> > What the hell are they thinking?
>> >
>>
>> They aren't thinking.
>>
>> The real tragedy is they have long since lost the ability to think.
>>
>> It's over - the corpse just hasn't stopped twitching yet.
Ron, although your view of the most probable outcome is probably
correct, nevertheless this does not dispense us from trying to achieve
another outcome.
A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA
--
If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender.
PGP key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15
To Big Brother Echelon from "spook":
/home/alm/.sig: spook: command not found
pakers
putting up a image while on the inside they were rotting away. It is
like Enron was a heavy wind the blew away the shining exterior to expose
the rot inside. I stopped renewing my membership in the AICPA about
15 years ago not because I was disgusted with the organization but
that it was irrelevant to me. The FASB was formed when I was in
college were a acctg professor pointed out the domination of the
large firms. I do not regard auditing of publicly held companies
as done by professionals but by hacks who parrot the company line.
Personally I lost a substantial amount in a publicly held company.
When I complained about the quality of the financial statement to the
SEC they gave me a "800" number kiss-off; they company and the auditors
settled in a class action; I received pennies on the dollar.
Pat
pakers
putting up a image while on the inside they were rotting away. It is
like Enron was a heavy wind the blew away the shining exterior to expose
the rot inside. I stopped renewing my membership in the AICPA about
15 years ago not because I was disgusted with the organization but
that it was irrelevant to me. The FASB was formed when I was in
college were a acctg professor pointed out the domination of the
large firms. I do not regard auditing of publicly held companies
as done by professionals but by hacks who parrot the company line.
Personally I lost a substantial amount in a publicly held company.
When I complained about the quality of the financial statement to the
SEC they gave me a "800" number kiss-off; they company and the auditors
settled in a class action; I received pennies on the dollar.
Pat
pakers
putting up a image while on the inside they were rotting away. It is
like Enron was a heavy wind the blew away the shining exterior to expose
the rot inside. I stopped renewing my membership in the AICPA about
15 years ago not because I was disgusted with the organization but
that it was irrelevant to me. The FASB was formed when I was in
college were a acctg professor pointed out the domination of the
large firms. I do not regard auditing of publicly held companies
as done by professionals but by hacks who parrot the company line.
Personally I lost a substantial amount in a publicly held company.
When I complained about the quality of the financial statement to the
SEC they gave me a "800" number kiss-off; they company and the auditors
settled in a class action; I received pennies on the dollar.
Pat
pakers
putting up a image while on the inside they were rotting away. It is
like Enron was a heavy wind the blew away the shining exterior to expose
the rot inside. I stopped renewing my membership in the AICPA about
15 years ago not because I was disgusted with the organization but
that it was irrelevant to me. The FASB was formed when I was in
college were a acctg professor pointed out the domination of the
large firms. I do not regard auditing of publicly held companies
as done by professionals but by hacks who parrot the company line.
Personally I lost a substantial amount in a publicly held company.
When I complained about the quality of the financial statement to the
SEC they gave me a "800" number kiss-off; they company and the auditors
settled in a class action; I received pennies on the dollar.
Pat
Jim Hudspeth
> The way I see it: the AICPA and the auditing profession have been
> putting up a image while on the inside they were rotting away. It is
> like Enron was a heavy wind the blew away the shining exterior to expose
> the rot inside.
Succinct analogy.
> I do not regard auditing of publicly held companies
> as done by professionals but by hacks who parrot the company line.
> Personally I lost a substantial amount in a publicly held company.
> When I complained about the quality of the financial statement to the
> SEC they gave me a "800" number kiss-off; they company and the auditors
> settled in a class action; I received pennies on the dollar.
The above, multiplied by thousands (maybe millions), is the real wind that
is blowing down the house of cards.
A. L. Meyers
of the AICPA?
Ron Todd
Enron side. Right does not always prevail.
...
Ron Todd
pakers wrote:
>
> The way I see it: the AICPA and the auditing profession have been
> putting up a image while on the inside they were rotting away. It is
> like Enron was a heavy wind the blew away the shining exterior to expose
> the rot inside. I stopped renewing my membership in the AICPA about
> 15 years ago not because I was disgusted with the organization but
> that it was irrelevant to me. The FASB was formed when I was in
> college were a acctg professor pointed out the domination of the
> large firms. I do not regard auditing of publicly held companies
> as done by professionals but by hacks who parrot the company line.
I don't disagree. I think rot is the best word to use.
> Personally I lost a substantial amount in a publicly held company.
> When I complained about the quality of the financial statement to the
> SEC they gave me a "800" number kiss-off; they company and the auditors
> settled in a class action; I received pennies on the dollar.
> Pat
You have to write a lot of letters to get any action out of the SEC,
their inertia is legend. In cases like these the place to start is with
letters to Congressmen, then you start writing the Commission WITH
copies to the Congress. It is very important to use written letters.
Phone calls, FAX, and e-mails apparently have not substance as far as
politicians are concerned.
Now you should probably be writing letters to Congress about tort reform
and how you got pennies but the lawyers got millions. OT, but tort
reform is an issue that will not go away, millions want it and all the
Congressmen are bought and paid for by the Tort Lawyers lobby. Look at
the contributions sometime.
...
JohnB
members may state on their letterhead "Members AICPA".
A nonmember who wishes to purchase printed copies of AICPA
and FASB literature pays a bit more than a member of the
AICPA. I think members get a 20% discount.
The nonmember may need these publications if the state which
issues his or her license to practice as a CPA incorporates
the AICPA rules into the state regulatory scheme. A
nonmember engaged in audits needs the FASB literature to
determine whether the financial statements comply with GAAP.
A nonmember with a practice solely in taxation would very
likely not need either AICPA or FASB literature.
In article <864rk4q...@landhaus.consult-meyers.com>,
nospa...@replyto.because.this.is.invalid says...
BiddleLC
>and how you got pennies but the lawyers got millions
I don't remember the author saying anything about the lawyers making millions,
but I understand the point. Tort reform, however, in this man's case probrably
means he gets no class-action lawsuit, and thus a settlement of Zero instead of
"pennies on the dollar". That hardly strikes me as a better outcome for the
little guy.
Take a guy like Jeff Skilling. He basically is convinced that the government
has little chance of ever proving he commited a crime at Enron (no mattter how
many Congressmen call him a liar). White collar crime is tough to prove, if you
can get a DA willing to even procecute. Frankly the only recourse shareholder
victims of corporate crime have is tort lawyers. If you make it harder to sue,
you make people like Skilling untouchable.
Ron Todd
BiddleLC wrote:
>
> >Now you should probably be writing letters to Congress about tort reform
> >and how you got pennies but the lawyers got millions
>
> I don't remember the author saying anything about the lawyers making millions,
> but I understand the point. Tort reform, however, in this man's case probrably
> means he gets no class-action lawsuit, and thus a settlement of Zero instead of
> "pennies on the dollar". That hardly strikes me as a better outcome for the
> little guy.
Tort reform is probably the most important issue facing congress. It is
also the issue that congress will probably never address. Tort reform
is far more serious than Microsoft, Enron, Andersen, and the Tobacco
Companies. The relationship of the congress to the tort lawyers is the
dirtiest open secret in the country.
> Take a guy like Jeff Skilling. He basically is convinced that the government
> has little chance of ever proving he commited a crime at Enron (no mattter how
> many Congressmen call him a liar). White collar crime is tough to prove, if you
> can get a DA willing to even procecute. Frankly the only recourse shareholder
> victims of corporate crime have is tort lawyers. If you make it harder to sue,
> you make people like Skilling untouchable.
First, there is no such thing as "White Collar Crime," there is only
crime. The biggest farce is that there is some difference between WCC
and regular crime and special legislation is needed. If the guy
committed a fraud or a theft then prosecute the perp. This congress
committee b.s. is just garbage.
BiddleLC
>crime. The biggest farce is that there is some difference between WCC
>and regular crime and special legislation is needed.
You can't really believe that nonsense. If you are not comfortable with the
term white collar to describe crimes commited by corporate officials, then you
are free to ignore the term.Its not important. But their is a reason why there
are very few corporate bandits in jail. The problem with procecuting corporate
officials who commit the type of shemes the Enron guys committed is
establishing criminal intent. WE know Enron managers created false and/or
misleading financial statements. We know that as a result of these false and/or
misleading financials, they made millions in on their investments in Enron
stock, at the expense of unsuspecting shareholders. Its rather hard to PROVE
that management cooked the books in order to enrich themselves. Its not even
easy to prove they intended to cook the books, since they recieved cover from
both Andersen and Vinson and Elkins.
By contrast, criminal intent is not fuzzy or ambiguous when bank robber walks
into a bank and asks a teller to empty her cash drawer or I'll shoot. The
robber can't say his accountant signed off on the withdrawl. Yes, certain white
collar crimes ARE different and harder to prove.
To me tort reform is hiring more judges and instructing them to move tort cases
thru the system faster. To the Bush administration tort reform is shielding
corporations from lawsuits. I see Bush's wwhats to make CEO's accountable by
making them swear that financial statements are correct. Yet he doesn't want
shareholders to be able to sue corporations if the CEO is crossing his fingers
when he swears the books are accurate. Poor Bush can't seem to realize that if
CEO are to be held accountable, there has to be a mechanism for holding them
accountable, and for making injured parties whole. Right now that mechnism is
the civil courts, imperfect thou it may be.
A. L. Meyers
distinction between white collar crime and other crime:
the former is much more likely to pay in spite of its causing vast
damage, e. g.:
USD 1 billion of losses soft and hard fraudsters cause amounts to
destroying the entire productive lives' work of about 700 average US
employees.
A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA
--
If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender.
PGP key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15
To Big Brother Echelon from "spook":
Ortega Peking BND sentiero PLO colonel bomb Shin Beth ammunition Semtex
Jim Hudspeth
> Ron, your point is well taken but IMHO there still is an important
> distinction between white collar crime and other crime:
>
> the former is much more likely to pay in spite of its causing vast
> damage, e. g.:
>
> USD 1 billion of losses soft and hard fraudsters cause amounts to
> destroying the entire productive lives' work of about 700 average US
> employees.
>
>
"White collar" crime, in my opinion, is far more serious than commonly
recognized.
There is little chance that western civilization could be destroyed by
common criminals.
It is probable that we will ultimately be destroyed by our own corruption
("white collar crime").
You doubt it?
Study the collapse of Rome.
Incidentally, it is being reported that the Chinese think we (USA) have
about 30 or so years left.
Jim Hudspeth
>
> Take a guy like Jeff Skilling. He basically is convinced that the
> government has little chance of ever proving he commited a crime at Enron
> (no mattter how many Congressmen call him a liar). White collar crime is
> tough to prove, if you can get a DA willing to even procecute.
What is tough is getting the real perps.
Given our present "legal safeguards', "white collar" criminal conspiracies
organized on a "need to know" basis are extremely hard to crack. The top
people generally manage to maintain "plausible deniability", which means
finding proof of individual guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" is pretty
much impossible.
Other than embarrassment, Jeff Skilling will probably suffer little.
> Frankly the
> only recourse shareholder victims of corporate crime have is tort lawyers.
> If you make it harder to sue, you make people like Skilling untouchable.
>
Small victims essentially have no recourse.
A. L. Meyers
(big snip)
> Small victims essentially have no recourse.
There is an old popular saying in German for this: "Die Kleinen haengt
man auf, die Grossen laesst man laufen."
= approximately:
One hangs the little criminals and lets the big ones go.
A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA
--
If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender.
PGP key fingerprint=F1C0 D9AE 1B18 1405 4DFA B4CC 6DC7 FF78 C76E FB15
To Big Brother Echelon from "spook":
Kennedy Iran Panama explosion Rumsfeld AK-47 spy Afghanistan Honduras
Ron Todd
bunk. Probably thought up by some sleazy defense lawyer trying to get a
bank president off for bank robbery. "But this really isn't bank
robbery, its just a white collar crime, it really isn't like that dirty
blue collar crime....."
I always wonder about motives when people start putting socialist class
labels on common occurrences.
Jim Hudspeth wrote:
...
> "White collar" crime, in my opinion, is far more serious than commonly
> recognized.
...
Ron Todd
toward two groups (1) those trying to pull something, and (2) those who
do not understand they have been scabbed.
I am beginning to believe that a free republic of equal rights is a
historical illusion. The only natural state of a society is a
authoritarian dictatorship with a rigid class structure.
BiddleLC wrote:
>
> >First, there is no such thing as "White Collar Crime," there is only
> >crime. The biggest farce is that there is some difference between WCC
> >and regular crime and special legislation is needed.
>
> You can't really believe that nonsense.
....
Jim Hudspeth
> Crime is crime, theft is theft. The whole white collar concept is
> bunk. Probably thought up by some sleazy defense lawyer trying to get a
> bank president off for bank robbery. "But this really isn't bank
> robbery, its just a white collar crime, it really isn't like that dirty
> blue collar crime....."
>
> I always wonder about motives when people start putting socialist class
> labels on common occurrences.
>
>
> Jim Hudspeth wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> "White collar" crime, in my opinion, is far more serious than commonly
>> recognized.
>
You can wonder all you want Ron, but "white collar" crime is a serious
matter.
"White collar" crime generally involves not only a theft of property, but
also a "theft of trust". A loss of trust is (at least in my opinion) a lot
more serious that a loss of property.
A skunk by any other name would smell the same.
John James
This discussion is on the edge of one of the biggest problems that I
see with rule of law.
Common law (and\or constitutional law) can become distorted over a
period of time. Some one once said the golden rule is he who has the
gold makes the rules. An unemotional examination of the court system
shows that the system evolves from the decisions it makes. Those
decisions are often not reached "on a level playing field" as those
who can, do hire the best. One rule leads to another and before long
the rules are skewed and as Lucien said "One hangs the little
criminals and lets the big ones go." By "common law I mean the
traditional, precedent-based element in the law, as opposed to its
statutory law or legislation. Not to the rants found on some web
sites. Constitutional law and legislative law is also affected in a
similar manner as the interpretation of it takes place in the courts.
This process of polarized Court rulings is not something new. In
England by the early 16th cent. a fairly well-defined jurisdiction was
exercised by the court of chancery in combination with the common law.
In the 17th cent. it was definitely established that the court of
chancery would decide any claim to jurisdiction that the courts of
common law disputed. The early chancellors purported to dispense
equity in its original sense of fair dealing, and they cut through the
technicalities of common law to give just treatment.
The rules of equity have been blended into common law and even in
those jurisdictions where law and equity remain unmerged, equity has
become subject to "rule of law". I am a strong believer in "Rule of
law" but left unchecked, its in-flexible nature soon stifles justice.
"A. L. Meyers" <nospa...@replyto.because.this.is.invalid> wrote in
message news:87g03b2...@landhaus.consult-meyers.com...
Ron Todd
Jim Hudspeth wrote:
>
> Ron Todd wrote:
>
> > Crime is crime, theft is theft. The whole white collar concept is
> > bunk. Probably thought up by some sleazy defense lawyer trying to get a
> > bank president off for bank robbery. "But this really isn't bank
> > robbery, its just a white collar crime, it really isn't like that dirty
> > blue collar crime....."
> >
> > I always wonder about motives when people start putting socialist class
> > labels on common occurrences.
> >
> >
> > Jim Hudspeth wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> "White collar" crime, in my opinion, is far more serious than commonly
> >> recognized.
> >
>
> You can wonder all you want Ron, but "white collar" crime is a serious
> matter.
OK, I don't wonder. People who came up with "white color" were using it
to attack capitalism. Crime is crime. The head of the big company
needs to be treated exactly the same as the small criminal.
What is the mater, your auto mechanic doesn't have a trust relations
ship. Sounds elitist to me.
> "White collar" crime generally involves not only a theft of property, but
> also a "theft of trust". A loss of trust is (at least in my opinion) a lot
> more serious that a loss of property.
>
> A skunk by any other name would smell the same.
That is exactly what I'm saying: Crime is Crime, no modifying adjective
is necessary.
>
> --
> Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA
> http://survivalworks.com
--
Ron Todd
Probably when the Supreme Court said that it was not unprofessional for
lawyers to take commissions.
--
Jim Hudspeth
>
>
> Jim Hudspeth wrote:
>> >
>>
>> You can wonder all you want Ron, but "white collar" crime is a serious
>> matter.
>
> OK, I don't wonder. People who came up with "white color" were using it
> to attack capitalism.
Not exactly.
The term was coined by criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland sometime after
1939. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Sutherland was not particularly
adverse to capitalism.
> Crime is crime. The head of the big company
> needs to be treated exactly the same as the small criminal.
I strongly disagree. The head of a big company should be held to a higher
standard. So should the President.
>
> What is the mater, your auto mechanic doesn't have a trust relations
> ship. Sounds elitist to me.
What does my auto mechanic have to do with it?
If he used "white collar" means to rip off the public we would refer to him
as a "white collar" criminal, regardless of the color of his work clothes.
>
>
>> "White collar" crime generally involves not only a theft of property, but
>> also a "theft of trust". A loss of trust is (at least in my opinion) a
>> lot more serious that a loss of property.
>>
>> A skunk by any other name would smell the same.
>
> That is exactly what I'm saying: Crime is Crime, no modifying adjective
> is necessary.
We are both old enough to know that we attach modifiers to everything in
this country. It may or may not be necessary, but we do it anyway. It is
part of our way of life.
Ron Todd
Jim Hudspeth wrote:
I find your use of differentials totally unacceptable to my concept of
equal treatment under the law. We will have to agree to disagree.
BiddleLC
>equal treatment under the law. We will have to agree to disagree
If white collar criminals (or exectutive suite bandits, or whatever term
describing these types of crooks doesn't offend you) were treated the same
under the law as any other type of crook, there would be less of a problem.
I understand the Cover piece of Fortune magazine this week illustrates that
white collar criminals are certainly not treated equally to your working class
crook, for a variety of reasons.
A. Lucien Meyers
For one reason, they can afford good lawyers and accountants.
Often they have excellent connections. Money buys
influence.
A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA
--
If you receive this by error, please delete and inform sender.
www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption using pgp.
Jim Hudspeth
> bidd...@aol.com (BiddleLC):
>> >I find your use of differentials totally unacceptable to my concept of
>> >equal treatment under the law. We will have to agree to disagree
>>
>> If white collar criminals (or exectutive suite bandits, or whatever term
>> describing these types of crooks doesn't offend you) were treated the
>> same under the law as any other type of crook, there would be less of a
>> problem.
>>
>> I understand the Cover piece of Fortune magazine this week illustrates
>> that
>> white collar criminals are certainly not treated equally to your working
>> class crook, for a variety of reasons.
>
> For one reason, they can afford good lawyers and accountants.
> Often they have excellent connections. Money buys
> influence.
>
All true.
Which is part of the reason I believe that required standards of behavior
should be partly determined by the degree of trust and authority involved.
And yes, Ron, we can agree to disagree.
Ron Todd
BiddleLC wrote:
>
> >I find your use of differentials totally unacceptable to my concept of
> >equal treatment under the law. We will have to agree to disagree
>
> If white collar criminals (or exectutive suite bandits, or whatever term
> describing these types of crooks doesn't offend you) were treated the same
> under the law as any other type of crook, there would be less of a problem.
Yes, I agree with you 100%. As I read my constitution it is one rule of
law for all of the people, not we will treat these or those differently.
> I understand the Cover piece of Fortune magazine this week illustrates that
> white collar criminals are certainly not treated equally to your working class
> crook, for a variety of reasons.
Yes, and that needs to be changed. But you can not get it changed when
you have to keep arguing with people over this and that "special case."
Heck, a lawyer almost makes his living dreaming up special circumstances
to get around the law.
Ron Todd
the bench because people don't do their job.
"A. Lucien Meyers" wrote:
...
> For one reason, they can afford good lawyers and accountants.
> Often they have excellent connections. Money buys
> influence.
...
Christopher Browne
> "A. Lucien Meyers" wrote:
> ...
>> For one reason, they can afford good lawyers and accountants.
>> Often they have excellent connections. Money buys influence.
> Thats only because judges don't do their job. And those judges stay
> on the bench because people don't do their job.
Good counsel definitely beats nonexistent counsel; that's a remarkably
compelling difference on which changing judges' behaviour would have
little or no effect.
And the notion that richer folk tend to have better connections than
po' folk has been a factor in all kinds of societies throughout
history, and again hasn't anything forcibly to do with how judges do
their jobs.
There may well be cases where judges _aren't_ attempting objectivity,
but they could "do their jobs," and the biases will still be there,
and would still affect the outcomes of cases.
The things that "could be done" wouldn't forcibly improve things:
Tell judges "if they can afford lawyers, hit 'em harder" is like unto
saying "don't hire a lawyer, and you can get off easier!"
It's somewhat akin to the "race card" that sometimes pops out along
the lines of:
"I'm black; blacks have been discriminated against, so you have no
right to prosecute me!"
Which is not fundamamentally any better than the older history of
white lynchings of black folk getting ignored. Two wrongs do not make
a right...
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@canada.com")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/lisp.html
I always try to do things in chronological order.
Jim Hudspeth
> Ron Todd wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jim Hudspeth wrote:
>
>>> >
>>>
>>> You can wonder all you want Ron, but "white collar" crime is a serious
>>> matter.
>>
>> OK, I don't wonder. People who came up with "white color" were using it
>> to attack capitalism.
>
> Not exactly.
>
> The term was coined by criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland sometime after
> 1939. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Sutherland was not particularly
> adverse to capitalism.
>
>> Crime is crime. The head of the big company
>> needs to be treated exactly the same as the small criminal.
>
> I strongly disagree. The head of a big company should be held to a higher
> standard. So should the President.
>
>
---------- Copy / Paste snippet ---------
U.S. BUSINESS NEWS
FROM THE ARCHIVES: March 8, 2002
Bush Unveils Plan to Strengthen
Accountability for Corporations
By JACOB M. SCHLESINGER and MICHAEL SCHROEDER
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- Among the 10 in President Bush's modest plan for changing
corporate rules after the Enron Corp. collapse, one tough one could keep
corporate executives who commit fraud from ever again occupying the big
corner office.
"Reform should start at the top," Mr. Bush said to applause as he described
the idea to executives Thursday morning. The plan calls for corporate
officers -- from chief executives down to vice presidents -- to be barred
from serving in other publicly traded companies if they commit fraud or
other "abuses of power."
---------- Copy / Paste snippet ---------
Looks like our current president also thinks that those who would lead
should meet a higher standard.
Ron Todd
that are appointed to meet political objectives. The Supreme Court U.S.
does not stand much scrutiny either. Now or in the past.
State judges fit the same mold in California, I don't know about other
states.
County level are beauty contests except in strong party states.
IMHO, most of them should be impeached, but that is not going to happen.
Christopher Browne wrote:
...
> There may well be cases where judges _aren't_ attempting objectivity,
> but they could "do their jobs," and the biases will still be there,
> and would still affect the outcomes of cases.
...
Ron Todd
Different laws for different people. Like North Dakota, and most other
states, and its different laws for Indians.
Bush 43, as all of these professional politicians, has turned out to be
as much of a disappointment to me as Bush 41. He seems hell bent to
drive away the last vestige of support of us conservative republicans
who still believe in the Constitution.
--
Jim Hudspeth
> Kind of to hell with the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
> Different laws for different people.
I don't see it that way at all.
We already have laws that apply specifically to various privileged groups
for the protection of other groups. Examples would be:
Lawyers - Canons
Doctors - Medical Ethics
Accountants - Professional Standards
So far we don't force people to become executives of public companies.
When that changes and we start forcing people to become highly paid
business executives of public companies, I will come over to your argument
and agree with you.
> Like North Dakota, and most other states, and its different laws for
> Indians.
I have trouble with this also, but I don't know what to do about it. These
different laws are largely a result of treaties that were enacted in the
previous two centuries; treaties we (white people) commonly ignored until
recently.
I would not want to muddy the accounting waters with a discussion of treaty
rights.
>
> Bush 43, as all of these professional politicians, has turned out to be
> as much of a disappointment to me as Bush 41. He seems hell bent to
> drive away the last vestige of support of us conservative republicans
> who still believe in the Constitution.
That is not true at all.
Bush 43 has suddenly been forced to face the reality of the world we
actually live in. On a balance I think he is doing an excellent job.
That is not to say that all (or any) of us should fall in line and goose
step behind him. That would be a travesty. We very much need guys like
Tom Daschle to keep things in balance during this very dangerous period.
And yes, Ron, we will probably not agree.