Former Enron exec Michael Kopper was sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to return $8 million to the government. But his domestic partner, William Dodson, has been allowed to keep $9 million in funds that Kopper helped him obtain through Enron-related scams.
According to the Washington Blade:
the fact that U.S. and Texas laws do not recognize same-sex relationships most likely prompted authorities against going after Dodson's financial gains in the Enron affair, financial observers have said. Federal prosecutors forced the married spouses of several Enron figures to forfeit money they obtained in schemes operated jointly with Enron executives.
In other words, if Kopper and Dodson were married, the Enron funds that now belong to Dodson would be considered jointly owned by the two men under the marriage laws of most states. As Alphonso David, a staff attorney for Lambda Legal, puts it:
"It's ironic that some of the same people who are opposed to legal recognition of marriage between same-sex couples are upset that this couple gets to keep about $9 million in stolen funds.... This highlights the point that people don't always think about the obligations as well as the rights that go with marriage."
13 Comments for “No Rights, No Responsibilities.”
posted by Randy R. on
Ever see a picture of Michael Kopper? Hot is too weak a word….
posted by Bobby on
So Kopper is a good person because he’s hot? Gee, well, Hitler looks very sexy in those bavarian shorts.
Come on, Randy, this isn’t gay.com to be making such comments. No offense. I’m sure Kopper will be having fun in prison, then again, some of those prisoners are real nasty looking. Too bad I’m not in jail, I would love teaching Kopper what happens to people who cheat and get caught.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I love it when centrally planned “institutions” like anti-gay marriage laws backfire.
posted by raj on
From the post
In other words, if Kopper and Dodson were married, the Enron funds that now belong to Dodson would be considered jointly owned by the two men under the marriage laws of most states.
Not exactly. Under the marriage laws of most states, if Kopper and Dodson were married, property in the one spouse’s (Dodson’s) estate could be used for the other spouse’s (Kopper’s) “support,” which would include judgements against the other spouse. On the other hand, if Kopper were to declare bankruptcy–which he would be well advised to do anyway–the civil cases against Kopper would be litigated in federal bankruptcy court under federal bankruptcy law, and under the federal DOMA any marriage at a state level would be ignored.
So this isn’t just an issue of the marriage laws of most states. It is also an issue of the federal DOMA.
posted by ReganDuCasse on
It looks too, like he’s getting a lot longer sentence than the others involved.
I wonder how many gays and lesbians serve Longer and harsher time than their straight counterparts for similar crimes.
Certainly taking as much property AWAY from gay couples with jointly owned property and assets seems to be a part of the goal of anti marriage laws.
‘We don’t like you married, but we like your money and property and children if you have them.’ is what the states are saying.
Yeah, this law backfired, in a way.
But in every other way…it’s more often anathema to this country’s ideal of equal justice and citizenship.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL……this statement merely adds more weight to my belief that Lambda hires lawyers because they’re leftists, not because they’re intelligent.
True, the government may have well decided that they weren’t going to prosecute Dodson on criminal grounds, given that it would be difficult for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew all the details of the transactions involved and directed them in any fashion for his own enrichment. The fact of a relationship between Kopper and Dodson is not in and of itself sufficient for that, and Federal prosecutors likely decided not to waste the effort.
Unfortunately, though, he’s about to be OJ’d; even though there may not have been sufficient evidence to bring him up on trial, there is more than enough to file civil suits against Dodson directly — and, even though they were not married, the relationship between the two men IS sufficient in civil court to strongly point in the direction of Dodson’s complicity.
So, in short, our system is smart enough to deal with the fact that not all criminals are married and that, since time immemorial, people have tried to shelter ill-gotten assets by putting them in the names of others and scrupulously avoiding entangling legal arrangements. There is no evidence to suggest that Kopper and Dodson would have gotten married even if they could, and indeed, if they were smart, they wouldn’t have, for this precise reason.
Instead of trying to twist this into an argument for gay marriage, how about using it as an argument for gay responsibility — such as Lambda and its associated gay leftists demanding that Dodson turn over his ill-gotten loot?What will be funny is that Lambda and its associated leftists will be whining about how “unfair” it is when Kopper and Kopper’s testimony is used against Dodson.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
It looks too, like he’s getting a lot longer sentence than the others involved.
I wonder how many gays and lesbians serve Longer and harsher time than their straight counterparts for similar crimes.
Right.
I mean, are people even aware of what this guy did? His sentence is light given his level of involvement — the man actually admitted to creating and running partnerships for the sole purpose of enriching himself and others while defrauding Enron shareholders and hiding the company’s true financial picture — and he received considerable leniency because he cooperated in bringing down Fastow.
But again, the first concern is about how Kopper is being treated badly because he’s gay — an attitude which the Blade‘s leaving out details of Kopper’s involvement and crimes and discussing only the penalties — without comparison to sentencing guidelines or to other Enron-linked defendants — magically aids and abets.
posted by Craig2 on
Under New Zealand’s relationship law reforms last year, the offending party’s same-sex civil union partner would be accountable for any jointly accquired sums within their mutual financial arrangements.
This is one of those cases where indeed, we need to consider that spousal recognition does bring obligations and responsibilities as well as rights (which is fairly much what I argued in defence of civil unions down here). In addition, our government supported reform due to mutual spousal reliance clauses that would accompany reform, thus relieving government responsibility for social welfare benefits and other rights incurred through non-recognition of spousal status for lesbian and gay couples.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Under New Zealand’s relationship law reforms last year, the offending party’s same-sex civil union partner would be accountable for any jointly accquired sums within their mutual financial arrangements.
Which is absolutely worthless if they decide not to get married.
Somehow, depending on criminals being stupid enough to marry isn’t quite a good basis for fighting fraud.
In addition, our government supported reform due to mutual spousal reliance clauses that would accompany reform, thus relieving government responsibility for social welfare benefits and other rights incurred through non-recognition of spousal status for lesbian and gay couples.
Of course they did — because it saves them money from having to pay out on their obligations.
That works very similarly to Social Security here in the United States. Gay leftists insist that we need marriage because then gays are eligible for survivor benefits — but ignore the fact that marriage puts one into the “household” category for Social Security payment limits, and that the payment limits for households with two incomes are almost always lower than the combined value of what each partner would receive individually based on the amount they pay into Social Security.
In short, go ahead and get married; the government will tax you the same on your income, but it now has to pay you out less. Of course they’re going to support that.
posted by Craig2 on
I should explain that our civil unions are to all intents and purposes, a parallel institution to marriage, which means that exactly the same rights and obligations apply.
And well, yeah, exactly, if we want full equality, we need to realise that it is about rights *and* responsibilities. Incidentally, though, as for gay ‘leftist’ advocates of same-sex marriage, I prefer civil unions. As far as I’m concerned, it’s apples and oranges. They taste different, but they’re both nutritional.
We’ll probably eventually get SSM down here as well, but at least same-sex couples have equality with their heterosexual counterparts if they decide to enter its same-sex civil alternative.
Down here, we’re more concerned about adoption law reform and HIV/AIDS issues at the moment
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
That works very similarly to Social Security here in the United States. Gay leftists insist that we need marriage because then gays are eligible for survivor benefits — but ignore the fact that marriage puts one into the “household” category for Social Security payment limits, and that the payment limits for households with two incomes are almost always lower than the combined value of what each partner would receive individually based on the amount they pay into Social Security.
Of course, in their endless wrangling about which payout scheme should be used in Social Security, neither old party points out that Social Security is a Ponzi (pyramid) scheme which would result in immediate arrests and convictions if any private-sector entity created such a program.
Any money you pay into Social Security — if you are under 50 — is a tax. There’s no guarantee you’ll get a thing, and in fact, if you’re able-bodied, save, and are under 40, you’ll probably receive nothing at all.
posted by Craig2 on
Our social welfare system is not donor-based however. It is funded from general taxation and pays set benefits to specific aggregate groups, based on their assessed level of need. Again, though, I understand that the United States is somewhat
retrograde when it comes to the rights of unmarried couples in general, unlike most of the rest of the western world…
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Arow Blackdragon on
I call it KARMA! We get no rights as married couples so we’re, rightfully, exempt from the responsibilities of married couples. Let this happen a few more times and we’ll get our right to marry surprisingly quick!!