Saw somewhere on the web that Ryan is going to work for Fenwick and West. Nothing of note except that F&W are the lead counsel of Apple, Inc.! Interesting...

Quote

Guest wrote:
Saw somewhere on the web that Ryan is going to work for Fenwick and West. Nothing of note except that F&W are the lead counsel of Apple, Inc.! Interesting...

No more interesting than the multitude of revolving door events like it. Government officials often come from the industries they are supposed to oversee and go back to those industries when they leave government. Congressional staffers have had essentially no restrictions: quite a few become lobbyists or work for companies they once investigated.

I am not an attorney, but, in this case, I suspect that Ryan will be forbidden by professional ethics from working on the Apple case. (Any attorneys or law students, please confirm or correct that.)

When I retired as a commissioned officer in the US Air Force, I was prohibited by law from selling anything to the Air Force--ever, with shorter-term restrictions on selling to the Department of Defense or the government, in general. Because of my rank (lieutenant colonel), the JAG had to review my situation and rule on which companies I could not work for. (Fortunately, as I had not made decisions on contracts--I did evaluate some, I was not restricted.) Civilian employees would face similar (slightly different) restrictions.

Political appointees, on the other hand, face few such restrictions. The restrictions decrease as the rank/level of the person increases. Dick Cheney left as Secretary of Defense and became CEO of Halliburton, a major defense contractor. As SecDef, Cheney had most likely had to sign off on contracts to Halliburton. (It's based on the dollar value of the contract.) He was most certainl in a position to "influence" the awarding of contracts to Halliburton.

If I, a lowly Air Force officer, had signed off on a contract for $100 and then gone to work for the company who got the contract, both I and the company could be in serious legal trouble. It doesn't matter, apparently, if the contracts are for hundreds of millions of dollars.

“I suspect that Ryan will be forbidden by professional ethics from working on the Apple case.”

Lawyers have no ethics.

Juries are stupid. Not lawyers.

I don’t know about you but when is enough…. enough? To be involved in backdating for favorable financial performance returns, then falsifying documents pertaining to a meeting that supposedly took place but actually didn’t, then claiming that you didn’t know the ramifications even though you may have been the one choosing the favorable dates, and then blaming past senior officers is absolutely ridiculous. Steve Jobs should be exposed and let justice be done though the Heavens may fall. If Martha Stewart can go to jail for a $40k debacle in insider trading knowledge…..what do you think should happen to Jobs with the millions of dollars that is effected by this? How much money is enough for anyone? These people never have to work another day of their lives if they don’t want to and still they try to aggressively gain profits. I have no empathy!

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
I don’t know about you but when is enough…. enough? To be involved in backdating for favorable financial performance returns, then falsifying documents pertaining to a meeting that supposedly took place but actually didn’t, then claiming that you didn’t know the ramifications even though you may have been the one choosing the favorable dates, and then blaming past senior officers is absolutely ridiculous. Steve Jobs should be exposed and let justice be done though the Heavens may fall. If Martha Stewart can go to jail for a $40k debacle in insider trading knowledge…..what do you think should happen to Jobs with the millions of dollars that is effected by this? How much money is enough for anyone? These people never have to work another day of their lives if they don’t want to and still they try to aggressively gain profits. I have no empathy!

Just curious what this rant has to do with the story about the SEC prosecutors resigning.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
If Martha Stewart can go to jail for a $40k debacle in insider trading knowledge…..what do you think should happen to Jobs with the millions of dollars that is effected by this? How much money is enough for anyone?

Go back and read about the Martha Stewart case. If I remember correctly, she did NOT go to jail for insider trading but for lying to investigators and obstructing justice. She lied to the investigators, then had someone falsify a document--all AFTER the investigation had started. (It's hard to obstruct justice before an investigation begins. All of the actions you mentioned occurred before the official investigation began.) I recall reading analyses by experts that, if she had been truthful and admitted to the insider trading knowledge, she would most likely have gotten off with a fine and perhaps forfeiture of profits (or proceeds? Any attorneys here?) from the sale. The person who gave her the information would probably have been hit with a worse penalty.

Another difference that most people reading about the Stewart case did not realize: Martha Stewart was once in the securities business, herself, as a trader, broker, or something of the sort. IOW, she was an "expert" and not only should have known better, but DID know better. On the other hand, Jobs is neither an attorney nor an accountant.

It appears, based on what I've read, that Jobs probably did not profit from the options, as he allegedly never exercised them. Thus, in HIS case, it seems likely that no damage was done to the company nor the stockholders. Some other executives may have exercised the options and profitted thereby. That will come out in the investigation.

I really love reading our psychic-attorney guests. Not only are they experts in securities law, but they can read the minds of prosecutors and predict what a court is going to do.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Juries are stupid. Not lawyers.

Right. Because frivolous lawsuits make it not only to court but to trial all by themselves. No help from corrupt/unethical/desperate attorneys.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly disagree with broad generalities like "lawyers don't have ethics", but you don't have to look any further than a billboard, tv spot, or the cover of your phone book to find an ambulance chaser who does the profession injustice.

There is a radio campaign locally right now where guys relate their "undeserved" DUI charge stories. The stories are so farfetched it offends me that the radio station even took the money for the campaign. But it's obvious that the attorneys who placed the ad aren't looking for situations where the charge wasn't deserved. They're after anyone with a DUI charge. They promise to keep you out of jail and avoid fines. So you can drink and drive another day.

Another firm has TV spots showing an animated guy walking out into the street in front of a moving truck. He just walks right into the truck's lane. It then says, "had a big truck accident? call us, we'll get you the money you deserve."

It's like the old saying goes:

It's 99 attorneys who give the other one a bad name.


- Jon

Quote

gslusher wrote:

She lied to the investigators, then had someone falsify a document..

Huh, sounds exactly like what Jobs has done.

[quote="Jonkun227]It's like the old saying goes:

It's 99 attorneys who give the other one a bad name.


- Jon[/quote]

And what group do you give the bad name to?