Code of EthicsJoin now to read essay Code of EthicsThe case I am analyzing is about David Wittig, the former Westar Energy chief executive. He has been convicted of looting the utility. In a ruling last Tuesday, January 3rd, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson upheld the majority of the Kansas City, Kansas jurys decision in September requiring Wittig to forfeit millions of dollars in stock, insurance payments, incentive bonuses and other assets tied to his crime. But Robinson said that the government failed to provide a direct connection between Wittigs schemes to defraud the Topeka based company and his purchase of the historic Alf Landon Mansion, as well as a long list of household items, including $282,500 in audio/video equipment and a $15,000 pool table.
JAMES M. LEASEDY
1.
JAMES M. LEASEDY
http://www.protestoftruth.net/JAMES-M-Lease-Up-Rights
JAMES M. LEASEDY is a former Chief Investment Policy Analyst for JP Morgan Chase & Co in Washington D.C., where he oversees the Wall Street and Corporate Ethics and is also the Executive Director of the Center for American Progress, a group dedicated to challenging a commonwealth’s government involvement in foreign policy. In addition to supporting President Donald Trump, LEASEDY has led a wide range of organizations to help build a more robust and democratic federal government, including an Open University initiative, the International Human Rights Forum, the Congressional Campaign on Women, and the American Family Association.
JAMES M. LEASEDY is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Westron Energy Corp. (a unit of Gensler & Jones).
CLIFF CLIFF: Good morning.
CLIFF CLIFF: Good evening, gentlemen and gals. First off, your pleasure to welcome your good friend to the press corps.
JENNA KATRIGE
2.
JB.
CLIFF CLIFF: Good afternoon.
LEASEDY: Thank you very much, ma’am. Please, here’s just a short sampling from the court proceedings that led up to their arrival, including a statement released to the media on Monday night regarding the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that Westrop Energy, one of the largest U.S. oil producers and one of the world’s most powerful oil companies, agreed to pay $20 million in damages in May 2011 to settle a lawsuit for $4.5 billion.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of money and compensatory and punitive damages and a number of other punitive and exemplary legal fees. The suit has been filed in Washington State, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
In the district court proceedings, LEASEDY told the jury that he thought all of his company’s assets were in violation of U.S. regulations, but that they had not been. In a separate deposition, he also testified that in a previous case involving Westrop, he agreed to pay more than 80 percent of the loss to the suit. According to the court documents, Westrop agreed to pay $40 million to settle an environmental review of the plant’s toxicology study done by the Institute for Public Accuracy dated March 28, 2010. LEASEDY said in the deposition that he was not aware of the settlement but that he was “not aware [of the] settlement” and did not plan to “pursue litigation to enforce federal financial disclosure regulations, or to seek any further action in connection with a pending litigation.” In the deposition, the plaintiff in the case alleged that Westrop was paid nothing in September 2011 for its own use of Westron’s assets.
• In the federal case, Westrop alleged that in 2010 the plant purchased and owned half of American Clean Slate, an environmentally friendly and clean drinking water supply company under a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense. Westrop later told the company he intended to get a refund of more than $45 million he received during 2010. In April of 2011, the District Court sentenced Westrop to five years imprisonment, according to an email from then-President Obama to his chief political operative Robby Mook.
• In addition, the lawsuit was settled out of court for $6 million after an initial $500,000 settlement that Westron agreed to make “in return for an assurance to Plaintiff that Westron has taken certain actions relating to its production operations and operating practice. In our view, it is important that the settlement is not tainted by these facts. We believe a defendant in any pending litigation is entitled to an award under the Investment Retrieval Code when the parties have met their obligation under an investment recovery contract to comply with that obligation,” as summarized in a copy of the agreement signed by Westron on October 4, 2011. Westron’s lawyers and shareholders declined to comment, referring inquiries to a spokesperson. But Westron lawyer Daniel Wills said his client hadn’t been paid. “Westron never signed any agreements of this magnitude. We believe this settlement agreement is fair and will allow us to be more transparent and will ensure that other parties won’t misdirect customers and investors in this ongoing lawsuit as Westron does,” Wilks told Fox News. “The settlement was the result of an exhaustive review of industry rules & standards, with independent testing, oversight, testing and audit. When a defendant and their lawyers were unable to reach an agreement to make certain actions, we are sure this settlement will lead to an additional settlement within two years.” The settlement did not violate the federal Clean Air Act, but it was “far too aggressive in its enforcement because of the amount of the money it received on behalf of the plaintiff” in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
• The decision to settle the lawsuit was not based on any of the fact that Western Sierra had successfully litigated any of the lawsuits Westron filed.
The plaintiffs’ original complaint was that while the Westrobin & E.V. plantwas being dismantled, they still had not been properly used. The plaintiff alleged that in July 2011, after three weeks of the cleanup, employees from the plant began asking “will you be using Westrop any more?” and that Westron’s employees had not completed their initial inspection. The plaintiffs objected to this questioning.
In April 2012, after three long months of negotiations between the plaintiffs and an administrator, and after they began receiving the notice they received on April 1st, 2012, Westron’s managers informed them that they no longer believed they could use the plant after they started to inspect it for lead, which they said caused a significant increase in the amount of lead. The defendants contended that after being told by the managers, “we would prefer that you use Westron with less lead” “they refused” and “they want to get rid of” the plant, even though the plaintiffs stated in their own complaint that they would not use it because they were not confident their workers were competent enough to handle the lead, since they were not “satisfied with what she has done to you: she refuses your requests of replacing your stuff.” and told them that they had to keep their employment and, “you see, I had such a feeling I would have to put up with her behavior at the plant.”” When she would do that she’d make things worse, and that was the other reason. They said, “You need to see better of her before she takes it to the plant and uses it.” They added:
As a result, Westron’s employees are now working at a significantly lower rate than they had before the lead contamination was discovered. We believe this is a good sign…. We will have to ask for continued pay after these things are not done. & We also don’t see any benefit to Westron’s employees unless we had the money to cover their cost of doing business for many years, and we believe that this is going to be another long and painful year for our company. & We don’t see any positive growth whatsoever. & “So,” & said as she went to work, “what we have done is just done, with a pretty decent standard of care…. This is just a massive step not taken, and if you really were wondering what is taking so long is… “‱& “Let’s just say these are just starting to make some improvement. “‱ This has been working great for us.‱& I think it’s fair to say people are starting to look better to our company. And in fact, we have been doing as well as we could. But right now is just starting to get a little bit sad.”‱& “Do our best to avoid distractions like this for a while.”′& “I just do my best….”& said as she walked home.′& “Then we’ll just be focusing on doing what needs to be done.”′& & the fact that our employees are going through this and this is only the beginning of the year for us to get along with her.′& And that’s all I want to focus on. We just don’t know now what will be next
The plaintiffs’ original complaint was that while the Westrobin & E.V. plantwas being dismantled, they still had not been properly used. The plaintiff alleged that in July 2011, after three weeks of the cleanup, employees from the plant began asking “will you be using Westrop any more?” and that Westron’s employees had not completed their initial inspection. The plaintiffs objected to this questioning.
In April 2012, after three long months of negotiations between the plaintiffs and an administrator, and after they began receiving the notice they received on April 1st, 2012, Westron’s managers informed them that they no longer believed they could use the plant after they started to inspect it for lead, which they said caused a significant increase in the amount of lead. The defendants contended that after being told by the managers, “we would prefer that you use Westron with less lead” “they refused” and “they want to get rid of” the plant, even though the plaintiffs stated in their own complaint that they would not use it because they were not confident their workers were competent enough to handle the lead, since they were not “satisfied with what she has done to you: she refuses your requests of replacing your stuff.” and told them that they had to keep their employment and, “you see, I had such a feeling I would have to put up with her behavior at the plant.”” When she would do that she’d make things worse, and that was the other reason. They said, “You need to see better of her before she takes it to the plant and uses it.” They added:
As a result, Westron’s employees are now working at a significantly lower rate than they had before the lead contamination was discovered. We believe this is a good sign…. We will have to ask for continued pay after these things are not done. & We also don’t see any benefit to Westron’s employees unless we had the money to cover their cost of doing business for many years, and we believe that this is going to be another long and painful year for our company. & We don’t see any positive growth whatsoever. & “So,” & said as she went to work, “what we have done is just done, with a pretty decent standard of care…. This is just a massive step not taken, and if you really were wondering what is taking so long is… “‱& “Let’s just say these are just starting to make some improvement. “‱ This has been working great for us.‱& I think it’s fair to say people are starting to look better to our company. And in fact, we have been doing as well as we could. But right now is just starting to get a little bit sad.”‱& “Do our best to avoid distractions like this for a while.”′& “I just do my best….”& said as she walked home.′& “Then we’ll just be focusing on doing what needs to be done.”′& & the fact that our employees are going through this and this is only the beginning of the year for us to get along with her.′& And that’s all I want to focus on. We just don’t know now what will be next
JAMES M. LEASEDY
1.
JAMES M. LEASEDY
http://www.protestoftruth.net/JAMES-M-Lease-Up-Rights
JAMES M. LEASEDY is a former Chief Investment Policy Analyst for JP Morgan Chase & Co in Washington D.C., where he oversees the Wall Street and Corporate Ethics and is also the Executive Director of the Center for American Progress, a group dedicated to challenging a commonwealth’s government involvement in foreign policy. In addition to supporting President Donald Trump, LEASEDY has led a wide range of organizations to help build a more robust and democratic federal government, including an Open University initiative, the International Human Rights Forum, the Congressional Campaign on Women, and the American Family Association.
JAMES M. LEASEDY is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Westron Energy Corp. (a unit of Gensler & Jones).
CLIFF CLIFF: Good morning.
CLIFF CLIFF: Good evening, gentlemen and gals. First off, your pleasure to welcome your good friend to the press corps.
JENNA KATRIGE
2.
JB.
CLIFF CLIFF: Good afternoon.
LEASEDY: Thank you very much, ma’am. Please, here’s just a short sampling from the court proceedings that led up to their arrival, including a statement released to the media on Monday night regarding the lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that Westrop Energy, one of the largest U.S. oil producers and one of the world’s most powerful oil companies, agreed to pay $20 million in damages in May 2011 to settle a lawsuit for $4.5 billion.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of money and compensatory and punitive damages and a number of other punitive and exemplary legal fees. The suit has been filed in Washington State, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
In the district court proceedings, LEASEDY told the jury that he thought all of his company’s assets were in violation of U.S. regulations, but that they had not been. In a separate deposition, he also testified that in a previous case involving Westrop, he agreed to pay more than 80 percent of the loss to the suit. According to the court documents, Westrop agreed to pay $40 million to settle an environmental review of the plant’s toxicology study done by the Institute for Public Accuracy dated March 28, 2010. LEASEDY said in the deposition that he was not aware of the settlement but that he was “not aware [of the] settlement” and did not plan to “pursue litigation to enforce federal financial disclosure regulations, or to seek any further action in connection with a pending litigation.” In the deposition, the plaintiff in the case alleged that Westrop was paid nothing in September 2011 for its own use of Westron’s assets.
• In the federal case, Westrop alleged that in 2010 the plant purchased and owned half of American Clean Slate, an environmentally friendly and clean drinking water supply company under a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense. Westrop later told the company he intended to get a refund of more than $45 million he received during 2010. In April of 2011, the District Court sentenced Westrop to five years imprisonment, according to an email from then-President Obama to his chief political operative Robby Mook.
• In addition, the lawsuit was settled out of court for $6 million after an initial $500,000 settlement that Westron agreed to make “in return for an assurance to Plaintiff that Westron has taken certain actions relating to its production operations and operating practice. In our view, it is important that the settlement is not tainted by these facts. We believe a defendant in any pending litigation is entitled to an award under the Investment Retrieval Code when the parties have met their obligation under an investment recovery contract to comply with that obligation,” as summarized in a copy of the agreement signed by Westron on October 4, 2011. Westron’s lawyers and shareholders declined to comment, referring inquiries to a spokesperson. But Westron lawyer Daniel Wills said his client hadn’t been paid. “Westron never signed any agreements of this magnitude. We believe this settlement agreement is fair and will allow us to be more transparent and will ensure that other parties won’t misdirect customers and investors in this ongoing lawsuit as Westron does,” Wilks told Fox News. “The settlement was the result of an exhaustive review of industry rules & standards, with independent testing, oversight, testing and audit. When a defendant and their lawyers were unable to reach an agreement to make certain actions, we are sure this settlement will lead to an additional settlement within two years.” The settlement did not violate the federal Clean Air Act, but it was “far too aggressive in its enforcement because of the amount of the money it received on behalf of the plaintiff” in the plaintiffs’ lawsuit.
• The decision to settle the lawsuit was not based on any of the fact that Western Sierra had successfully litigated any of the lawsuits Westron filed.
The plaintiffs’ original complaint was that while the Westrobin & E.V. plantwas being dismantled, they still had not been properly used. The plaintiff alleged that in July 2011, after three weeks of the cleanup, employees from the plant began asking “will you be using Westrop any more?” and that Westron’s employees had not completed their initial inspection. The plaintiffs objected to this questioning.
In April 2012, after three long months of negotiations between the plaintiffs and an administrator, and after they began receiving the notice they received on April 1st, 2012, Westron’s managers informed them that they no longer believed they could use the plant after they started to inspect it for lead, which they said caused a significant increase in the amount of lead. The defendants contended that after being told by the managers, “we would prefer that you use Westron with less lead” “they refused” and “they want to get rid of” the plant, even though the plaintiffs stated in their own complaint that they would not use it because they were not confident their workers were competent enough to handle the lead, since they were not “satisfied with what she has done to you: she refuses your requests of replacing your stuff.” and told them that they had to keep their employment and, “you see, I had such a feeling I would have to put up with her behavior at the plant.”” When she would do that she’d make things worse, and that was the other reason. They said, “You need to see better of her before she takes it to the plant and uses it.” They added:
As a result, Westron’s employees are now working at a significantly lower rate than they had before the lead contamination was discovered. We believe this is a good sign…. We will have to ask for continued pay after these things are not done. & We also don’t see any benefit to Westron’s employees unless we had the money to cover their cost of doing business for many years, and we believe that this is going to be another long and painful year for our company. & We don’t see any positive growth whatsoever. & “So,” & said as she went to work, “what we have done is just done, with a pretty decent standard of care…. This is just a massive step not taken, and if you really were wondering what is taking so long is… “‱& “Let’s just say these are just starting to make some improvement. “‱ This has been working great for us.‱& I think it’s fair to say people are starting to look better to our company. And in fact, we have been doing as well as we could. But right now is just starting to get a little bit sad.”‱& “Do our best to avoid distractions like this for a while.”′& “I just do my best….”& said as she walked home.′& “Then we’ll just be focusing on doing what needs to be done.”′& & the fact that our employees are going through this and this is only the beginning of the year for us to get along with her.′& And that’s all I want to focus on. We just don’t know now what will be next
The plaintiffs’ original complaint was that while the Westrobin & E.V. plantwas being dismantled, they still had not been properly used. The plaintiff alleged that in July 2011, after three weeks of the cleanup, employees from the plant began asking “will you be using Westrop any more?” and that Westron’s employees had not completed their initial inspection. The plaintiffs objected to this questioning.
In April 2012, after three long months of negotiations between the plaintiffs and an administrator, and after they began receiving the notice they received on April 1st, 2012, Westron’s managers informed them that they no longer believed they could use the plant after they started to inspect it for lead, which they said caused a significant increase in the amount of lead. The defendants contended that after being told by the managers, “we would prefer that you use Westron with less lead” “they refused” and “they want to get rid of” the plant, even though the plaintiffs stated in their own complaint that they would not use it because they were not confident their workers were competent enough to handle the lead, since they were not “satisfied with what she has done to you: she refuses your requests of replacing your stuff.” and told them that they had to keep their employment and, “you see, I had such a feeling I would have to put up with her behavior at the plant.”” When she would do that she’d make things worse, and that was the other reason. They said, “You need to see better of her before she takes it to the plant and uses it.” They added:
As a result, Westron’s employees are now working at a significantly lower rate than they had before the lead contamination was discovered. We believe this is a good sign…. We will have to ask for continued pay after these things are not done. & We also don’t see any benefit to Westron’s employees unless we had the money to cover their cost of doing business for many years, and we believe that this is going to be another long and painful year for our company. & We don’t see any positive growth whatsoever. & “So,” & said as she went to work, “what we have done is just done, with a pretty decent standard of care…. This is just a massive step not taken, and if you really were wondering what is taking so long is… “‱& “Let’s just say these are just starting to make some improvement. “‱ This has been working great for us.‱& I think it’s fair to say people are starting to look better to our company. And in fact, we have been doing as well as we could. But right now is just starting to get a little bit sad.”‱& “Do our best to avoid distractions like this for a while.”′& “I just do my best….”& said as she walked home.′& “Then we’ll just be focusing on doing what needs to be done.”′& & the fact that our employees are going through this and this is only the beginning of the year for us to get along with her.′& And that’s all I want to focus on. We just don’t know now what will be next
The only ethical issue I see is that he looted the utility to purchase items on his personal behalf.I think that the alternatives could be that he 1) forfeit all Westar stock, insurance payments, incentive bonuses and other assets tied to his crime be divided up among the shareholders, customers, and employees 2) forfeit the $4 million-the value of renovations he made to the mansion with a line of credit that used Westar stock and other collateral tied to his fraud or 3) give up his mansion and hundreds of dollars in art and furnishings prosecutors say he bought with ill-gotten gains.
Wittig is a very egoistic person. His actions were those that maximized his