Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/6/2005 9:17:29 AM EDT
I vote both...

Miers' firm fined big
for cheating investors
Texas law group forced to pay $30 million for vouching for clients in Ponzi scheme

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 5, 2005
9:12 p.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – While Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers presided over a major Texas law firm, it was forced to pay more than $30 million to settle claims it vouched for the reputation of two clients who cheated investors out of millions in an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case.

The law firm represented some of the state's biggest corporations and most famous residents, including George W. Bush before and after he was elected governor in 1994.


The lawsuits were sparked by work done by partners at Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, one of Dallas' largest law firms when Miers ran it during the late 1990s. By 1998, the law firm, then called Locke Liddell, found itself on the receiving end of lawsuits over two of its clients, Brian Russell Stearns and Russell Erxleben, a star football player at the University of Texas in the 1970s who played 10 years in the NFL as a placekicker.

Erxleben's firm, Austin Forex Investments, placed short-term investments in volatile foreign currency markets. The investors contended Erxleben and Stearns used money from new investors to pay off old ones until the schemes unraveled. They also said Stearns often bragged that he used the same law firm as Bush.

The investors said they were cheated in part because Locke Liddell helped make the operations look legitimate and ignored signs of fraud and the selling of unregistered securities. They alleged that the law firm used its trust fund to direct millions in investor money to Stearns.

The lawsuit over Erxleben also named Locke Liddell partners Curtis Ashmos, Daniel N. Matheson III and Jane Matheson as defendants, and the case involving Stearns named another partner, Phillip Wylie.

In 2000, Locke Liddell agreed to pay Erxleben's clients $22 million, and in 2001 it agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle claims by Stearns' customers.

Linda Eads, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, where Miers got her undergraduate degree in mathematics and her law degree, wrote an ethics report for the plaintiffs in the Stearns case. Eads said one of the firm's partners, occasionally sending notes on Locke Liddell letterhead, "represented to investors that Stearns was up-and-up," according to an Associated Press report. However, Eads said she found no evidence that Miers was involved.

Erxleben and Stearns were both sentenced to prison terms.

On October 13, 1999, a suit was filed in Travis County alleging Meirs' Dallas firm had developed work product including internal memos and notes that aided Austin Forex International in its scheme to defraud investors, reports WND columnist Jerome Corsi today.

"Locke Liddel has done nothing improper and in our judgment never should have been named as a defendant," Miers told the press at the time.

Still, on April 14, 2000, Locke Liddel agreed to pay $22 million to settle the suit.


Bankruptcy.com noted that the amount was so high because court authorities approving the settlement believe that Locke Liddel's behavior in the fraud was so outrageous that an example needed to be made of the firm, to serve as a warning to other firms, writes Corsi.

According to Bankruptcy.com, the case was viewed as a test of the Texas Supreme Court's April 1999 ruling that a lawyer can be sued by a non-client for negligent representation. This ruling only applies if the lawyer's actions invited the non-client to rely upon the lawyer's fraudulent opinions and misrepresentations.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related column:

Harriet Miers at center of investment fraud



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:19:47 AM EDT
Cases like Enron, WorldCom, Arhtur Andersen are becomeing a big part of the corporate world, and evaluating the constitutionality of things like Sarbanes-Oxley (sp) could be things that the Supreme Court has to deal with in the future.

Who better qualified that someone who has personal knowledge of this kind of corporate/legal stuff?

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:26:59 AM EDT
Ryann, maybe you could tell us every company where you ever worked. Then we could dig up all the dirt on illegal or unethical things those companies did, and call you a hypocrite for pointing out Meirs' hypocrisy.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:30:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 9:31:37 AM EDT by arowneragain]
jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=396378





ryann, your head is going to explode.


The FUNNY part is that I'm not a fan of hers either.

<­BR>BTW, isn't there something in the CoC about not attacking people's religion?

You HATE this woman because of her religious affiliation, and for no other reason.


Of course, that puts you in pretty good company here. They may make you staff.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:31:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Ryann, maybe you could tell us every company where you ever worked. Then we could dig up all the dirt on illegal or unethical things those companies did, and call you a hypocrite for pointing out Meirs' hypocrisy.



"While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case. "

Did you read the above quote in the article? She defends her firms actions, then the firm pays out millions of dollars DESPITE her defense of them. I'm glad for you that you're OK with this, but as a clear thinking conservative aware of all the choices GWB had, I'm very disturbed by this pick.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:35:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Ryann, maybe you could tell us every company where you ever worked. Then we could dig up all the dirt on illegal or unethical things those companies did, and call you a hypocrite for pointing out Meirs' hypocrisy.



"While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case. "

Did you read the above quote in the article? She defends her firms actions, then the firm pays out millions of dollars DESPITE her defense of them. I'm glad for you that you're OK with this, but as a clear thinking conservative aware of all the choices GWB had, I'm very disturbed by this pick.




Hello?

<taps screen>

Is this thiing on?

<­BR>ryann, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but George Bush is also one of us evil 'evangelical Christians'.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:36:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Ryann, maybe you could tell us every company where you ever worked. Then we could dig up all the dirt on illegal or unethical things those companies did, and call you a hypocrite for pointing out Meirs' hypocrisy.



"While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case. "

Did you read the above quote in the article? She defends her firms actions, then the firm pays out millions of dollars DESPITE her defense of them. I'm glad for you that you're OK with this, but as a clear thinking conservative aware of all the choices GWB had, I'm very disturbed by this pick.




Hello?

<taps screen>

Is this thiing on?

<­BR>ryann, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but George Bush is also one of us evil 'evangelical Christians'.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.



He's sure been acting like one lately too...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:40:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Ryann, maybe you could tell us every company where you ever worked. Then we could dig up all the dirt on illegal or unethical things those companies did, and call you a hypocrite for pointing out Meirs' hypocrisy.



"While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case. "

Did you read the above quote in the article? She defends her firms actions, then the firm pays out millions of dollars DESPITE her defense of them. I'm glad for you that you're OK with this, but as a clear thinking conservative aware of all the choices GWB had, I'm very disturbed by this pick.




Yeah, I read it. Meirs had no knowledge of any wrongdoing. Plenty of companies pay out when they did nothing wrong, if for no other reason than to avoid a dumb jury awarding larger damages.

Did anyone at Meirs' firm ever get charged with a crime in this case? That's what I thought...
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:42:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Ryann, maybe you could tell us every company where you ever worked. Then we could dig up all the dirt on illegal or unethical things those companies did, and call you a hypocrite for pointing out Meirs' hypocrisy.



"While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case. "

Did you read the above quote in the article? She defends her firms actions, then the firm pays out millions of dollars DESPITE her defense of them. I'm glad for you that you're OK with this, but as a clear thinking conservative aware of all the choices GWB had, I'm very disturbed by this pick.




Hello?

<taps screen>

Is this thiing on?

<­BR>ryann, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but George Bush is also one of us evil 'evangelical Christians'.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.



He's sure been acting like one lately too...



And?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:46:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Ryann, maybe you could tell us every company where you ever worked. Then we could dig up all the dirt on illegal or unethical things those companies did, and call you a hypocrite for pointing out Meirs' hypocrisy.



"While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case. "

Did you read the above quote in the article? She defends her firms actions, then the firm pays out millions of dollars DESPITE her defense of them. I'm glad for you that you're OK with this, but as a clear thinking conservative aware of all the choices GWB had, I'm very disturbed by this pick.




Hello?

<taps screen>

Is this thiing on?

<­BR>ryann, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but George Bush is also one of us evil 'evangelical Christians'.


Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.



He's sure been acting like one lately too...





You're wanting me to bash catholics here, aren't you?

Sorry, not gonna do it - not in this thread.

But here's some statistics for you:

catholics: 41% democrat, 37% republican, 22% independent



Protestants picked Bush, 59-40, Catholics picked Bush, 52-47, over kerry

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:48:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 9:50:38 AM EDT by BenDover]
ryann has a remarkable lack of understanding in how a law partnership works.

This law firm did nothing wrong. They paid out the settlement to avoid a costlier judgement against them by a jury who would likely have less understanding into securities than ryann does.

Sounds like she made a sound, business decision.

Admit wrongdoing when you did none to avoid a costlier fight to prove nothing more than your innocence. Integrity sometimes comes with a price tag too high to bear.

Smart leadership.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:50:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 9:52:40 AM EDT by ryann]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Ryann, maybe you could tell us every company where you ever worked. Then we could dig up all the dirt on illegal or unethical things those companies did, and call you a hypocrite for pointing out Meirs' hypocrisy.



"While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case. "

Did you read the above quote in the article? She defends her firms actions, then the firm pays out millions of dollars DESPITE her defense of them. I'm glad for you that you're OK with this, but as a clear thinking conservative aware of all the choices GWB had, I'm very disturbed by this pick.




Yeah, I read it. Meirs had no knowledge of any wrongdoing. Plenty of companies pay out when they did nothing wrong, if for no other reason than to avoid a dumb jury awarding larger damages.

Did anyone at Meirs' firm ever get charged with a crime in this case? That's what I thought...



So you're not disturbed that she publicly defended the firm's position? Does it bother you than this fine christian woman headed the Texas Lottery? Does it bother you that she donated to Al Gore? See a pattern here? I don't think she's morally grounded. While this country's borders stand wide open, Bush seems more concerned with getting his crony in high office. I voted for Bush twice, gave time & money to his campaign, but if I want to feel betrayed or pissed off I have every right to. I'm a Christian myself, though not of the "evangelical" breed that seems to be be the pinnacle of this woman's accomplishments.

As far as a "crime" apparantly the law firm was a straw position without an affirmative link to the crimes committed, but they sure were liable to the tune of millions.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:52:25 AM EDT
Ummm... she wasn't always a Christian.

Some of us actually had lives prior to conversion.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:54:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 9:57:00 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann has a remarkable lack of understanding in how a <insert whatever>.




I don’t see how someone who did not participate or knew about the actions of otheres is culpable of anything.

And why the hell should she not defend others that had done no wrong. I some people believe in collective punishment verses individual responsibility.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:54:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Ummm... she wasn't always a Christian.

Some of us actually had lives prior to conversion.



When exactly did she convert?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:57:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=396378





ryann, your head is going to explode.


The FUNNY part is that I'm not a fan of hers either.

<­BR>BTW, isn't there something in the CoC about not attacking people's religion?

You HATE this woman because of her religious affiliation, and for no other reason.


Of course, that puts you in pretty good company here. They may make you staff.




No I don't hate her for her religious affiliation, in fact I don't hate her at all; I am very pissed that George chose her out of a litany of very very qualified candidates, because he either doesn't have the guts to fight with Reid, or he's rewarding his pal.
I don't see her religious affiliation as an asset though.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:59:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Ummm... she wasn't always a Christian.

Some of us actually had lives prior to conversion.



When exactly did she convert?



Whenever she did it has NOTHING to do with this... her religious beliefs have NOTHING to do with this...

Bigot.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:59:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Ummm... she wasn't always a Christian.

Some of us actually had lives prior to conversion.



When exactly did she convert?



<--always glad to help those who.....need help.


www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a6jP82mF7BDg&refer=us



Harriet Miers's Supporters Cite Her Evangelical Christian Faith

Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) -- White House Counsel Harriet Miers's backers are stressing her evangelical Christian faith in urging skeptical conservatives to support her U.S. Supreme Court nomination.

Miers's religious conversion in the late 1970s, as recounted by Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, is being cited by the Bush administration in its drive to reassure conservatives that Miers shares their views on abortion and other social issues. She was picked by Bush to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose vote has been decisive in upholding abortion rights.

Miers's membership in the non-denominational Valley View Christian Church in Dallas has been mentioned frequently in meetings of Republican activists, according to participants. The Bush administration has been conducting conference calls to line up support for Miers, though participants have only provided sketchy details of those discussions.

``The story of Harriet Miers becoming a Christian for many people is a familiar story,'' particularly when it is linked to her growing political conservatism, said Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a Washington-based advocacy group that supports President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.

Rushton said her faith is reassuring to many who are wary about her lack of a judicial record. For example, he said, one participant at a meeting noted how impressive it was that she tithes her earnings, paying a tenth of her income to the church. ``Somebody else chimed in and said `and those of you who are Christians know how rare that is,''' Rushton said.

`Close Friends'

Hecht, 56, who says he and Miers, 60, his former law partner, are ``good close friends,'' recalled that she decided to become an evangelical Christian in 1978 or 1979 when ``she started thinking about what's going to be important in life.''

``Over the course of several months, she wanted a deeper faith,'' Hecht said. Before joining the Valley View Church, where Hecht had been a member, Miers had been ``half Catholic, half Episcopalian,'' he said.

Miers's developing opposition to abortion ``came about the same time'' she joined his church, Hecht said. He said his willingness to talk publicly about Miers's Christian faith wasn't prompted by White House officials. He said the church doesn't have a formal position on abortion, and he didn't describe the opposition of its members in militant terms.

`Pro-Life' Group

``But it is pro-life,'' he said. ``You don't have to raise your hand or swear on the Bible or sign anything. They sometimes have literature in the back, maybe a speaker will come. They don't march down to the clinics.''

Executive Director David O'Steen of the National Right to Life Committee announced yesterday in a statement, the day after Miers's nomination, that the group supports her.

``President Bush has an excellent record of appointing judges who recognize the proper role of the courts,'' the Washington- based group said. It cited a Dallas Morning News account of Miers's membership in the church that quoted its pastor, Ron Key, as saying the congregation opposed abortion.

The description of Miers's religious conversion emerged as the White House sought to unite more conservative groups around the nominee by persuading them she can be counted on to advance the political agenda of the religious right.

``There's definitely an effort under way to educate conservatives about the real Harriet Miers,'' Rushton said. ``And that will take time.''

Offering Assurances

Bush, as well, used a news conference to offer assurances to his base. ``I'm a pro-life president,'' he said.

Some conservative leaders, notably Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation based in Washington, remain unconvinced. Weyrich said that Supreme Court nominees of previous presidents ended up taking unpredictable positions on abortion and other issues.

Miers ``doesn't have a track record,'' he said in an interview. ``We have taken the word of other people on too many nominees.'' The Reagan administration ``assured us that Sandra Day O'Connor would be a stalwart conservative. The Reagan White House assured us that Anthony Kennedy was going to be as good as (Robert) Bork.''

Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate in 1987 as opponents portrayed him as an extremist. Kennedy was confirmed to the vacancy instead.

Kennedy, like O'Connor, has voted to uphold abortion rights as did Justice David Souter, an appointee of Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush.

Voicing Disappointment

Conservative activist Manuel Miranda also voiced disappointment with Bush's choice of Miers on grounds she lacks a clear record.

``The No. 1 hook that allows us to take a leap of faith, even those who don't share her faith, is she is an evangelical Christian,'' said Miranda, executive director of the Third Branch Conference, a Washington-based advocacy group. ``I respect that, but it isn't quite enough.''

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released last night found that conservatives are cooler to Miers's nomination than to that of John G. Roberts Jr. at a comparable point. The Oct. 3-4 survey found that 58 percent of conservatives called the Miers nomination excellent or good, compared with 77 percent who held that view of the Roberts choice in a Gallup poll taken in July.

Some Senate Republicans reacted cautiously to the Miers nomination.

Unlike Roberts, confirmed last week to be chief justice, ``she is not well known by people, has not had that kind of rallying spark with us,'' said Virginia Senator George Allen. ``For me, this was an opportunity to go from three to four conservative justices,'' he said. ``I still have to be convinced and I think a lot of others do.''

Questions

Mississippi Republican Trent Lott, also seeking re-election next year, said in a statement: ``I don't know her. But I am going to give her nomination consideration.''

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2008, said in statement, ``I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record and I look forward to having these questions answered.''

Other Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and former Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah, have voiced strong support for Miers.



ryann, you're actually pushing me towards liking her more and more.

Thanks.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 9:59:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Ummm... she wasn't always a Christian.

Some of us actually had lives prior to conversion.



When exactly did she convert?



In the article that EricTheHun posted about her fundamentalist background, she was in her 30s at the law firm.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:01:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann has a remarkable lack of understanding in how a law partnership works.

This law firm did nothing wrong. They paid out the settlement to avoid a costlier judgement against them by a jury who would likely have less understanding into securities than ryann does.

Sounds like she made a sound, business decision.

Admit wrongdoing when you did none to avoid a costlier fight to prove nothing more than your innocence. Integrity sometimes comes with a price tag too high to bear.

Smart leadership.



Um how much costlier than 22 million dollars could it have been? 22 million when the firm did "nothing wrong" sounds like quite the innocent protest, doesn't it?

With this in her background, what kind of smart "business decisions" (or compromises) will she make on the SCOTUS?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:01:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=396378





ryann, your head is going to explode.


The FUNNY part is that I'm not a fan of hers either.

<­BR>BTW, isn't there something in the CoC about not attacking people's religion?

You HATE this woman because of her religious affiliation, and for no other reason.


Of course, that puts you in pretty good company here. They may make you staff.




No I don't hate her for her religious affiliation, in fact I don't hate her at all; I am very pissed that George chose her out of a litany of very very qualified candidates, because he either doesn't have the guts to fight with Reid, or he's rewarding his pal.
I don't see her religious affiliation as an asset though.



Oh, come now, ryann, it's ok to hate us 'evangelical' Christians.

Was your family in on the council of Trent or something?

If yo don't have something against us 'evangelicals', why do you keep pounding on the point that she is one?

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:02:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 10:02:52 AM EDT by ryann]

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
Ummm... she wasn't always a Christian.

Some of us actually had lives prior to conversion.



When exactly did she convert?



In the article that EricTheHun posted about her fundamentalist background, she was in her 30s at the law firm.



Well she's 60 now, so all this trash in her background would be after her conversion, no?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:04:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 10:05:44 AM EDT by ryann]

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=396378





ryann, your head is going to explode.


The FUNNY part is that I'm not a fan of hers either.

<­BR>BTW, isn't there something in the CoC about not attacking people's religion?

You HATE this woman because of her religious affiliation, and for no other reason.


Of course, that puts you in pretty good company here. They may make you staff.




No I don't hate her for her religious affiliation, in fact I don't hate her at all; I am very pissed that George chose her out of a litany of very very qualified candidates, because he either doesn't have the guts to fight with Reid, or he's rewarding his pal.
I don't see her religious affiliation as an asset though.



Oh, come now, ryann, it's ok to hate us 'evangelical' Christians.

Was your family in on the council of Trent or something?

If yo don't have something against us 'evangelicals', why do you keep pounding on the point that she is one?




Because I don't see it as the asset that so many of you do. But it's only one aspect of the total picture that bothers me, her religion in and of itself isn't the issue.
I see some hypocracy between her stated religion and her actions.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:04:58 AM EDT
Sounds like she converted only to make peace with the lord for all the crap she'd done.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:08:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

But it's only one aspect of the total picture that bothers me, her religion in and of itself isn't the issue.






Originally Posted By ryann:

Miers-hypocritical "evangelical" Christian, typical crooked lawyer or both?




Do you need to borrow a shovel? That's a nice hole you're digging yourself.



Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:09:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann has a remarkable lack of understanding in how a law partnership works.

This law firm did nothing wrong. They paid out the settlement to avoid a costlier judgement against them by a jury who would likely have less understanding into securities than ryann does.

Sounds like she made a sound, business decision.

Admit wrongdoing when you did none to avoid a costlier fight to prove nothing more than your innocence. Integrity sometimes comes with a price tag too high to bear.

Smart leadership.



Um how much costlier than 22 million dollars could it have been? 22 million when the firm did "nothing wrong" sounds like quite the innocent protest, doesn't it?

With this in her background, what kind of smart "business decisions" (or compromises) will she make on the SCOTUS?



You've obviously never been in a position of executive leadership of a private, commercial, for-profit entity have you.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:13:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann has a remarkable lack of understanding in how a law partnership works.

This law firm did nothing wrong. They paid out the settlement to avoid a costlier judgement against them by a jury who would likely have less understanding into securities than ryann does.

Sounds like she made a sound, business decision.

Admit wrongdoing when you did none to avoid a costlier fight to prove nothing more than your innocence. Integrity sometimes comes with a price tag too high to bear.

Smart leadership.



Um how much costlier than 22 million dollars could it have been? 22 million when the firm did "nothing wrong" sounds like quite the innocent protest, doesn't it?

With this in her background, what kind of smart "business decisions" (or compromises) will she make on the SCOTUS?



You've obviously never been in a position of executive leadership of a private, commercial, for-profit entity have you.



If that article I posted represents leadership to you...well...OK.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:17:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann has a remarkable lack of understanding in how a law partnership works.

This law firm did nothing wrong. They paid out the settlement to avoid a costlier judgement against them by a jury who would likely have less understanding into securities than ryann does.

Sounds like she made a sound, business decision.

Admit wrongdoing when you did none to avoid a costlier fight to prove nothing more than your innocence. Integrity sometimes comes with a price tag too high to bear.

Smart leadership.



Um how much costlier than 22 million dollars could it have been? 22 million when the firm did "nothing wrong" sounds like quite the innocent protest, doesn't it?

With this in her background, what kind of smart "business decisions" (or compromises) will she make on the SCOTUS?



You've obviously never been in a position of executive leadership of a private, commercial, for-profit entity have you.



If that article I posted represents leadership to you...well...OK.




Were you actually going to answer BenDover's question, or just dodge it, like you dodged pretty well everything I posted in EtH's thread before you ducked and ran from that one?

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:20:55 AM EDT
It was rhetorical. The answer is obvious.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:24:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann has a remarkable lack of understanding in how a law partnership works.

This law firm did nothing wrong. They paid out the settlement to avoid a costlier judgement against them by a jury who would likely have less understanding into securities than ryann does.

Sounds like she made a sound, business decision.

Admit wrongdoing when you did none to avoid a costlier fight to prove nothing more than your innocence. Integrity sometimes comes with a price tag too high to bear.

Smart leadership.



Um how much costlier than 22 million dollars could it have been? 22 million when the firm did "nothing wrong" sounds like quite the innocent protest, doesn't it?

With this in her background, what kind of smart "business decisions" (or compromises) will she make on the SCOTUS?



You've obviously never been in a position of executive leadership of a private, commercial, for-profit entity have you.



If that article I posted represents leadership to you...well...OK.




Were you actually going to answer BenDover's question, or just dodge it, like you dodged pretty well everything I posted in EtH's thread before you ducked and ran from that one?




If his question is if I've ever been in in an executive leadership position...blah blah-I've been in charge of my life for 48 years, in the public spotlight in a postion of public trust for 26 years in two states, and you could examine my back ground with a fine tooth comb and find nowhere where I've compromised my oath, my family or my religion. Can Bendover or you say the same thing? And FWIW, I ain't the one for the running for SCOTUS, OK?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:33:04 AM EDT
ryann is a cop.

His personal income is derived solely from the taxpayer. Any expenses or costs arising from any discrepancy or wrongdoing on behalf of any officer in his department comes... you guessed it... from the taxpayer. There is no concept of return or profit. His world consists of financial planning that dictates that you spend every last penny of the account or you don't get the same amount allocated to you next year.

The concept of making a decision to settle for $22 million to save another $22 million has no bearing on someone who has worked for 2 & 1/2 decades in an environment that will go to the greatest expense possible to prove they are right -- even when they are not -- because increasing the budget is a good thing.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:33:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:


If his question is if I've ever been in in an executive leadership position...blah blah-I've been in charge of my life for 48 years, in the public spotlight in a postion of public trust for 26 years in two states, and you could examine my back ground with a fine tooth comb and find nowhere where I've compromised my oath, my family or my religion. Can Bendover or you say the same thing? And FWIW, I ain't the one for the running for SCOTUS, OK?



No, I can't say the same thing.

And for someone who supposedly has such impressive credentials.......you sure are clueless and bigoted.

Now, if you want to discuss her lack of qualifications, as you see them, that's fine.

You might be surprised how much I agree with you.


But let go of the Christian-bashing.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:37:59 AM EDT
I'll leave you with a joke that sums up the dilemma.



A young couple in love were in an automobile accident the night before their wedding, and both were killed. In heaven, they approached St. Peter. "My fiance and I really miss the opportunity to have celebrated our wedding vows. Is it possible for people in heaven to get married.
St. Peter replied, "I'll tell you what -- after you have gone through an appropriate waiting period, we will talk about it again."

Five years pass and the couple still wanted to get married. They approached St. Peter again, and he told them, "I'm sorry, I know that five years was a long time to wait, but there's a problem. You'll have to wait a little bit longer."

Another five years pass, when St. Peter excitedly approached the couple. "Your wait is over, and you may marry now. Thanks for your patience."

The couple got married.

Unfortunately, soon after the wedding, the couple realized that they were not compatible. Going to see St. Peter, they asked if their was such a thing as divorce in heaven. St. Peter gave them a cold stare, and said sternly, "Look, it took us ten years to find a minister up here. Do you have any idea how long it'll take to find a lawyer?"
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:40:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nightstalker:


"



Bad theology, bad joke, and sums up nothing.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:45:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann is a cop.

His personal income is derived solely from the taxpayer. Any expenses or costs arising from any discrepancy or wrongdoing on behalf of any officer in his department comes... you guessed it... from the taxpayer. There is no concept of return or profit. His world consists of financial planning that dictates that you spend every last penny of the account or you don't get the same amount allocated to you next year.

The concept of making a decision to settle for $22 million to save another $22 million has no bearing on someone who has worked for 2 & 1/2 decades in an environment that will go to the greatest expense possible to prove they are right -- even when they are not -- because increasing the budget is a good thing.



Um if my vocation is even relevant to this dispute-being a cop has also taught me to think critically. I don't work in budget or finance for my department, and to dismiss me because I derive my salary from the taxpayer-well I'm a taxpayer also, so am I self employed?
You wanna drink the koolaid, and refuse to question anything a politician with an R after his name does, go right ahead, I just ain't wired like you.
Bush has left our borders wide open, he won't even address the issue, and that bugs me terribly because I voted for him on his national security stance as much as anything, then on one of the most important decisions of his presidency he turns to the kind of cronyism that would make a Chicago Alderman proud.
Your analogy in this case that 22 million saved 22 million more doesn't bear scrutiny. In the first place you don't know that as fact, and if you're saying that the firm could have been liable for 44 million dollars you'e acknowledging their culpability in this case, a culpability that your girlfriend denied up until the check was cut.

So, what do you do for a living that gives you such incredible insight to this SCOTUS nominee?

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:48:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann is a cop.

His personal income is derived solely from the taxpayer. Any expenses or costs arising from any discrepancy or wrongdoing on behalf of any officer in his department comes... you guessed it... from the taxpayer. There is no concept of return or profit. His world consists of financial planning that dictates that you spend every last penny of the account or you don't get the same amount allocated to you next year.

The concept of making a decision to settle for $22 million to save another $22 million has no bearing on someone who has worked for 2 & 1/2 decades in an environment that will go to the greatest expense possible to prove they are right -- even when they are not -- because increasing the budget is a good thing.



Um if my vocation is even relevant to this dispute-being a cop has also taught me to think critically. I don't work in budget or finance for my department, and to dismiss me because I derive my salary from the taxpayer-well I'm a taxpayer also, so am I self employed?
You wanna drink the koolaid, and refuse to question anything a politician with an R after his name does, go right ahead, I just ain't wired like you.
Bush has left our borders wide open, he won't even address the issue, and that bugs me terribly because I voted for him on his national security stance as much as anything, then on one of the most important decisions of his presidency he turns to the kind of cronyism that would make a Chicago Alderman proud.
Your analogy in this case that 22 million saved 22 million more doesn't bear scrutiny. In the first place you don't know that as fact, and if you're saying that the firm could have been liable for 44 million dollars you'e acknowledging their culpability in this case, a culpability that your girlfriend denied up until the check was cut.

So, what do you do for a living that gives you such incredible insight to this SCOTUS nominee?






You still haven't dealt with the ignorant bigotry and hatred for evangelical Christainity that you have.

Deal with that, and MAYBE someone here will take your thread seriously.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:49:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:


If his question is if I've ever been in in an executive leadership position...blah blah-I've been in charge of my life for 48 years, in the public spotlight in a postion of public trust for 26 years in two states, and you could examine my back ground with a fine tooth comb and find nowhere where I've compromised my oath, my family or my religion. Can Bendover or you say the same thing? And FWIW, I ain't the one for the running for SCOTUS, OK?



No, I can't say the same thing.

And for someone who supposedly has such impressive credentials.......you sure are clueless and bigoted.

Now, if you want to discuss her lack of qualifications, as you see them, that's fine.

You might be surprised how much I agree with you.


But let go of the Christian-bashing.



I'm not trying to Christian bash, I'm a Christian myself, although I've met EC's that maintain Catholics aren't Christian. Once again, in my mind it's the total picture with her. Hell I ain't even mad at her, I'm pissed at GWB for causing this fiasco.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:51:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:


I'm not trying to Christian bash, I'm a Christian myself, although I've met EC's that maintain Catholics aren't Christian. Once again, in my mind it's the total picture with her. Hell I ain't even mad at her, I'm pissed at GWB for causing this fiasco.




Originally Posted By ryann:
Miers-hypocritical "evangelical" Christian, typical crooked lawyer or both?



Yeah, sure. Whatever.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:51:26 AM EDT
$22 million is a chunk of change, and somebody at Locke probably did something wrong to pay that out. However, Lawyers are more like Doctors than large corporations. One lawyer isn't going to know the specifics of what another lawyer does unless he is asked to look at the case, just like one Doctor doesn't know what treatment a patient is given unless he is asked to look at the charts. Odds are the Miers didn't know anything was amiss until the SHTF, and then she had to make a business decision to try and save as much money for the firm as possible. Unless the lawyers in question already had ethical issues, I don't think you can blame Miers for what someone else in her several-hundred lawyer firm did.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:52:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 10:52:42 AM EDT by ryann]

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann is a cop.

His personal income is derived solely from the taxpayer. Any expenses or costs arising from any discrepancy or wrongdoing on behalf of any officer in his department comes... you guessed it... from the taxpayer. There is no concept of return or profit. His world consists of financial planning that dictates that you spend every last penny of the account or you don't get the same amount allocated to you next year.

The concept of making a decision to settle for $22 million to save another $22 million has no bearing on someone who has worked for 2 & 1/2 decades in an environment that will go to the greatest expense possible to prove they are right -- even when they are not -- because increasing the budget is a good thing.



Um if my vocation is even relevant to this dispute-being a cop has also taught me to think critically. I don't work in budget or finance for my department, and to dismiss me because I derive my salary from the taxpayer-well I'm a taxpayer also, so am I self employed?
You wanna drink the koolaid, and refuse to question anything a politician with an R after his name does, go right ahead, I just ain't wired like you.
Bush has left our borders wide open, he won't even address the issue, and that bugs me terribly because I voted for him on his national security stance as much as anything, then on one of the most important decisions of his presidency he turns to the kind of cronyism that would make a Chicago Alderman proud.
Your analogy in this case that 22 million saved 22 million more doesn't bear scrutiny. In the first place you don't know that as fact, and if you're saying that the firm could have been liable for 44 million dollars you'e acknowledging their culpability in this case, a culpability that your girlfriend denied up until the check was cut.

So, what do you do for a living that gives you such incredible insight to this SCOTUS nominee?






You still haven't dealt with the ignorant bigotry and hatred for evangelical Christainity that you have.

Deal with that, and MAYBE someone here will take your thread seriously.




This ain't a religion thead, it's a political thread, and I ain't the one providing links to EC bashing.

Rocks/glass houses cliche' my friend.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:52:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 11:04:08 AM EDT by nightstalker]

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By nightstalker:


"



Bad theology, bad joke, and sums up nothing.





Well, it wasn't meant for you. It was meant only for hypocrites.

ETA, here's another one. Disclaimer, this is not theology, it's a joke.

A lawyer stood at the gate to Heaven. St. Peter was patiently explaining that the man's sins were far too many and serious to allow for admission into heaven.







"Sir, surely you don't deny that you routinely overcharged your clients. That you cheated on your wife with your law clerks and associates -- and that you used your position as a partner to pressure those clerks and associates into becoming involved with you. Surely you don't deny that you deliberately took false positions in court in order to win cases, where any sense of ethics would have caused you to settle. And there's so much more here, why surely...."

The lawyer interrupted, "Yes, yes, I know all of that. But I've done some charity in my life as well."

St. Peter looked in his book and noted,"Yes, I see. Once you gave a dime to a panhandler and once you gave an extra nickel to the shoeshine boy, correct?"

The lawyer looked smug. He replied, "Yes."

St. Peter turned to the angel next to him and said, "Give this guy 15 cents and tell him to go to hell."

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:54:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:
$22 million is a chunk of change, and somebody at Locke probably did something wrong to pay that out. However, Lawyers are more like Doctors than large corporations. One lawyer isn't going to know the specifics of what another lawyer does unless he is asked to look at the case, just like one Doctor doesn't know what treatment a patient is given unless he is asked to look at the charts. Odds are the Miers didn't know anything was amiss until the SHTF, and then she had to make a business decision to try and save as much money for the firm as possible. Unless the lawyers in question already had ethical issues, I don't think you can blame Miers for what someone else in her several-hundred lawyer firm did.



She ran the firm. Where does the buck stop?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 10:57:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:
This ain't a religion thead, it's a political thread, and I ain't the one providing links to EC bashing.

Rocks/glass houses cliche' my friend.





*yawn*

You're funny.

I haven't posted a link bashing anything - nothing at all - zip, nada, zilch - yet you still insist on implying that I have bashed your church.




And if this thread has no religius motivation, you may want to examine its title. I'll post it, in case you don't remember:



Miers-hypocritical "evangelical" Christian, typical crooked lawyer or both?


You're pitiful, ryann.

Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:05:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 11:06:42 AM EDT by BenDover]

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By BenDover:
ryann is a cop.

His personal income is derived solely from the taxpayer. Any expenses or costs arising from any discrepancy or wrongdoing on behalf of any officer in his department comes... you guessed it... from the taxpayer. There is no concept of return or profit. His world consists of financial planning that dictates that you spend every last penny of the account or you don't get the same amount allocated to you next year.

The concept of making a decision to settle for $22 million to save another $22 million has no bearing on someone who has worked for 2 & 1/2 decades in an environment that will go to the greatest expense possible to prove they are right -- even when they are not -- because increasing the budget is a good thing.



Um if my vocation is even relevant to this dispute-being a cop has also taught me to think critically. I don't work in budget or finance for my department, and to dismiss me because I derive my salary from the taxpayer-well I'm a taxpayer also, so am I self employed?
You wanna drink the koolaid, and refuse to question anything a politician with an R after his name does, go right ahead, I just ain't wired like you.
Bush has left our borders wide open, he won't even address the issue, and that bugs me terribly because I voted for him on his national security stance as much as anything, then on one of the most important decisions of his presidency he turns to the kind of cronyism that would make a Chicago Alderman proud.
Your analogy in this case that 22 million saved 22 million more doesn't bear scrutiny. In the first place you don't know that as fact, and if you're saying that the firm could have been liable for 44 million dollars you'e acknowledging their culpability in this case, a culpability that your girlfriend denied up until the check was cut.

So, what do you do for a living that gives you such incredible insight to this SCOTUS nominee?




I hardly drink Republican koolade. In fact, with the wars that I've had with RikWriter and EricTheHun.. even TheBeekeeper1 over the GOP, you could hardly consider me to be a party hardliner.

See, your law enforcement career betrays you again. There's more kinds of courts than those where people are convicted or vindicated from charges of criminal guilt. Get past the cuplability blinders. There's this thing called civil court where people sue other people for damages. There's no acknowledgement of 'culpability' or even liability.

You, as a cop, should know that even though you have a complete case against a crook, with all the evidence compelling a guilty verdict, sometimes juries simply don't go your way. The reverse is also the case. In a civil setting, there's clearly a precedent and rationale for choosing to cut your losses before having to pay for extensive legal costs, with the addition of whatever inflated award a jury may grant in the matter.

Cutting the check is not an admission of liability. Only a free-market business decision to not incur a greater expense (and possibly a greater damage of negative PR in the meantime).

My profession and experience clearly leads me down a path of rational thought sufficient to deduce that you, not only don't work in the private, for profit sector, but are a cop.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:06:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:
This ain't a religion thead, it's a political thread, and I ain't the one providing links to EC bashing.

Rocks/glass houses cliche' my friend.





*yawn*

You're funny.

I haven't posted a link bashing anything - nothing at all - zip, nada, zilch - yet you still insist on implying that I have bashed your church.




And if this thread has no religius motivation, you may want to examine its title. I'll post it, in case you don't remember:



Miers-hypocritical "evangelical" Christian, typical crooked lawyer or both?


You're pitiful, ryann.




The title was meant to be a contrast comparison-sorry it went over your head. This (yawn) is starting to get boring.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:08:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ryann:

Originally Posted By arowneragain:

Originally Posted By ryann:
This ain't a religion thead, it's a political thread, and I ain't the one providing links to EC bashing.

Rocks/glass houses cliche' my friend.





*yawn*

You're funny.

I haven't posted a link bashing anything - nothing at all - zip, nada, zilch - yet you still insist on implying that I have bashed your church.




And if this thread has no religius motivation, you may want to examine its title. I'll post it, in case you don't remember:



Miers-hypocritical "evangelical" Christian, typical crooked lawyer or both?


You're pitiful, ryann.




The title was meant to be a contrast comparison-sorry it went over your head. This (yawn) is starting to get boring.




Nice backpedal.




Boring?

nah.

More like 'humorous'.


Link Posted: 10/6/2005 11:21:22 AM EDT
I've been working for law firms for the last 15 years. Law firms almost always settle suits against the firm without going to trial. Law firms are absolutely paranoid about bad publicity. They have professional liability insurance that will help cover the cost.
Top Top