<p>California by being so anti-power plant put itself in a weak position of having to import tons of electricity–that’s the point. Enron took advantage but the state created the potential problem.</p>
<p>POTENTIAL problem, the world is FULL of potential problems</p>
<p>So its okay to force small businesses to shut down, people postpone surgeries, have to throw out food, kids work in the dark</p>
<p>So what potential…</p>
<p>“Enron took advantage but the state created the potential problem.”</p>
<p>Sounds like blaming the victim to me. Lay cut his teeth as a federal regulator, then moved to the private sector when Pres. Reagan made it possible for those into oil mergers and acquisitions to roll around in the moolah!</p>
<p>to remind us what they did
<a href=“http://www.cheappower.org/pge_fleecing.htm[/url]”>http://www.cheappower.org/pge_fleecing.htm</a></p>
<p>The Republican mantra:</p>
<p>It’s always someone else’s fault.</p>
<p>(And I thought they were all about “personal responsibility”…)</p>
<p>No, as Skilling says, it was about “fighting the good fight”. (HUH? where does he come off? I think they should sentence him to teach - in prison garb of course - in some fourth rate MBA program - after they harvest his liver and kidney, of course.;))</p>
<p>It’s not an excuse, just a fact. California needs to meet more of its own energy needs. Don’t count on Washington having excess power to sell for long. The salmon problem might mean getting rid of some major power plants. But we digress.</p>
<p>Okay. My verdict: CA was foolish, Enron was criminal. As I said in the Duke thread, stupidity is not a crime (though it may turn out that the Duke AV is guilty of false accusation).</p>
<p>Send them to Gitmo.</p>
<p>Too good for 'em. They’ve injured far more people, and were a far greater danger to national security.</p>
<p>Why did the judge let 'em out? Aren’t they a flight risk?</p>
<p>Did anyone see the documentary about Enron? I think it was called “The Smartest Guys in the Room” or something like that. Good movie, but nauseating. You might not put so much blame on California if you see it. After all, California doesn’t have black-outs and brown-outs now, do they? And I don’t think they built a bunch of power plants in the interim.</p>
<p>Correct -California did begin allowing new plants after Enron. It was prior that none were built for 10 years.( I did not know about the change, but just checked and found the facts). Maybe some good came out of this disaster after all.</p>
<p>“I firmly believe I’m innocent of the charges against me,” Lay said following the hearing. “We believe that God in fact is in control and indeed he does work all things for good for those who love the lord.”</p>
<p>So, what does that mean? It was good he was convicted? He doesn’t love the Lord because he was convicted? Or he will be found innocent on appeal becauase he loves the Lord?</p>
<p>I find it amazing that so many of your know so little about the charges and the particulars of the evidence yet you so quickly confirm the jury’s verdicts. You love the outcome because investors lost money in the Enron fall and/or you blame them for the failed California energy policy. I have followed this case enough to know that the law is very complex (ever heard of Reg. U?), the facts are uncertain and based on testimony “bought” by the government. I have no idea whether these guys are guilty of crimes, but I do know none of you know either.</p>
<p>Please, they are guilty as sin…sure its complex, but the jurors were smart enough to figure it out</p>
<p>You think they are innocent of any illegal acts?</p>
<p>Enron FALL? Nice way of putting it…fall implies accident, and this was no accident</p>
<p>And regardless of California’s energy policy, these guys ripped people off, stole millions broke numerous laws, and now they will pay. “bought” buy the government? Gee, guess money couldn’t get them OUT of their mess</p>
<p>Good</p>
<p>And yes, I understand the case, I am not clueless as you implied some of us posters are, yes some of us are as smart as you are</p>
<p>And they thought they would get away with it.</p>
<p>Most organized crime trials require the government to turn some of the insiders to testify. It is neither nefarious nor unethical. And it works.</p>
<p>
I didn’t name names, but if the shoe fits …</p>
<p>
So you are saying you understood Reg. U PRIOR to your post? </p>
<p>
Yes, the ends justify the means.</p>
<p>How much money do these guys have buried? Have they been totally wiped out financially or are there still assets from the plunder that could be divided up among from former Enron employees, shareholders, the state of CA and anyone else who was damaged by their actions? Where do their wives and children live? I say take everything they have or have put in other peoples’ names. Take it from their wives, children, friends, lawyers, accountants and divvy it up. Don’t even bother to send them to jail. Or let them choose between going to jail or having to support themselves making a modest income. Leave them nothing, put a cap on their earnings of $50K and anything over that amount goes directly to the US Treasury. Probably unconstitutional, but hey it’s a thought.</p>