Trump's America

[knapplc]

9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s funny to read an article about attorney negligence from that particular articles author.   If anyone is interested, just google Andrew Weissmann Arthur Anderson case.  Incompetence at its finest that destroyed 25,000 jobs in the process. 

 

And when you're done with that, read up on the crap Manafort, Papadopolous & Stone pulled for some real fun!

[Archy1221]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

And when you're done with that, read up on the crap Manafort, Papadopolous & Stone pulled for some real fun!

Manafort and Stone seem to be scummy people no doubt.  Trouble is no one seems to realize Weismann destroyed 25,000 families trying to make a name for himself and never paid a price for it which is shameful 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Manafort and Stone seem to be scummy people no doubt.  Trouble is no one seems to realize Weismann destroyed 25,000 families trying to make a name for himself and never paid a price for it which is shameful 

 

I'll never believe another of his articles ever again.

[Archy1221]

7 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Well it was 85 thousand, not 25 thousand.  If you're going to reminisce then you should get the numbers right.  Arthur Anderson WAS guilty of destroying Enron documents...they got off on a technicality.

 

That's normal stuff for a prosecuting attorney..they want a conviction when they bring a case forward and he got one...they just got lucky in the Supreme Court much later when their business was ruined by their own actions.

 

 

27,000 US jobs if I reminisce correctly.  Off by 2,000, pardon me.  
 

Please look back at the case.  Please look at what the indictments were for, Rehnquist’s opinion on the case, no criminal culpability.  It was a complete rebuke, Weismann knew he was doing shoddy work too.  He’s a disgrace. 

 

How about his work on the Merrill exec case.  Recommending defendant going to max security prison while on appeal???  12 of 14 accounts reversed and that deserved maximum security jail while fighting those 12 counts??

in the end AA didn’t just “get lucky in the Supreme Court” and the Merrill Execs didn’t deserve their fate either.  But Weismann keeps failing upwards. 

 

21 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

I'll never believe another of his articles ever again.

Good

[ZRod]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

27,000 US jobs if I reminisce correctly.  Off by 2,000, pardon me.  
 

Please look back at the case.  Please look at what the indictments were for, Rehnquist’s opinion on the case, no criminal culpability.  It was a complete rebuke, Weismann knew he was doing shoddy work too.  He’s a disgrace. 

 

How about his work on the Merrill exec case.  Recommending defendant going to max security prison while on appeal???  12 of 14 accounts reversed and that deserved maximum security jail while fighting those 12 counts??

in the end AA didn’t just “get lucky in the Supreme Court” and the Merrill Execs didn’t deserve their fate either.  But Weismann keeps failing upwards. 

 

Good

You're such a bulls#!t artists.

 

Arthur Anderson would have gone down from the WorldCom scandal even if they made it through Enron. Plus most of the partners created new companies almost immediately after they surrendered their license. Those jobs were never lost, they just moved to new companies or were absorbed by other existing companies. Minus Enron the need for that work formerly on their books didn't just vanish.

[Archy1221]

25 minutes ago, ZRod said:

You're such a bulls#!t artists.

 

Arthur Anderson would have gone down from the WorldCom scandal even if they made it through Enron. Plus most of the partners created new companies almost immediately after they surrendered their license. Those jobs were never lost, they just moved to new companies or were absorbed by other existing companies. Minus Enron the need for that work formally on their books didn't just vanish.

Your full of s#!t if you believe Arthur Anderson was prosecuted faithfully and in good conscious for the Enron scandal.  And whatever happened with WorldCom has nothing to do with Enron.  It’s like saying, well this guy was wrongfully convicted for murder and went to jail but he would have been there anyways because of his conviction for tax fraud 3 years later so it’s ok.  
 

Person A works for Arthur Anderson on Monday.  Company goes under Wednesday.  Person A loses job.  That’s called a lost job in the real world.  In your fantasy land it may not be but it is.  
 

l take it in your version of reality, all these Covid lost jobs aren’t really lost jobs because those people will be employed again at some point?  LOL
 

Person A may get employed the following week, the following month or the following year.  That would be a different job after losing the original job.  It’s a disruption for the employees and the families of the employees to lose a job un-expectantly.  Maybe the lived paycheck to paycheck.    

Unreal

[ZRod]

40 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Your full of s#!t if you believe Arthur Anderson was prosecuted faithfully and in good conscious for the Enron scandal.  And whatever happened with WorldCom has nothing to do with Enron.  It’s like saying, well this guy was wrongfully convicted for murder and went to jail but he would have been there anyways because of his conviction for tax fraud 3 years later so it’s ok.  
 

Person A works for Arthur Anderson on Monday.  Company goes under Wednesday.  Person A loses job.  That’s called a lost job in the real world.  In your fantasy land it may not be but it is.  
 

l take it in your version of reality, all these Covid lost jobs aren’t really lost jobs because those people will be employed again at some point?  LOL
 

Person A may get employed the following week, the following month or the following year.  That would be a different job after losing the original job.  It’s a disruption for the employees and the families of the employees to lose a job un-expectantly.  Maybe the lived paycheck to paycheck.    

Unreal

This wasn't the same as Pontiac Michigan going down the drain when GM left. Those jobs were literally lost for good. These people picked up and started at new companies or were absorbed into another company that purchased parts of the defunct company (never losing a job). That's all besides the point anyways.

 

 

It shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to understand the fact that if WorldCom pulled a similar stunt and AA was the auditing firm, yet again, there was probably some shady s#!t going on in the company. But wait there's more! AA was the auditing firm that signed off on Waste Management's books who just so happened to be inflating their financials. 3 times is a pattern for sure. Wouldn't you know though... It also happen with Sunbeam!!! Fool me 4 times...

 

These Partners and managers are the real people responsible for disrupting employees lives. Not a prosecuting attorney enforcing ethics and the law. Glad I read up on it per your advice.

[Archy1221]

5 minutes ago, ZRod said:

This wasn't the same as Pontiac Michigan going down the drain when GM left. Those jobs were literally lost for good. These people picked up and started at new companies or were absorbed into another company that purchased parts of the defunct company (never losing a job). That's all besides the point anyways.

 

 

It shouldn't take a rocket surgeon to understand the fact that if WorldCom pulled a similar stunt and AA was the auditing firm, yet again, there was probably some shady s#!t going on in the company. But wait there's more! AA was the auditing firm that signed off on Waste Management's books who just so happened to be inflating their financials. 3 times is a pattern for sure. Wouldn't you know though... It also happen with Sunbeam!!! Fool me 4 times...

 

These Partners and managers are the real people responsible for disrupting employees lives. Not a prosecuting attorney enforcing ethics and the law. Glad I read up on it per your advice.

You still don’t understand and are trying to justify a s#!t prosecution so a prosecutor can get a scalp vs prosecuting a company for illegal malfeasance.  AA was convicted of obstruction of justice for destroying files that they legally did not have to keep.  No subpoenas.  Weismann knew that. He combined multiple statutes to create one to get a shady conviction.  
 

The AA legacy WordCom audit committee did not know about certain cost entries and did not sign off on the audit knowing it was house of cards to show a Wall Street profit.  You act like they were complicit in the wrongdoing.  Should they have caught it?  Who knows, probably.   Doesn’t make it criminal behavior that they didn’t.   At worst it’s incompetent behavior. 
 

You know what other Auditing firms didn’t catch corporate accounting fraud? PWC, Earnest &Young, KPMG, Deloitte.  Pretty Big names.  They all represents companies who found their own scandals through internal audits and not through the auditing firms themselves.  
 

So an auditing company being convicted of a bogus crime is a death sentence for that company much more than being unable to uncover scandals that C level execs are trying to hide and cover up as shown by the those Big accounting firms still being in business. 
 

[ZRod]

10 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

You still don’t understand and are trying to justify a s#!t prosecution so a prosecutor can get a scalp vs prosecuting a company for illegal malfeasance.  AA was convicted of obstruction of justice for destroying files that they legally did not have to keep.  No subpoenas.  Weismann knew that. He combined multiple statutes to create one to get a shady conviction.  
 

The AA legacy WordCom audit committee did not know about certain cost entries and did not sign off on the audit knowing it was house of cards to show a Wall Street profit.  You act like they were complicit in the wrongdoing.  Should they have caught it?  Who knows, probably.   Doesn’t make it criminal behavior that they didn’t.   At worst it’s incompetent behavior. 
 

You know what other Auditing firms didn’t catch corporate accounting fraud? PWC, Earnest &Young, KPMG, Deloitte.  Pretty Big names.  They all represents companies who found their own scandals through internal audits and not through the auditing firms themselves.  
 

So an auditing company being convicted of a bogus crime is a death sentence for that company much more than being unable to uncover scandals that C level execs are trying to hide and cover up as shown by the those Big accounting firms still being in business. 
 

They paid over over $100 million dollars in settlements for WM and Sunbeam. They were fined $270 million in 2002 for the BFA scandal which I didn't even mention. The only reason they didn't have any reprocussions from WorldCom, or why no charges were persuade after the Supreme Court overturne the ruling for Enron is because the company was basically bunk. Why are we giving a company who was routinely involved in large scandals at the end of it's life costing investors hundreds of millions of dollars the benefit of the doubt? There was clearly something rotten in Denmark.

 

Not to mention the other firms you brought up apprentlty are at best D+ students as well. Good Lord this is rotten.

Big Four accounting firms bungle a third of US audits but are rarely fined

[Archy1221]

44 minutes ago, ZRod said:

They paid over over $100 million dollars in settlements for WM and Sunbeam. They were fined $270 million in 2002 for the BFA scandal which I didn't even mention. The only reason they didn't have any reprocussions from WorldCom, or why no charges were persuade after the Supreme Court overturne the ruling for Enron is because the company was basically bunk. Why are we giving a company who was routinely involved in large scandals at the end of it's life costing investors hundreds of millions of dollars the benefit of the doubt? There was clearly something rotten in Denmark.

 

Not to mention the other firms you brought up apprentlty are at best D+ students as well. Good Lord this is rotten.

Big Four accounting firms bungle a third of US audits but are rarely fined

All of that is correct, and it makes one wonder what the hell these auditing firms actually do.  
 

It still doesn’t change the fact that Weismann prosecuted AA for a made up charge that the Supreme Court decided 9-0 (that’s zero dissents) was uncalled for which was my ORIGINAL point.  That conviction was what made AA go under.  Not their incompetence.  
 

 Weismann is a terrible human being and belongs nowhere near a discussion on legal competency or legal ethics.  

[Archy1221]

49 minutes ago, ZRod said:

 

Not to mention the other firms you brought up apprentlty are at best D+ students as well. Good Lord this is rotten.

 

I brought up those other firms to show exactly this.  Incompetence in this industry doesn’t seem to equate to losing a business or going out of business.  The charge and illegal conviction of the company did.  

[ZRod]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I brought up those other firms to show exactly this.  Incompetence in this industry doesn’t seem to equate to losing a business or going out of business.  The charge and illegal conviction of the company did.  

You're trying to make an argument about a complete unknown. We'll never know if they would have been convicted on destroying evidence. The chargers aren't made up. Obstruction of Justice is a real thing, and it should have been up to the jury (with proper instruction) to make the determination of whether or not they were guilty.

 

These companies should be scared of going out of buisness if they screw up. I can get fired, sued, go to jail if I screw up. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

 

[Archy1221]

18 minutes ago, ZRod said:

You're trying to make an argument about a complete unknown. We'll never know if they would have been convicted on destroying evidence. The chargers aren't made up. Obstruction of Justice is a real thing, and it should have been up to the jury (with proper instruction) to make the determination of whether or not they were guilty.

 

These companies should be scared of going out of buisness if they screw up. I can get fired, sued, go to jail if I screw up. Why shouldn't they be held to the same standard?

 

They were charged with obstruction for destroying documents when there was no subpoenas to keep them.  
 

the charges were for knowingly and corruptly Persuading to change or alter documents in a legal proceeding.   AA didn’t do this.  The documents were destroyed in accordance with their document retention policy which I don’t believe was ever under scrutiny with being illegal.  Convicting of knowingly and fraudulently destroying evidence when persons within the company are destroying documents within company guidelines and no government subpoena is probably not gonna happen. 
As you stated, the instructions were nowhere near the actual charges.  It is a pretty far leap to say a conviction would have take place with adequate jury instructions.  
 

Once the conviction took place, AA had to surrender it’s CPA license since it could no longer audit public companies.  Hence it goes out of business.  

[ZRod]

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

They were charged with obstruction for destroying documents when there was no subpoenas to keep them.  
 

the charges were for knowingly and corruptly Persuading to change or alter documents in a legal proceeding.   AA didn’t do this.  The documents were destroyed in accordance with their document retention policy which I don’t believe was ever under scrutiny with being illegal.  Convicting of knowingly and fraudulently destroying evidence when persons within the company are destroying documents within company guidelines and no government subpoena is probably not gonna happen. 
As you stated, the instructions were nowhere near the actual charges.  It is a pretty far leap to say a conviction would have take place with adequate jury instructions.  
 

Once the conviction took place, AA had to surrender it’s CPA license since it could no longer audit public companies.  Hence it goes out of business.  

 

 

 

Does any of the below quote sound above board? You can't use a retention policy to knowingly destroy evidence of misdeeds, especially when you have an idea that an investigation could be pending, or in this case we're actually notified. This isn't enforcing a policy, it's using it to knowingly destroy incriminating documents.

 

Petitioner is Arthur Andersen in this case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZO.html

Quote

On October 16, Enron announced its third quarter results. That release disclosed a $1.01 billion charge to earnings.5 The following day, the SEC notified Enron by letter that it had opened an investigation in August and requested certain information and documents. On October 19, Enron forwarded a copy of that letter to petitioner.

 

On the same day, Temple also sent an e-mail to a member of petitioner’s internal team of accounting experts and attached a copy of the document policy. On October 20, the Enron crisis-response team held a conference call, during which Temple instructed everyone to “[m]ake sure to follow the [document] policy.” Brief for United States 7 (brackets in original). On October 23, Enron CEO Lay declined to answer questions during a call with analysts because of “potential lawsuits, as well as the SEC inquiry.” Ibid. After the call, Duncan met with other Andersen partners on the Enron engagement team and told them that they should ensure team members were complying with the document policy. Another meeting for all team members followed, during which Duncan distributed the policy and told everyone to comply. These, and other smaller meetings, were followed by substantial destruction of paper and electronic documents.

 

On October 26, one of petitioner’s senior partners circulated a New York Times article discussing the SEC’s response to Enron. His e-mail commented that “the problems are just beginning and we will be in the cross hairs. The marketplace is going to keep the pressure on this and is going to force the SEC to be tough.” Id., at 8. On October 30, the SEC opened a formal investigation and sent Enron a letter that requested accounting documents.

 

Throughout this time period, the document destruction continued, despite reservations by some of petitioner’s managers.6 On November 8, Enron announced that it would issue a comprehensive restatement of its earnings and assets. Also on November 8, the SEC served Enron and petitioner with subpoenas for records. On November 9, Duncan’s secretary sent an e-mail that stated: “Per Dave–No more shredding… . We have been officially served for our documents.” Id., at 10. Enron filed for bankruptcy less than a month later. Duncan was fired and later pleaded guilty to witness tampering.

 

[Archy1221]

33 minutes ago, ZRod said:

 

 

 

Does any of the below quote sound above board? You can't use a retention policy to knowingly destroy evidence of misdeeds, especially when you have an idea that an investigation could be pending, or in this case we're actually notified. This isn't enforcing a policy, it's using it to knowingly destroy incriminating documents.

 

Petitioner is Arthur Andersen in this case.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZO.html

 

Supreme Court disagrees via 9-0 verdict on your assessment. 
Via CNN Law Center. 
“At issue for the court was whether the wording of jury instructions were improperly vague. Maureen Mahoney, attorney for Andersen, told the justices the government used improper legal definitions that made it impossible for the defendants to get a fair verdict.

The disagreement hinged on whether the term "corruptly persuading," contained in federal criminal statutes, in this case means "having an improper purpose ... to subvert, undermine, or impede" when it relates to obstruction of justice and witness tampering. The various legal standards of "criminal intent" were at the heart of Andersen's appeal.

In the ruling, Rehnquist noted prosecutors should have been more careful in its pursuit of Andersen. 

"Such restraint is particularly appropriate here, where the act underlying the conviction -- 'persuasion' -- is by itself innocuous. Indeed, 'persuading' a person 'to withhold' testimony from a government proceeding, or government official is not inherently malign," Rehnquist wrote.”