[schundler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What were the charges specifically? Securities fraud?

I think those of you arguing the likelihood of his guilt are also missing the legal fuzziness of a lot of white collar crime, as a lot of it originates from some scheme that is borderline legal and borderline ethical to begin with or operates on some kind of loophole.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP said he wasn't "lily-white," he was aggressive. As for the notion that "white-collar crime" isn't as bad as other crimes, feel free to believe it. I'll feel free to think you're an idiot. Legality and ethics are almost mutually exclusive, especially in this day and age and in this country.

Do you all cheat at the poker table? Do you believe that if you aren't pushing the boundaries wrt cheating, you're not doing it right? I doubt it. I have no idea what aggressive really means, whether that's profiting from inside information (i.e., a hookup based on your upbringing/socioeconomic status/insider-ness, or that of your co-workers) or just taking risks wrt gray areas in the law. However, I'm pretty [censored] sure that an aspect of the risk you're taking is what happened to the OP.

Do I think he deserved it? I don't know enough about high finance to say, but it sounds like he got screwed at least a little. Have others gotten away with a lot worse in this arena? Undoubtedly. Is "everybody does it" a defense? Hell no. I'm astonished by the fact that an argument that never worked on anyone's parents when they were children is the rationalization for all sorts of behavior as adults. People do what they feel they have to do to survive/thrive, and I don't (necessarily) blame them for that. But to believe, as many seem to, that there shouldn't be/aren't consequences for those choices? I thought the average 2p2er was smarter than that. Unless, of course, the "trust-fund" comment posted earlier is closer to the truth than I realize. Or perhaps what I've often wondered about the "cheat-code"/"god-mode" generation is true -- that you can rationalize anything. You know, like chicks do.

I'm glad OP made it through safely, I really am. As for the rest of you trollers who oppose us "anti-" trollers, I humbly submit that this is probably not the only area of the law in which the legal system and the prison system are all [censored] up, and in fact one might be able to find much more egregious examples, with much further-reaching consequences. And that's our point. If you're basing your argument on your personal narrow perspective (omg that's so terrible, it could happen to one of my friends/daddy/me?!?), at least admit it.

[/ QUOTE ]


not only is this diatribe so incredibly all-over-place that it is devoid of any meaningful argument, but you've also tragically misunderstood a point which was not especially difficult to grasp, that had a tone quite dissimilar to the strawman you created.

I'll save you the embarrassment of breaking down the many missteps in logical reasoning you've allowed to render into a really dumb couple of paragraphs.