Talk:Kenneth Lay

Kenneth Lay’s brother Keith Lay was the principal of Upper Bucks Christian School in Sellersville, PA beginning July 12, 1988.

Career history

A curriculum vitae should contain only positive events that enhance someone's possibility of securing a new job. There are entries in Lay's "C.V." that clearly go against the definition. Perhaps change the title to "biographical timeline" or remove the negative events. 67.80.122.91 16:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC) " "Kenneth Lay learned favor-trading and influence peddling in the early ‘70s as a federal energy regulator. By the Reagan administration, when energy was deregulated, Kenneth Lay was already an energy company executive and he took advantage of the new climate by merging Houston Natural Gas Co. with Nebraska-based Inter-North"

Ken Lay did NOT start the company known as Enron Corp. I began when Internorth bought Ken Lays company Houston Natural Gas which was a much smaller and less diversified company and they did so as a "poison pill" to make Internorth a less attractive takeover target by Irwin Jacobs. All Lay did was change the name to make it appear like a new company. The 1985 annual report covers this. It shows Ken Lay's predecessor. Sam Segnar as Enron CEO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.103.142 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

How is this NPOV? Who is to say where Kenneth Lay "learned influence peddling"? This is not proven and merely someone subjective POV. It should be removed. Abacab 21:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Expand

This article needs to be expanded, a lot of the negative things are being deleted because they're not sourced. --Awiseman 15:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Don't forget, the NPOV tutorial says to add information to make the article NPOV - not delete.

BmikeSci 21:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

Bush relationship

Lay's relationship to the President and to Republican campaign finance is well-established, as is Bush's 'Kenny Boy' nickname. This is highly encyclopedic material. Please don't delete. Sandover 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

current event tag

Is this still a current event? The verdict is in, nothing is happening til sentencing, at which point the article will need a small update. Some of the article background still needs to be filled in, but that's about documenting events of the past, not current happenings. Maybe the current event tag should be removed. Phr (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Beta Theta Pi dispute

There is currently a dispute over the following trivia item:

• Lay recruited fellow Beta Theta Pi fraternity brother Jeffrey Skilling to work at Enron.

Rather than continue to edit war, let's discuss the item here and try to come to some sort of consensus. -- MisterHand 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Lay recruited Skilling. That can be verified. No problem there. However, no one has been able to verify that their happening to belong to the same named fraternity (although at completely different times and at completely different schools) had anything to do with the recruitment. The two shared many things in common that aren't mentioned because they are not relevant to the situation. They both have worn suits yet there is no mention that Lay recruited fellow suit-wearer Skilling. They both drink liquids and eat food yet there is no mention of this. Why? Because it is not important. If someone can show that the membership in the same named fraternity had anything to do with it then fine. If not, then it doesn't belong. Rrude 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Just state the facts and leave personal opinions out of it. All we know is that (1) they are both members of the same fraternity, and (2) Lay recruited Skilling. Undoubtedly, Lay probably hired Skilling for a whole host of reasons, i.e. (1) Skilling's work at McKinsey, (2) Skilling's supposed knowledge of the gas industry, (3) Skilling's ability to get along with Lay and other senior Enron management, and, who knows, maybe that they were both members of Beta Theta Pi was sort of like the icing on the cake. We don't know. Therefore, keep speculation out of Wikipedia. Just state the bare facts and nothing else. Let a member of the public or a reporter investigate this coincidence further if they wish. But keep personal opinion and biases out of Wikipedia.
• Then omit this preducial fact. It is you that's trying to impose a personal opinion. Wahkeenah 09:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• No, omit prejudicial OPINIONS, but just keep the facts. Nothing more than the facts. Your problem is that you don't like the facts. I understand this, but you shouldn't be trying to impose a personal opinion. The facts are the facts.
• "Stating this fact" is your attempt to impose your personal opinion and compel people to draw inferences. You have already stated as much in your earlier comments. I would just like to know why you feel this is so important to bring up. Wahkeenah 10:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Career highlights

Does "2006: Died from a heart attack" really need to be listed under career highlights? His death is referenced twice already in the article. Nick22aku 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Who Wrote This?

[Comment removed by GChriss 22:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)] I'm taking this out immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.171.111 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Death

Is he really dead? I think not. Don't forget, this is one of the craftiest dudes of the modern era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.170.60 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The son of a bitch got away with it. Holy shit. Wandering Star 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Heart attack, not suicide. 69.17.67.11 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC) <- Heart Attack reported by Fox / MSNBC. Only info from CNN is admission to hospital with massive coronary.

July 5th or July 4th? <- July 5th by all news accounts (Early Wednesday)

Does anyone know what happened to the body? This guy is tricky. All the money is gone, now he's gone. Maybe he got some tetrodotoxin and faked his death.

Yeah I don't believe he's dead. John D'Adamo 21:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe he's dead either. However, Bush doubtless would have pardoned Lay come January 20, 2009. Watch him pardon Dennis Kozlowski, as well as a ton of other white collar crooks, at that time. Adambomb1701 (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't jump to conclusions on this. I merely point this out as a possibility and ask if anyone knows about the process of how the body was treated. Has it been cremated, etc.

I strongly suspect that as soon as they heard of this, the FBI was there (probably with their own doctor) to confirm that (a) Mr. Lay was indeed not only merely dead, or mostly dead, but completely, actually dead, and (b) that the late Mr. Lay has the same fingerprints and other i.d. as they guy who they booked after he was indicted. Under the circumstances, one would hope that is what they did. Obviously the FBI doesn't want to read in the newspapers in a few months, or years, about Ken Lay living it up in some exotic locale with which the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty. 6SJ7 21:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What would the FBI have to do with it? This case falls under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff and coroner and the U.S. Marshals Service.L0b0t 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would you think that the FBI would do a better job than FEMA? They are both under George Bush's cabinet. The FBI is the arm of the department of justice. That not withstanding, speculation is only helpful if it leads to research. Can you findout if the FBI investigated the body?

Wow, I almost feel cheated that he didn't get to go to prison and drop the soap... ;-;

I think Ken is living on his own private Island. C'mon! With that much money how easy it would be to pay people off and go live in peace. He could EASILY buy dental records, pay to have them made, then pay to have a similar size3/style corpse take his place while he jumped on his private jet (registered under someone elses name) and he is LIVIN' large off of your retirment funds. Don't be so naive, he pulled one over on us all! Let's look for him, I suspect in the south Pacific. Good luck, Ken sure doesn't need it.

Here's a link to a good article by Bloomberg. It discusses how this death greatly complicates the governments ability to retrieve monies owed:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aASpbBYcDe2w&refer=worldwide_news

It also mentions the the county Web site by Joe DiSalvo, director of investigations for the Pitkin County sheriff's office.

Additionally it mentions Dr. Robert Kurtzman, the Mesa County coroner.

It also states that Toxicology tests are still being run on Lay's body.

I also found a referrence to the Furnam Holt Funeral Home in Greenwood. Perhaps they can state if lay will be cremated.

Here's the autopsy report: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/ (not exactly detailed)

Yup He's being cremated accordint to abc news 13: "Ken Lay's family says the Enron founder will be cremated and buried in Colorado, and not in Houston, where he rose to the top of the business world, only to be eventually convicted of conspiracy and fraud."

Is that normal for his faith?

BmikeSci 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

• Don't know, but it is ironic that he once had money to burn. Maybe they will kindle the fire with Enron stock certificates. Wahkeenah 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My god this man got away with it, I feel angry. This is complete BS. Hempeater 16:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

my father was one of the people laid off from enron in late 2001. he worked very closely with ken lay on some projects while he was with the company. this talk about ken lay still alive is ludicrous. however, the way he died is questionable. i mean, now that he is dead his family gets to keep the house, money, etc. but was it really a heart attack or a suicide? and dont autopsies usually take several weeks?--Sesloan 01:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't get away with anything. He still has Hell to look forward to. Charles 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting NYT's article on faking death for insurance claims: http://www.pallorium.com/ARTICLES/art01.html

It seems a lot of people seem to find faking their own deaths profitable - and they do it without the President as a close personal friend.

BTW, the choice of hempeater as a wikiname is great. A CIA sockpuppet couldn't pick a more slanted wikiname. Almost as good as TAXMAN in the GWB article.

BMIKESCI 23:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

Allen Wastler wrote a comentary about the front page article for the NY Post, "Before they put Cheato Lay's coffin in the grave, check he's in it." He states that people should not worry about this but worry about how Ken Lay's family is sufferring. He labels conspiracy theorists as "fringe." Nevertheless, what this "conspiracy theory" shows is how little faith people have in the far right. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. - to almost quote George W. Bush.

Should we start a section on consipracy theories in the article?

BmikeSci 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Bmikesci

• It's heartbreaking to hear how much Lay's family is suffering at their vacation home in Colorado. The Enron employees, who lost their 401K's and had to sell their houses and go work for Wal*Mart to make ends meet, are especially saddened by his passing. Wahkeenah 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone from Eron spoken about how sad they are over the death of J. Clifford Baxter? Here's an interesting link re: his "suicide:"

http://www.hereinreality.com/autopsy.html

Here's a CBS news article too:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/10/eveningnews/main505845.shtml

BMIKESCI

BMIKESCI

I wouldn't mind more discussion in the article on conspiracy theories. I note that, because Lay died at such a convenient time - i.e. while his appeal was pending, his conviction was vacated, which inhibited any confiscation of his ill-gotten assets and prevented punitive damages. In other words, the convenient timing of Ken's death meant a much bigger inheritance by his grieving widow. A difference of more than $20Million. If Ken had lived, his appeal would surely have failed, he'd go to prison far aaway and Mrs. Lay would have been living in one very modest apartment. For people without a conscience, it's a no-brainer. Sussmanbern (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support a section on conspiracy theories -- the autopsy took place very quickly, and his remains are being cremated. There appear to be a good number of people who are questioning if it was a suicide or a government cover up. He was a good friend of Bush, so you never know. I hope I don't sound too heartless (no pun intended) about this, for all I know, it's probably a legitimate heart attack. But the conspiracy theories were in abundance when Ron Brown and Vince Foster died during the Clinton Administration. APSeek 12:43, (EDT) 7 July 2006

No. For one thing, conspiracy theories are inherently POV. They do not represent fact, merely conjecture. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not for conjectures. Make mention of the timing of Lay's death in the article, and the fact that this means he will never have the charges officially tied to his name. But to state that his death was a hoax without any solid facts is to contradict the very purpose of Wikipedia. Wandering Star 03:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do it. It will distract some of these characters from the Apollo "hoax" page for awhile. Wahkeenah 05:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is too early too add a section on the conspiracy theories. Instead the dust should be allowed to settle and only then should a determination be made. It is possible that Ken Lay will become like Elvis with reports that he is still living in far flung tropical regions for decades to come. It is even more likely that the whole field of speculation will soon be dropped entirely by all but the more extreme fringes of society. Until we known which way things shake out there is nothing to be written without resorting to original research. --Allen3 ^talk 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dust? Allowed to settle? Shake out? I understand he is/was to be cremated. I like your highly appropriate plays on words. :) Wahkeenah 04:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a feeling it should be a separate article, but as long as there are actual sources citing someone's conspiracy theory (book, magazine/newspaper column, blog, other website) and not people putting their own theories in the article, then I don't see any issues with presenting a neutral POV. The JFK assassination has its own conspiracy theory article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_theories), so I don't see anything wrong with the Lay article having one as well.--Undertow87 12:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article from the frontpage of the NYT on faked deaths: http://www.pallorium.com/ARTICLES/art01.html

It seems that people do it all the time to put in phoney insurance claims - and most of them don't have the US President calling them Kenny-boy.

Also, re: hempeater, if you were a CIA sockpuppet, you couldn't have picked a better wikiname:-)

• why would his name make a good CIA sockpuppet? Is this a reference to something? Like "Deepthroat"? I'm not getting it. HiS oWn 16:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

BMIKESCI 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• It would be interesting to find out if there is a correlation between the rise in faked deaths and the rise in gasoline prices. Wahkeenah 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If Not Heart Attack, Suicide is Most Probable

Lay may have been seriously ill, and he may have been told that, if he died, the conviction would be erased. We cannot overlook the possibility that he put two and two together and decided to hasten his own death.

The existing article contains a very naive comment. At one point, it discounts the possibility of a certain illness because it was never disclosed. Wake up, author! This Texas crook was convicted of lying and defrauding people. Merely because something was not disclosed does not mean it is false!

130.13.2.104 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)John Paul Parks, Scottsdale, Arizona130.13.2.104 11:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Death Not From Heart Attack

As my correction was removed from the article, I'll leave my comment here rather than enter an edit war: Lay did not die of a heart attack and the early reports that he died from a heart attack were presumptive. Many subsequent news articles retained this assertion, often only in the headlines. The autopsy report concluded that the cause of death was coronary artery disease and indicated evidence of a previous heart attack. I won't elaborate here on the differences, as all readers here know how to use Google or consult experts on the differences. danorton 2006-07-18 03:02:36 UTC

Reuters article (from Yahoo)

Guys this article has just earned itself a news story. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060705/wr_nm/enron_lay_wikipedia_dc_2 --Gdo01 18:22, July 5, 2006 (UTC)

I think that the yahoo article attack on confusion doesn't take into account that all edits are available in the article as a constraint of the software. I wonder if multiple people worked on the yahoo article. Did it pass by an editor? If so, it was all behind the scenes - all their "confusion" is hidden. With wikipedia the whole process is transparent. I would love to be a bug on the wall for NYT story meetings, but that's not going to happen. if you want to see the whole process, you have to come here - to wikipedia."

Should we add that article as a cited news source? I'll add it in but you could remove it if there is a problem Loompyloompy313 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of funny that Reuters has a reporter clicking through the edit history of a Wikipedia article so they can have an article about how Wikipedia got the facts wrong in a fast-breaking story. It is true that people on here sometimes jump the gun, but at least a portion of erroneous information probably came from speculation in the "real media" itself. Also, someone might remind Reuters of such proud moments in breaking news as:

• "Dewey beats Truman"
• "James Brady Dead," or from the same incident, "President Reagan escapes injury in assassination attempt" (Both of those were corrected by the next day's newspapers, but I heard both of those reports on the radio that day.)
• "Gore Wins Florida" (Of course, that one turned to actually be true, but that's another issue.) 6SJ7 23:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fallacies of logic

One of the most common forms of ignorantio elenchi is the “Red Herring.” A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue; Examples: “Senator Jones should not be held accountable for cheating on his income tax. After all, there are other senators who have done far worse things.” “I should not pay a fine for reckless driving. There are many other people on the street who are dangerous criminals and rapists, and the police should be chasing them, not harassing a decent tax-paying citizen like me.” Certainly, worse criminals do exist, but that it is another issue! The question at hand is, did the speaker drive recklessly, and should he pay a fine for it? Another similar example of the red herring is the fallacy known as Tu Quoque (Latin for "And you too!"), which asserts that the advice or argument must be false simply because the person presenting the advice doesn't follow it herself. Example: "Reverend Jeremias claims that theft is wrong, but how can theft be wrong if Jeremias himself admits he stole objects when he was a child?"

6SJ7, the news medias past follies does not make wikipedia's follies any less or any greater. Travb (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but the point about the ironic media smugness is well-taken. Oh, by the way, Gore didn't win Florida. Kirchherr 03:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Reuters article doesn't cite this article as a "news source." It takes this article as the SUBJECT of its news -- a different thing! Maybe the history page is better described as the "news source." At any rate, I wouldn't use the standard tag in this instance. --Christofurio 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Reuter's article, the error was cleared up in six minutes and the factually inaccurate info on the cause of death was labeled as uncertain within two minutes. I'm not sure how that qualifies for an entire article with a subtitle of "'Free encyclopedia' format can lead to misinformation." It sounds like good work to me. My compliments to this article's editors for getting the facts straight very quickly. --Aranae 02:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That article blows. They obviously went looking through the history for vandalism. The disputed edits in question were visible for seconds. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Going back and reading old pages, which may take longer than the page itself was visible, is a very different experience than "real-time" Wikipedia. 6SJ7 18:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But aren't we after all an encyclopedia not a newspaper? Why would anyone care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by L0b0t (talk • contribs)

Sign your posts using ~~~~

Thanks, Travb (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What about kenlaylives.blogspot.com -- good satire mixed with legitimate speculation. The blog got cited by the UK Telegraph and others. Very funny, very interesting. KEN LAY LIVES!!!

Slashdotted... http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/07/10/2224223.shtml

Reuters slams Wikipedia for being confused, then reveals they got confused as well --http://www.jasonunger.com/2006/07/10/the-irony-reuters-slams-wikipedias-credibility-issues-own-correction/ --Undertow87 11:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be an appropriate place to write... PWN3D R3U73RS!!!!!11! (Had to be done).--Planetary 08:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

People say stupid things on talk pages from time to time, particularly on newsworthy topics. I don't see that protection for this talk page is warranted and I think it should be removed. Also, at least some of the comments removed by ⟳ausa کui were borderline relevant to discussion of the article content. --Saforrest 19:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

---Well, it should be protected very soon, this article is about to go live on slashdot..

I just wanted to write a personal about how much I loved learning from Ken who I always insisted on calling to his delight Mr. Lay. He was a great guy and I hope his story will be told. I miss my mentor so much. The world of business and phianthropy was so touched by him. Enron's real story has to get out. Did it ever occur to you that f@cking book could have caused the downfall of our genius enterprise. There are always risks in business. And the book is fundamentally flawed on that behalf. Please read his list of what he joined as, for example, the Navy. A vet. A hero. I offer my condolences to his lovely wife, kids and grandchildren. May he always live in our souls. Amen, sir.

75.204.243.19 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Sarah Jean Margolis, Fmr. Operations Officer, Central Intelligence Agency, 1994-2009 Expert in intelligence anaysis, gathering, counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, administration, special operations, covert activities. NOTE: Operations Officer are a covert role in CIA that infiltrate companies, tell the president they are there and get a job if they have business aptitude, which I did. See INSIDE THE CIA available on amazon.com.

Abatement in pleading

I'd like to wikilink the word "abated" in the "death" section to the Abatement in pleading article, but the target article doesn't seem complete. Is it? Would it be a proper wikilink? mdf 20:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Abatement

I don't see any reporting that abatement of the conviction has occurred. I agree that the precedent cited stands for the proposition that abatement will be the likely outcome. However, it is original research. We should not report here that there is an abatement based on that research, but instead wait until it occurs in United States v. Lay. Castellanet 00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, let's not say now Lay's conviction "will be" abated, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The result will come, give it time. Castellanet 20:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The text is original research. The result seems likely, but it hasn't happened yet. Let's remove it for the time being. RolandStJude 05:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not seem to be original research. All legal scholars commenting on this issues, as quoted, agree it will happen as a mere formality once the papers are filed. See source referenced in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Josephf (talk • contribs)

Thanks for writing to the talk page. The source cited confirms that the "mere formality" has not yet occurred. Again, let's not get ahead of the story, speculate, and be inaccurate. If you want to push it, reflect what the source said, that analysts agree that after a motion is filed there will be abatement. Yes, all the analysts agree, but they are not lawyers in the case, and they could be wrong. I understand the frustration with Lay's untimely death. Castellanet 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The cited legal scholars consider it a given. Modified terminology to reflect such. I believe this language reflects the current status of the deceased.Josephf 09:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Busjack, the current wording of the article overstates the situation. I don't think it accurately reflects the NYT article that it cites. The NYT article itself quoted some lawyers by name and gave their affiliations: "Roma Theus, vice chairman of the corporate integrity and white collar crime committee of the Chicago-based Defense Research Institute" (i.e. someone with an organization devoted to spinning things in favor of defendants) and "David Berg, a Houston civil litigator," another advocate, who maybe doesn't have a clear agenda. I think the Wikipedia article should be worded more precisely. Phr (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone explain why there should be an abatement at all? Lay died before he completed his appeals, but an appeal means an argument that the trial judge made legal errors. Appeals don't try issues of fact or hear new evidence, so nothing about them requires Lay to participate and I don't see why he needs to be alive for one. Therefore, I would have thought that it's now up to his estate to pursue any possible appeals, and unless they do that, any penalties (including financial) imposed at sentencing should stand. If the estate's appeal results in the trial being invalidated, then we can talk about abatement since we can't retry a dead defendant. But I would have thought any appeal unlikely to succeed if Lay were alive, so I don't see why his successors should get the benefits of an automatic appelate victory just because Lay happened to die at a convenient moment. Phr (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your question presumes that the abatement is a matter of right versus wrong. It is instead a matter of legal precedent and procedure. So the simple answer to your question is that the abatement should occur because that was the state of the legal system's defined policies and procedures at the time of Lay's death. It is when you confuse the difference between doing the right thing versus doing what is legal that a problem occurs. As a side note, you are correct that the timing was very convenient for Lay's estate and heirs. --Allen3 ^talk 15:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The policies/procedures/precedents are what they are for a reason. I'm asking what the reason is. The logic as usually stated goes something like: 1) the defendant can't be punished until proven guilty; 2) unless all appeals are exhausted, he's not really proven guilty; 3) since he's dead, he can't pursue appeals; therefore we have to act as if the appeals went in his favor. But I see a gap in the logic: maybe he can't be tried if he's dead (he has the right to face his accusers etc), but that doesn't apply to appeals, which don't involve testimony and can be handled entirely by his lawyers. So I'd say the trial decision should stand unless the estate's appeal results in a remand, at which point maybe he gets the presumption of winning the new trial. Oh well, I wonder if there's some chance of prosecuting him in the 9th circuit (Calif) where the precedents may be different. Phr (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The theory is that there is no judgment until there is sentencing, and then the defendant may appeal a final order, since the appeal encompasses not only guilt but the sentence. However, as my prior comment, below, indicates, I'm not convinced that the jury finding would not have some collateral estoppel consequence (probably, more correctly, claim preclusion), since Lay was given a "full and fair opportunity" to litigate. I think the cited Slate article is wrong that there also has to be an appeal to be a final judgment. More analysis would take digging through legal sources, like Wright & Miller's Federal Practice and Procedure. --Busjack 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My criticism of the abatement point is that prior versions stated that the case had abated, with certain definite consequences, and while some cases cited indicated that the government had agreed to abate a conviction of a person who subsequently died, there was nothing definite about the collateral consequences (such as whether there would be an estoppel in later civil actions). Working in the legal publishing industry (and having watched the O.J. debacle), I know that (1) the only legal support for a legal statement is a citation to a statute or rule, or to a court decision on point resolving a contested matter, and (2) one can always find a legal pundit to support any argument. Thus, the only verifiable statement (and Wikipedia requires that statements be verifiable) based on the news articles cited is that "experts say... ." For instance, this case may be of such importance to the government that it may go to the Supreme Court, in which case Fifth Circuit precedent would not be controlling, if it conflicts with that of some other Circuit. While there is no doubt that sentence can no longer be pronounced, nor the corpse incarcerated, I think it is preferable to wait for the collateral civil law and forfeiture consequences until the eventual court rulings in those cases. --Busjack 16:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to the editors above for working out accurate statements on abatement. For me the key here is that abatement has not yet been formalized, so it has not happened. There is a reason for the formal process in that prosecutors have that opportunity to challenge such a determination in this case. As Busjack mentions, the Fifth Circuit rule could be overturned (however unlikely). As for the current text of the article, it is now accurate, in the sense there are no speculative statements, but it is quite difficult to read. It needs a careful edit to make it both read well and be accurate. Any takers? Castellanet 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It now looks like abatement is disputed, as cited by another editor in the article. Although I couldn't verify the link in the article, the news was widely reported such as in USA Today. So this needs a clean up, I will edit when time allows. Thanks. Castellanet 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The terms "abate" and "vacate" are both used by the Court to describe what happened in the Ken Lay case. For example, the District Court, in its order, referred to the doctrine of "abatement ab initio" as applied in the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2004)(en banc). But the language on the last page of the Court order is (in part):

"....the court concludes that Lay’s conviction must be vacated and that this action against him must be dismissed. Accordingly, the Motion of the Estate of Kenneth L. Lay to Vacate His Conviction and Dismiss the Indictment (Docket Entry No. 1082) is GRANTED ...."

--Memorandum Opinion and Order, Oct. 17, 2006, docket entry 1126, United States v. Kenneth L. Lay, case no. 4:04-cr-00025, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Div.).

It's not a big deal, but I wanted to clarify that this is not a common law abatement. It's a criminal case under a U.S. federal statute. So, I changed the wording in the article from "abate" to "vacate" or "vacated". Famspear (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Intro

I think the intro needs a sentence about his role as CEO of Enron pre-scandal. Surely he did something notable other than allegedly lying to investors. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's new info from his official site, on stuff pre-Enron. -- Zanimum

In 1974, Ken left the public sector in Washington, D.C. to begin his career in the natural gas industry. Ken joined Florida Gas Company, in Winter Park, Florida as Vice President of Corporate Development, later holding the office of Senior Vice President of the transmission company and President of its successor company, Continental Resources Company.

Ken left Continental Resources Company in 1981 to join Transco Energy Company in Houston, Texas where he held the positions of President, Chief Operating Officer and Director. In 1984, Ken accepted the position as Chairman and CEO of Houston Natural Gas Co., which merged with InterNorth in 1985, and which would later be renamed Enron Corp.

I'm amazed how a society that can find such compassion and forgiveness for Tookie Williams can't find an ounce for this man. AbstractClass 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bush campaign Contributions

Does anyone know if Bush returned to Enron employees and investors any of the monies donated to his campaign by Ken Lay?

BmikeSci 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)BMIKESCI

Huh

Huh. "discussion page".

"talk page".

"comment page".

But, if someone has any disagreement w/ punctuation, &/or content, the comments get ditched. &, no locatable disability-access policy, nor disability-access discussion. Something about "don't bite newcomers", that is typically ignored. &, vast racism. weaklypedia. So little consistency, except its lack. One of thousands of problems: "Edit conflict". Hopiakuta 22:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a point? Is there some grammatical error you'd lke changed? -- Zanimum

I saw Ken Lay last week on 39th in Times Square :) - gangalee

• Yeh, he was there trying to convince Elvis to invest in his latest stock scheme. Wahkeenah 16:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias =

"Note: This section was mentioned on MSNBC on July 12, 2006. The topic of the news story regarding the left-wing conspiracy theories that Lay faked his death, committed suicide, was murdered, and other completely unfounded claims."

Is that Ken Lay's writing or just some "right-wing" freaks being ultra defensive?

criminal and fraudster categories

Restoring. Sheesh. Re cite: http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/index.htm . The guy was found guilty of fraud and conspiracy on 14 counts in two separate trials. While there's this possible situation of an upcoming abatement (that hasn't actually happened yet as far as I can tell), the article does an adequate job of explaining it. Phr (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The abatement seems to be automatic. Kenneth Lay dies an innocent man - Bloomberg However, reviewing the guidelines of the American criminals category, an exception is made for "death before trial". The question is whether we regard Kenneth Lay's conduct as verifiably criminal sans the criminal trial, which Kenneth Lay was still in the process of appealing. 70.191.174.29 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Budd Dwyer

Another guy (corrupt politician) who died (of a self-inflicted gunshot wound on TV) after the jury verdict but before sentencing, therefore getting to keep his govt pension for his household. I wonder if there's a tasteful way to mention this in the article. Phr (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not germane. 70.191.174.29 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

< http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_Lay&oldid=62202203 >.

Hopiakuta 13:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also quite possible that Lay faked his own death. There is no way to prove or disprove this assertion, but a man of his means facing the situation he was in could be quite creative, and with the help of his high powered friends it is really not all that fantastic of a theory.

Responding to the need for a citation about the Houston memorial service for Ken Lay

The Houston memorial service was reported in an AP article on the Houston Chronicle's website on July 12, 2006: "Houston memorial today for Enron's Ken Lay", by Kristen Hays, Associated Press [1]

I'm a newbie at Wikipedia editing so rather than bollix it up I'll just leave the link here so somebody else can verify and insert it...

BTW, my wife and I are absolutely convinced this guy is laughing his ass off somewhere in the Caribbean. I mean, how d*mned convenient to drop dead, just then and there! With friends like his, and their track record, they could easily arrange it. Oh, and this morning, NPR reported that, since his conviction has been "abated" (is that the word?), now the government will have to REPROVE the criminal source of the $90 million if they want it back. Hey, I want his job...

--Chethcoat 20:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

World Bank treasurer has same name

"World Bank treasurer, Kenneth Lay..." [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.141.195 (talk) 20:55, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

He's also mentioned here, with a photo, as Kenneth G. Lay. Perhaps if he becomes notable there will have to be a disambiguation page. I wonder if he has always called himself Kenneth G. Lay, or whether he adopted the G. quite recently. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards

The removal of this section comes on three main points. This man scammed millions from unsuspecting families, I'd bet that more than half of those awards would be taken back if possible. The removal of this section has been attempted in several instances (see article history). Pickup any Worldbook, or any other reference and they do not list awards for convicted criminals (or formerly convicted to be politically correct), why should wikipedia? Charles Manson won a spelling bee in the third grade should that be listed? This is supposed to be NPOV, listing totally irrelevant facts that portray this monster (language not used in the article) in a good light should NOT be done. We can write page after page about how messed up this guy is but, taking out the irreverent facts is much easier, so if you want to list these awards then you should also put in a section about how he is a "monster" to make it neutral (as both are irreverent). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.239.239 (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of people's opinions of the man, he received the awards. To remove them because he's a "monster" is completely POV. The fact is that he received the awards, so they are completely relevant in the article. If an individual award is not notable then it can be removed, same if the award has been "taken back" as you put it. Your removal of the awards is completely POV; lets deal with facts rather then attempting to portray Lay one way or another. - Shudde ^talk 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that calling him a "monster" or "scum" (which you apparently tried to put into the article space) shouldn't even be discussed in the talk space. To the point: other people have awards sections, but they're not usually this long. This section seems too much like chest thumping, especially when there are no sources. I really think we should remove some of the awards (per verifiability), but I'm not sure to what degree. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The "is he dead theories" should be on the page

Some people seem to thin we should not point out that some claim he is still alive. But this is not some bloke down the pub This is a major business man who made billions of pounds and was suspected of fraud. The conspiracy theories are serious theories not stories about aliens. It is important wikipedia notes that this is a serious theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wootuber (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Fringe theories for current information about inclusion of conspiracy theories and other claims from outside the mainstream. The most important part of the guideline is that reliable sources must be produced to provide verification that theory represents a significant point of view. If no independent sources are available to document the existence of the theory, then it is not appropriate to utilize Wikipedia as a means to promote the existence of a theory. --Allen3 ^talk 14:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How is the ontology of a 'significant point of view' determined?--Phiborjam (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)--Phiborjam (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me elaborate a little. The term 'significant' is an ontological term attaching a higher value status to some thing, idea or way of being. The term 'verification' on the other hand is more of an epistemological term denoting that a given belief has a high degree of justification for being true. It seems more appropriate in this case to restrict the belief that "Ken Lay is alive" as one where the question is primarily an epistemological one rather than an ontological one. After all we are not debating here questions about what it means to be alive or dead or what is the nature of life itself. Rather, we have a simple premise,'Ken Lay is alive', which is either true or false.--Phiborjam (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Ken Lay is dead is a damn fool. Yeah of course reasonable doubt shouldn't be mentioned in the Wikipedia article (eyes roll back into skull). =

Condé Nast list

I just removed the Condé Nast source from the lead paragraph, after it was brought up at another talk page. While Ken Lay is no longer living, I think wp:blp provides some color around some fundamental principles for biographies (like wp:undue and wp:npov) that we should look towards still in this case. Importantly, I don't think the Condé Nast mention would survive a rigorous wp:rs test (as it was opinion posing as fact), its prominence in the article was indeed undue, its citation in the context of the article was factually inaccurate (attributing the quote to the wrong source), and, all in all, it added little to the article. We all know he was the worst chief executive officer ever, the article needs to explain why, not present a non-notable list expressing that opinion.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

^^^^ "Obituary" for Kenneth Lay ^^^^

Dear Enron and all our beloved:

I am dead to my father to join CIA. It is possible Mr. Lay is alive.

He was one of the best businessmen his nation of the United States ever saw. A true man of his word. A hero in my book. If he is alive, he needs to know Father Kissinger is starting to cry because he is starting to believe in God again after my 39 years of work for the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America.

It's time to retire, Mr. Lay. I have no idea what to do with my life either, but we'll figure out something honorable to do with our time. Okay? Over and out. Hello.

Please, Mr. Lay, we are safe again from being murdered for imaginary money figures. Just call your wife.

Ta. In God We Trust.

Dr. Katrin Elizabeta Wilhelm Friedrich Eichmann, JD, MBA, MD: The Bastard between Elizabeta Eichmann and Fmr. Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, aka Sarah Jean Margolis

P.S. If you men and women of Enron build it again, Lay and I will be there. It was an idea that worked. It was meddlesome, deluded reporters who destroyed it and we'll just be more careful about any genuine concerns, of which there are almost none, this time. It can be part of my new multinational conglomerate, never an IPO at this point, The Duke Magog Group. How about something like Malak Energy Investments or something like that. I trust you to come up with something good. We can even get the building back with our offices and terminals. Terrence Christiansen of The Glase-Weil Firm in Los Angeles, CA, and Dr. Henry Kissinger can come up with the legal work to incorporate as a branch of The Duke Magog Group. This is our initial offer to getting our lives back.

P.P.S. I know they'll take this down as a "personal essay," but I just wanted to get the word out to my friends, family, colleagues and workers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.45.23.245 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What in the fuck is this prattle?

--K10wnsta (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

2 children and 12(!) grandchildren??

The article claims he had 2 children and 12 grandchildren. This can't be right. Did each of his two children have 6 children? Huffmer (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would that be hard to believe? I know lots of families with bigger families.Mantion (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

When the Lay kids got busy, they got biz-zay!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:63D4:B300:59AC:F8B4:56E7:7DE8 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Harsh

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WOW, this is a seriously harsh article. Corporate greed has always existed. Hitler has a nicer article. What ever group of people are controlling this article should take a break and someone should come in and remove some of the hate.Mantion (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Lay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5tZ4T7JAj?url=http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/index.htm to http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/25/news/newsmakers/enron_verdict/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Lay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715031704/http://www.biography.com/articles/Kenneth-Lay-234611 to http://www.biography.com/articles/Kenneth-Lay-234611

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)