GOP eyes seizing mansions, yachts of corrupt executives

Washington Times ^ | 7/27/02 | Dave Boyer

[kattracks]

House Republican leaders, heading home to face voters anxious over retirement security, announced yesterday they will introduce legislation to seize the mansions and yachts of corrupt corporate executives.

"We need to do more to strip corrupt corporate kingpins of their ill-gotten gains," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. "We're taking the mansion. We're draining the accounts. And we're coming after the yacht."

[grania]

I know what they have done is wrong, immoral, whatever BUT..what laws did they break?

And if they didn't break any current laws, how can they be convicted with a law that is passed after-the-fact?

I've been uncomfortable with this whole thing since that Enron executive committed suicide. It just seems that information, increased public awareness, and more responsible accounting will take care of this. They shouldn't start punishing people who played by the rules.

[meyer]

We don't know yet whether the SEC seizure powers will be as screwy as the DEA's. We know the DEA's a bunch of gun-toting thugs. But the SEC is nothing but a bunch of underpaid lawyers and accountants.

Any siezure laws that don't require a guilty verdict are subject to corruption. This all sounds so good, but it isn't. And if you think these lawyers aren't going to have the backing of the JBT's when they do the seizin', think again.

[savedbygrace]

Sounds like a turf war. Looting and plundering is the exclusive domain of Congress and they won't tolerate anybody else horning in.

[doc11355]

If you'll notice, a number of those responding positively to this action are not doing so because they "believe it will solve the immediate problem in front of them" , they seem to like it primarily because it punishes those that they perceive as "the rich".

Hello... where am I? Have I wandered into Salon?

[meyer]

If you'll notice, a number of those responding positively to this action are not doing so because they "believe it will solve the immediate problem in front of them" , they seem to like it primarily because it punishes those that they perceive as "the rich".

Now that you mention it, I see what you're saying. As if its illegal or even immoral to be rich. Heck, I strive for the day that I might be well off enough to not have to work again.

I think what's going on here is some serious stereotyping; i.e., if somebody has lots of money, they must be corrupt and even if they aren't, they don't deserve it and I want it and yadda-yadda...

[ofMagog]

STAND BY TO REPEL BOARDERS!

[Dales]

but I have a big problem with giving the government authority to seize property "just in case" or because someone "might" be guilty.

And you can provide some backing for the assertion that this proposed legislation does this? It isn't in the story, and the legislation hasn't even been written or introduced yet, so exactly how (or more importantly, why) did you jump to this conclusion?

[Dales]

I think folks are gonna relate to taking from the Rich to ... to ...

You sound like another person who has bought into the socialist spin on the Robin Hood tale.

Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor. That is what a socialist does (or wants the state to do to give him the cover of legitimacy).

Robin Hood took back from the theiving corrupt rich and gave back to those who had been bilked. This is why the real myth or Robin Hood is and should be a hero.

[Dales]

Timesink was talking about criminals, which implies guilt. You have shifted to talking about the accused, which implies guilt not yet proven or innocence.

Why the shift?

Do you see anywhere in this piece where it talks about confiscating based on suspicion?

If not, then why did you make that jump?

[Dales]

I am not following your logic. Taxes have gone up since before the roaring 20s, and because of this, we should allow those who have gotten rich because of corruption for which they have been convicted to keep their ill-gotten gains?

Explain to me how that logic works.

[Dales]

The real estate bubble is going to burst regardless of what happens. That is the nature of bubbles.

[Dales]

how can they be convicted with a law that is passed after-the-fact?

They can't, and that isn't what is being proposed, so why you are off on that tangent is beyond me.

[evad]

And if they didn't break any current laws, how can they be convicted with a law that is passed after-the-fact?

Precisely! I know it may be generally thought that these guys are guilty of fraud, RICO, obstruction, I'm not sure how this plays out with a specific charge relating to a specific existing law.

I know this takes time but how long ago was it that Lay went to the hill and took the 5th? The answer could be that they don't have a charge that they think they can make stick with existing laws.

[Kerberos]

"they seem to like it primarily because it punishes those that they perceive as "the rich".

Yes, that attitude does seem to be all around these days.

Socialism - it's not just for liberals anymore.

[Dales]

Any siezure laws that don't require a guilty verdict are subject to corruption. This all sounds so good, but it isn't.

Please find where it says that there is any siezure law being proposed that doesn't require a guilty verdict. I think if you will review this thread, you won't find it in anything Delay said. You won't find it in the article.

You will find it, however, several replies into this thread when someone either made an unsubstantiated leap or decided to introduce spin.

[Dales]

they seem to like it primarily because it punishes those that they perceive as "the rich".

Incorrect. It is because it punishes those who got rich not by their own abilities or skils or even just plain good fortune, but rather by corruption.

See my reply to Askel5 above. I think it applies to you as well.

Long live Robin Hood- as the myth really is, not how it has been perceived over time.

[Dales]

myth or Robin Hood

Apologies. That should have read "real myth of Robin Hood".

[Kerberos]

"If not, then why did you make that jump? "

No Jump. As I posted in my previous comment the following line from the end of the article.

Mi>"Mr. Baker said he hopes the legislation will give the SEC seizure powers much like the Drug Enforcement Administration.

I think that is pretty clear. Nevertheless, I understood in the first two sentences of this article where they were headed with this. More reduction of individual rights, it's the nature of our government these days, or hadn’t you noticed.

[Kerberos]

"They're indistinguishable from the people on the left who behave the same way. They all stand for nothing. "

Well said.

[Dales]

If you can't see the difference between seizing of a car, used to buy an ounce of pot, which may not even be owned by the person doing the crime and is likely NOT owned by someone with any resources on which to mount a legal defense, and seizing assets which resulted from the alleged looting of a company where there will be a multitude of lawyers willing to take on the case for a cut of the assets if they win, then I don't know what to tell you.

Pretty much, I think that it only makes sense that I should not be allowed to steal a million bucks and then use a significant portion of it trying to get off through the ministrations of lawyers.