Advocacy & Safety - Morgan Stanley Financial Advisor Won't Face Felony Charges in Near Fatal Hit and Run

According to the Vail Daily, "A financial manager for wealthy clients will not face felony charges for a hit-and-run because it could jeopardize his job."

The financial manager is Martin Joel Erzinger, 52. In his position at Morgan Stanley he oversees over $1 billion in assets for his clients. He'd be forced by law to disclose a felony, which would of course not be good for business. But what about the business of justice?

Erzinger hit 34 year old Steven Milo as he rode his bike along a highway shoulder. Milo suffered very serious injuries to his brain and spinal cord and was left for dead in a ditch while Erzinger drove away and only stopped several miles down the road to call roadside assistance for his banged up Mercedes.

DA Mark Hurlbert, who pleaded the case down to two misdemeanor traffic charges says one of the reasons for doing so is to make sure Erzinger retains his ability to pay restitution in the case. Here's Hurlbert in the Vail Daily:

"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it... Justice in this case includes restitution and the ability to pay it."

Hit-and-run cases are often not as cut-and-dry as they seem, and as we experienced here in Portland just a few months ago, add in a wealthy suspect and things get even more complicated.

Legal chess moves aside, the community has responded strongly to this case. Over 2,700 people have already signed a petition on Change.org urging DA Hurlbert to not drop the felony charges against Erzinger. Another grassroots effort is directed at a boycott of the Vail stage of the upcoming Quizno's Pro Challenge.

Even with an appreciation of the legal complexities, what Erzinger is accused of absolutely warrants a felony charge and it's shocking that his profession and net worth has even entered into the equation. As it is, the story has already gone viral, so the cat is out of the bag. Now, instead of dealing with the felony charge privately with his clients, Erzinger will become a national villain. I wonder how all this attention is impacting his business?



http://bikeportland.org/2010/11/08/another-black-eye-for-bikes-in-colorado-42320

There's a poll if you go through the huff post link, it has about 4,500 signatures now. It requires name and address, so it should have some meaning signing it. Obviously most of us aren't voters in that district, but it creates more and more push for media coverage which is bad news for everyone there until they fix this.

Morgan Stanley told The Huffington Post that they are aware of the situation and stressed that it was separate from Erzinger's professional role.

"This unfortunate situation was not related to the individual's professional activities, but we are continuing to monitor the situation and will cooperate fully with law enforcement, if requested," said a Morgan Stanley representative.
His employers couldn't care less. As far as they're concerned, he's being charged w/ a misdemeanor and will still be able to make people rich. If you're the victim in Colorado, don't expect justice.

BTW, the victim was an equally wealthy liver transplant surgeon

http://www.treehugger.com/martin-erzinger.jpg



Traffic laws exist to motivate all drivers to act in a manner that is safe for other users of the road, including pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. To those of us who rely on bicycles for transportation and recreation, enforcement of laws that ensure our safety on the road is vital.

The enforcement of traffic laws should not differ depending on a driver's ability to write a check, but rather on the ability of the law to motivate drivers to drive safely. What Martin Joel Erzinger is accused of doing is clearly criminal, but dropping felony charges will set a message to drivers that the penalties for neglecting the welfare of others on the road, causing life-altering injury, and showing no concern for the victim might not be as serious as the law indicates.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/rich-vail-fund-manager-gets-off.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+treehuggersite+(Treehugger)

I've got a few dogs in this fight, and I agree with the D.A.'s decision. First, I'm a cyclist like just about everybody else here. Second, I'm the local Ride of Silence organizer, so I see up close & personal the lives that are affected by fatal car v. bike collisions. Third, a local cyclist was killed this summer by a hit & run driver who still hasn't been found. The family doesn't even have the funds for a reward, so a group of us threw in together for it, which was announced by the police and given good media coverage. THAT was the case that comes to mind here. I don't know the facts, but I suspect that cyclist Milo's career as a doctor is over, and not only has his earnings potential gone way down, his future medical expenses have gone way up. All circumstances are different, and I don't know everything about this one, but based upon what I know, if it were me, the money is going to be of a greater benefit to me than knowing Erzinger is behind bars. Especially when Erzinga eventually is released from prison.

... if it were me, the money is going to be of a greater benefit to me than knowing Erzinger is behind bars....

The victim doesn't see it that way. He doesn't need money. He wants to see this guy behind bars.

I don't know the facts, but I suspect that cyclist Milo's career as a doctor is over, and not only has his earnings potential gone way down, his future medical expenses have gone way up. All circumstances are different, and I don't know everything about this one, but based upon what I know, if it were me, the money is going to be of a greater benefit to me than knowing Erzinger is behind bars. Especially when Erzinga eventually is released from prison.

With all respect, not only don't you know the facts, you don't even seem to have read the articles. The VICTIM is outraged by this and wants the perp prosecuted as a felon. Furthermore neither he nor his counsel were consulted by the prosecutor before lowering the charges. Don't you think that Dr Milo, a well educated, highly successful surgeon, is in a perfectly good position to evaluate, with the aid of the legal talent doubtless at his disposal, whether he can recover damages from Erzinger in civil proceedings even with Erzinger in prison?

DA Mark Hurlbert may be reached (970) 393-2600

I've got a few dogs in this fight, and I agree with the D.A.'s decision. First, I'm a cyclist like just about everybody else here. Second, I'm the local Ride of Silence organizer, so I see up close & personal the lives that are affected by fatal car v. bike collisions. Third, a local cyclist was killed this summer by a hit & run driver who still hasn't been found. The family doesn't even have the funds for a reward, so a group of us threw in together for it, which was announced by the police and given good media coverage. THAT was the case that comes to mind here. I don't know the facts, but I suspect that cyclist Milo's career as a doctor is over, and not only has his earnings potential gone way down, his future medical expenses have gone way up. All circumstances are different, and I don't know everything about this one, but based upon what I know, if it were me, the money is going to be of a greater benefit to me than knowing Erzinger is behind bars. Especially when Erzinga eventually is released from prison.

Here's why you're wrong. Erzinger almost certainly has the assets and/or insurance to make the victim whole, regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. The claim by the prosecutor that he needs his job so as to make restitution is almsot certainly incorrect. Further, the victim in any criminal case should at least have a say, if not veto power, over the decision to "permit" the defendant to avoid a felony so as to allow him to make restitution if those outcomes are mutually exclusive. In this case, those outcomes are not mutually exclusive, and the victim was not allowed an input into the result. If a victim wants restitution in the criminal case and the defendant needs to work to make it, reducing a charge is justifiable. But if the victim values punishment over criminal restitution, and the victim can be made whole through the civil process, reducing the charge is simply an example of two-tiered justice - one for the rich, the other for the rest of us.

Originally heard about this Saturday & it didn't make it into the Denver Post till today around noon.....well after it got pushed nation-wide by outraged people.

Saw this as well...

You can contact the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation Council at 303 893 8121, and lodge your complaint against Vail County DA Mark Hurlburt.

The conservative majority on the US Supreme Court (Scalia, et al) have graciously and without a word of backing in the Constitution provided scumbag prosecutors like Mike Hurlburt with ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for their charging decisions (and their lying about evidence, or anything else they may do). Absolute immunity! The guy can, at most, lose his next election.

What he needs is a public pilloring to make his name synonomous with injustice. Give him his 15 minutes of fame on the national scene.

This post makes a good start of noting Hurlbert is synonymous with injustice http://washingtonwheelman.blogspot.com/2010/11/da-hurlbert-has-perverse-sense-of-what.html other things not mentioned here that Hurlbert has done are lower punishments for drunk skiing and running over little girls and for white men who go around pulling black women around by their hair.

Money talks in Vail and the surrounding area. This story makes me sick and I hope that DA gets a clue that the scumbag that left the bicyclist on the side of the road needs to spend some time behind bars thinking about what he did... I am sure his liability umbrella policy provider is getting ready to write a large check to Dr. Milo.... I signed the petition and live in Colorado.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/08/martin-erzinger-morgan-stanley-hit-and-run-_n_780294.html


"Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger's profession, and that entered into it," District Attorney Mark Hurlbert said. "When you're talking about restitution, you don't want to take away his ability to pay."

"We have talked with Mr. Haddon and we had [sic] their objections, but ultimately it's our call," Hurlbert said.

Restitution for ending a liver transplant surgeon professional career can't be cheap. Leaving the guy for dead - WOW!!!! I understand that everybody gets judged in the end.

What needs to be done is take the DA and Erzinger into a dark room tied up. Strip them of their clothes, take out a rusty dull knife and slowly cut off one testicle and shove it into the other guy's mouth. The DA is scum. Scum I tells ya.

Oh and if someone is tracking this message as a threat, yes it is. My name is Peter Griffin. I live on 276 Evergreen Terrace Levistown, CO 23887.

What needs to be done is take the DA and Erzinger into a dark room tied up. Strip them of their clothes, take out a rusty dull knife and slowly cut off one testicle and shove it into the other guy's mouth. The DA is scum. Scum I tells ya.

Oh and if someone is tracking this message as a threat, yes it is. My name is Peter Griffin. I live on 276 Evergreen Terrace Levistown, CO 23887.

Well, that is just a little over the top...

if it were me, the money is going to be of a greater benefit to me than knowing Erzinger is behind bars. Especially when Erzinga eventually is released from prison.

So you'd like to have this driver continue driving on the streets hitting other people and running, and be indefinitely excluded from the jail as long as he has the job?

It would be interesting if he hit someone of the same profession as him and having equally wealthy clients. ;) Even more interesting if one of his wealthy clients were a patient of the doctor victim waiting for liver transplant. ;)

P.S. If the opposite happened--if the surgeon was driving and hit the money manager, you bet his wealthy clients will make sure to fine the surgeon as much as the money they lose from losing the manager.

Here, regarding Hurlbert's comment "We have talked with Mr. Haddon and we had their objections, but ultimately it's our call," I have a layman's question: Is the district attorney Hurlbert being the prosecutor for the victim, or the victim's lawyer Haddon? Can't the victim's lawyer be the prosecutor?

This story doesn't give enough information from both sides. It might be better that the surgeon gets tons of money instead of nothing from a guy in jail. The DA said that the plea deal will still give the driver jail time for misdemeanors. With a felony conviction the driver would loose his prestigious job and not be able to pay the undisclosed restitution. I wish all criminal drivers would go to jail. Perhaps the victim has enough money to pay for his lifetime of care and would prefer the driver to spend many years in jail. That information is missing from the report.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wb8bAl1P-N0/TNlV9EUuMHI/AAAAAAAARt4/QDhXMw_7VZM/s1600/Worth.com.jpg


About Martin J. Erzinger

Martin J. Erzinger is a director in private wealth management at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney in Denver. He is dedicated to ultra high net worth individuals, their families and foundations. By providing advice founded on a culture of excellence and driven by global insight, Mr. Erzinger is devoted to helping clients preserve and grow their financial, family and social capital. He brings 30 years of capital markets experience and expertise to the planning, design and implementation of clients’ wealth strategies. He is backed by a deep team of professionals with multiple disciplines. He has served on numerous boards and investment committees and is a current director and trustee on the University of Colorado Foundation Board.

Assets Under Management: $1 billion

Minimum Fee for Initial Meeting: None required

Minimum Net Worth Requirement: $5 million

Largest Client Net Worth: $800 million

Compensation Method for Planning Services:
Asset-based fees and commissions (investment and insurance products)

Primary Custodian for Investor Assets:
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney


Martin J. Erzinger
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney
370 17th Street
Suite 2800
Denver, CO 80202
800.503.2813
martin.j.erzinger@morganstanleypwm.com



http://www.worth.com/index.php/component/advisors/?id=430&view=single

The petition is going viral and is up over 9K sigs: http://www.change.org/petitions/view/da_mark_hurlbert_dont_drop_felony_charges_against_hit-and-run_wealth_manager

Important follow up:

Originally Posted by Mark Hurlbert
Vail, CO, Colorado;68408629
Over the weekend, I have received over 1,000 e-mails from all over the country regarding the Martin Joel Erzinger case.

Because of that I feel the need to explain why I am of...fering the plea bargain proposed in the Erzinger case. Either through the bent of the Vail Daily article or my own inartful comments, I feel that the reason for the plea bargain was not properly conveyed.

First, let me say that from the start I feel for Dr. Steven Milo and sincerely hope that he has a complete and speedy recovery from his injuries. So why did I offer two misdemeanors on such a serious case?

Despite what is implied in the Vail Daily, Dr. Milo never asked me to plea Mr. Erzinger to a felony. Dr. Milo asked that I plead Mr. Erzinger to a felony deferred judgment and sentence.

What this means is that Mr. Erzinger would plead to a felony leaving the scene of an accident, and the judgment would be set aside.

In either two or four years, as long as Mr. Erzinger met certain conditions, the case would drop off his record and he would be allowed to seal this case. Since there was no alcohol or drugs involved, the only conditions I could legally ask for were that he pay restitution and stay out of trouble.

Given that he had a clean history, Mr. Erzinger would essentially have been able to write a check, and the case would then be dismissed. On top of that, while Dr. Milo was still probably recovering from his injuries, Mr. Erzinger would be able to say that he had no criminal history and even deny that anything had happened. That is not something I could stomach.

I therefore offered that Mr. Erzinger plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and careless driving causing serious bodily injury.

This means that for the rest of his life, Mr. Erzinger will have on his record that he carelessly drove, caused another human being serious bodily injury and left the scene. He will lose his driver's license, face potential jail time as determined by the judge and still have to pay restitution, which as I said in the Vail Daily is important to us but not an overriding objective in the plea.

Obviously there is a benefit to Mr. Erzinger on taking the misdemeanors -- he keeps his job.

If he were to plead to the deferred charge, he may or may not lose his job. But either way, as mentioned above, in a couple of years he would be able to tell any prospective employer that he had no criminal history.

There has been much made about Mr. Erzinger's wealth. That is of no concern to me other than as it pertains to restitution to Dr. Milo. I have not asked Mr. Erzinger for any money either to myself or to the District Attorney's Office, and he has not offered. Both of us understand that that would be highly illegal.

Finally, I appreciate the constructive comments I have received. And even if I have not responded, I have read every single one of them.

If after reading this, you still feel that I am wrong for the plea bargain, I take full responsibility and welcome any constructive comments.

But be forewarned that there is not much I can change at this point. I made the plea offer months ago, and the defense has accepted. This means that even if I wanted to change the plea offer, I could not.

The only person that can reject it at this point is the judge. Again, I welcome any constructive comments in this case.

Mark Hurlbert is the district attorney of the 5th Judicial District. The case referred to above was an alleged hit-and-run accident in July involving motorist Martin Joel Erzinger and bicyclist Dr. Steven Milo that resulted in serious injuries Milo is still recovering from.

^^^ if that's real it's complete BS

you don't need to be on drugs or alcohol to be a distracted driver capable of doing grave bodily harm, and there should be serious consequences and a criminal record for the actions of people like Erzinger, he shouldn't get a pass just because he's wealthy and no doubt has a bunch of good attorneys working for him.

It seem odd to me that leaving the scene of an accident involving serious bodily injury constitutes a misdemeanor in Colorado. That's a felony in Florida. I suggest those in Colorado contact their legislators about upgrading that crime.

How about a Strict Liability (http://bikeportland.org/2010/11/09/would-strict-liability-help-curb-americas-distracted-driving-habit-42432) standard for motorists like this?

The real question is what would be the situation if the driver did a hit and run on the Dr. in a car... would Mr Money have been given the same treatment?

Merged with the same topic from LCF.

Hit and run is also a misdemeanor in Utah. How insane is that?
If you are drunk and hit someone, you are better off leaving and take the misdemeanor.

If some day in future, another person becomes a victim of Erzinger's driving, then--only then would it become clear to the court that not jailing him was a huge mistake.

Putting him in jail is not only a punishment, but also to protect other people from being hit by this guy.

^^^ if that's real it's complete BS

you don't need to be on drugs or alcohol to be a distracted driver capable of doing grave bodily harm, and there should be serious consequences and a criminal record for the actions of people like Erzinger, he shouldn't get a pass just because he's wealthy and no doubt has a bunch of good attorneys working for him.

I'll second this though he may be right about not being able to change anything now. But seriously WTF is with he got permission from the defense for the plea bargain, like that's some sort of high standard.

I still read this as what the victim wanted was not respected.

If some day in future, another person becomes a victim of Erzinger's driving, then--only then would it become clear to the court that not jailing him was a huge mistake.

Putting him in jail is not only a punishment, but also to protect other people from being hit by this guy.

According to the Huffington Post article, "prosecutors offered Erzinger a plea bargain for restitution and two misdemeanors potentially carrying two years of jail time." Has sentencing taken place yet?

^^^ if that's real it's complete BS

you don't need to be on drugs or alcohol to be a distracted driver capable of doing grave bodily harm, and there should be serious consequences and a criminal record for the actions of people like Erzinger, he shouldn't get a pass just because he's wealthy and no doubt has a bunch of good attorneys working for him.

Did you read the followup from Hurlbert? If they'd gone with a felony plea, it would have been deferred judgement and sentence, meaning no criminal record of financial industry scum kept his nose clean for a while. This way, sentence follows him forever. Even if it is just a misdemeanor. Also, charging rich guy with a felony is one thing; getting a felony conviction would probably be pretty difficult.

I imagine the civil suit is where it will get pretty nasty for Mr. I Don't Talk With You if You're Not Worth $5mil. Surgeon suing a financial advisor: Vail lawyers are howling in the streets with barely contained erections/engorged vulvae.

I'm in the same biz as the MSSB financial advisor who is the subject of this thread. Technically, we are competitors. From my POV the reduction in charges to will do little to help here, if the defendant has to serve a two year prison sentence. Most likely, MSSB will divide his book of biz and move on. There are no time outs in this business.

His clients will find out about this, so, if some business preservation plan was worked out within the branch office this guy works in, explaining his absence would become problematic. The clients hired him, not some underling or substitute advisor to work with them. Thus holding the empire together for a year or two while this guy does his time is unlikely.

Wealthy people are no different from the not so wealthy. Once they find out the guy committed a hit and run, most won't cut him a break. On hitting the cyclist, accidents happen. If he had stopped, most reasonable people would understand a reasonable explanation. Some might still fire him. So, add it all up, hitting a cyclist, leaving the guy for dead, going away for at least a year, the guy is done in this biz. Many of his clients will leave for one of those reasons.

Once he's done his time it is unlikely MSSB will want him back. The book of business will have been distributed to other advisors who will have done their best to retain as much business as possible. At that point bringing this guy back makes no business sense for MSSB. In fact, this guy going to jail is no different, from a business POV, than if he were to leave the firm for any other reason. The firm divys the book and fights to keep clients in the fold.

On the future earnings, the Advisor could re-enter the biz without testing as long as it's within two years. Longer than two years requires taking licensing exams again. Hirability would depend on whether a firm believes he can rebuild his business. A billion under management shows he is a top producer. Firms like top producers. Someone will give him a shot. A felony makes re-licensing almost impossible.

From an income POV a billion under management could be generating as much as ten million a year in revenues for MSSB. The advisor, at that level takes home about 50% of the total revenue. Relatively speaking, the average producer for MSSB produces about $700,000 in revenue and takes home about $300,000. Again, the firm looking to give this guy a shot will figure he's so talented that even as damaged goods if he does 1/10th the biz he did before the problem that gives them an above average producer bringing in $1,000,000 a year. At that level advisors make about $500,000. So, plenty of money to garnish.

While i agree that the more serious charges should have remained in place, it is likely that this guy wouldn't have faced much more jail time punishment. A good lawyer combined with a good " I thought i hit a deer" story gives benefit of a doubt and gets these creeps off lightly almost every time.

This is a tragedy on many levels.

Anyone with that kind of fake-n-bake tan, with that much 'product' in his hair, deserves whatever's coming. I know it's illiberal and closed-minded of me; and I'm sorry; but that guy really looks the part of the smug, self-satisfied rich guy. He looks like a total d-bag.

Did you read the followup from Hurlbert? If they'd gone with a felony plea, it would have been deferred judgement and sentence, meaning no criminal record of financial industry scum kept his nose clean for a while. This way, sentence follows him forever. Hurlbert is claiming that is what the victim asked for. That does not make sense (especially with the news reports that contradict the claim). Mr. Hit&Run could have been charged with the felony, convicted and if the victim wanted Mr. Hit&Run to keep working for restitution, the judge could sentence Mr. Hit&Run to something like 5-10 years and convert it to probation. That way, Mr. Hit&Run has a permanent Felony conviction, can still work and if he screws up in the slightest in the 5-10 years, he goes to prison. There is no obligation for the DA to offer or for the judge to accept a deferred sentence.

... the reduction in charges will do little to help here, if the defendant has to serve a two year prison sentence. Most likely, MSSB will divide his book of biz and move on. There are no time outs in this business.

He's not going to jail. He's going to get probation, though he deserves jail. If you're right that "wealthy people are no different than the not so wealthy," what will matter to most of them is whether he delivers, not whether he left a cyclist in the road.

He's not going to jail. He's going to get probation, though he deserves jail. If you're right that "wealthy people are no different than the not so wealthy," what will matter to most of them is whether he delivers, not whether he left a cyclist in the road.

He may go to jail. We'll see. Regardless, this guy isn't Carlos Bertonatti. At worst, he made a serious mistake in judgement. No booze, no drugs, no prior reckless behavior. And, whether or not he goes to jail his employer will deal with him. I work for one of MSSB's biggest competitors. These firms don't take this type of thing lightly. They've got to let the process play out first.


You really think rich people aren't disgusted by a coward who would hurt someone like this and leave him to die? They may not have the lynch mob mentality displayed on this thread, but many will fire this man.

And, so you know, wealth managment isn't Buddy Fox making his clients rich. These folks are already rich. Most got that way by taking risks most of wouldn't think of. Like starting a business from scratch instead of taking a sure thing paycheck. Many wealthy people were at one time very poor. They don't want to go back there. The job of the wealth manager is to make sure they don't become poor, to see that the money accomplishes the client's personal family financial goals and does some social good.

Haha, come on guys... lets get real if you're a nobody and a big shot runs you down on your bicycle you are ****ed. Lets just look at Toronto's michael bryant killing Darcy sheppard in front of witnesses and video cameras. Somehow there wasn't enough evidence the prosecution decided. I'm surprised there isn't even more PR lies on this morgan stanley advisor and citing the cyclist as purely to blame.

... There are no time outs in this business. ...

Lots and lots of bailouts however.

Lots and lots of bailouts however.

Our end of the biz didn't get a bailout.

The bailouts to Wall St were about restoring trust , not solvency. Most of the Wall St firms didn't want the money but were forced to take it. They repaid it as soon as the gov would allow.

Bailouts in total will work to be roughly rev neutral.

BTW, the victim was an equally wealthy liver transplant surgeonRight, the vic is a highly trained professional who saves peoples lives--the perp a social parasite whose gig involves ****ing up the US economy for the benefit of a few rich clients. Nice.

Vail Daily weighs in editorially:

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101111/EDITS/101119980/0/AE&parentprofile=

Quite sensible, methinks.

I won't discuss Tom's wrongheaded notions about fed bailouts here. Better to limit this one to the event at hand and the limited scope of this board.

Right, the vic is a highly trained professional who saves peoples lives--the perp a social parasite whose gig involves ****ing up the US economy for the benefit of a few rich clients. Nice.

Another member of the lynch mob speaks. Sadly, you really are misinformed. Worse, you arrogantly believe you aren't.

Would we rather see a misdemeanor and permanent mark on his record stick because of a plea deal, or a felony indictment followed by a trial where he is found innocent of felony charges?

Vail Daily weighs in editorially:

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20101111/EDITS/101119980/0/AE&parentprofile=

Quite sensible, methinks.

I won't discuss Tom's wrongheaded notions about fed bailouts here. Better to limit this one to the event at hand and the limited scope of this board.

People love to hate the rich. This thread sure proves that little axiom.

I disagree with the Vail Daily gossip column. While i believe Erzinger should get some jail time, once the Doc calms down he'll be glad Erzinger's earning power is still in tact. That is, if it is preserved. As the only person on this thread who actually knows how the financial services industry works, I have my doubts about his long term employment. Regardless of what his employer does, and they will do something, most of his clients won't want a controversial advisor. they will vote with their feet. His business will be damaged. I've seen the same thing dozens of times in my career when the wheels fall off for one reason or another and a good advisor pancakes in. Erzinger won't get to live happily ever after.

Most of these cases end up plea bargained with the Perp, as you put it, getting off relatively lightly. The court has to weigh not only the crime, but the mitigating circumstances. The fact that the guy wasn't doing anything reckless, and that he has no prior reckless behavior would weigh heavily on the outcome. Note: net worth not a factor. Knowing the likely outcome, prosecutors in all cases weigh that outcome against the risk of going to trial and getting an unfavorable outcome. Erzinger, with his clean history, isn't the type of defendant that procecutors are likely to roll the dice with. Net worth only enters in, in that the prosecutors know that they'll be up against some good lawyering. Again, something to be weighed.

Also, note that the Doc and his lawyers are already positioning themselves for the civil suit. No doubt the payoff will be big.

As for the bailouts, i didn't like them any more than you did. If you have a different set of facts that shows TARP as a costly failure, by all means, i'd love to read about it here. Or, you can just continue to take misinformed cheap shots.

Our end of the biz didn't get a bailout.

The bailouts to Wall St were about restoring trust , not solvency. Most of the Wall St firms didn't want the money but were forced to take it. They repaid it as soon as the gov would allow.

Bailouts in total will work to be roughly rev neutral.

While the details are quite vague in my head -- so if you're intimate with the details that I'm very fuzzy on, please be kind ... ;) -- I get the sense that part of the reason firms/entities with CDSs didn't need the money was that the Feds propped up AIG to guarantee payment to holders. Things could have turned out very differently without TARP and that in all likelihood everyone benefited from the program in a meaningful way. Just for clarity, not only did people in the financial industry benefit but ordinary people benefited in a significant way.

That said, while I have not seen anyone articulate it in this manner, I think people are generally upset that on face-value, holders of mortgage backed CDSs were essentially 100% insured while ordinary people that bought the homes or suffered from the broad economic mess have essentially been left out in the cold. There are reasons for this, but nonetheless, people are still pissed off about the whole thing.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Erzinger may very well pay a steep price for the act. However, I strongly suspect that a poor person would have been doubly screwed for precisely the same act. Mind you, this is likely true for many of things in society: The ability to hire an effective lawyer or talk to the right person will result in very different outcomes. There is little that we can do about this.

That the DA might have explicitly considered his income when acting is simply offensive to my sense of fairness and justice. My instinct tells me that, based on his past behavior, the DA must have his head up so far up his @ss that the lack of oxygen killed off too many brain cells to simply do his job in a straightforward manner. I sincerely hope that this is truly a "poor choice" of words and not a verbal slip that he is trying to cover up.

People love to hate the rich. This thread sure proves that little axiom.

Sure. Because very few people think that they are rich (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/in-which-mr-deling-responds-to-someone-who-might-be-professor-todd-henderson.html). :lol:

DeLong got some of the details wrong -- Henderson was all over the blogosphere for a while and a lot of information came out -- but nonetheless, I think a lot of people fail to realize how much we have by fretting about what we lack.

Regardless of any other circumstances, it would be a great thing to see lifetime driving bans in cases like this.

As for the bailouts, i didn't like them any more than you did. If you have a different set of facts that shows TARP as a costly failure, by all means, i'd love to read about it here. Or, you can just continue to take misinformed cheap shots.

I think you'd be surprised by my outlook, but this is not the place to discuss these issues from either side of the fence. It's not a "cheap shot" to comment that thread drift-- from either you or those who disagree with you-- does not have a place in this thread. Bailouts have nothing to do with this, but the fact Enzinger is rich does. It allowed him to escape prosecution.

Felony charges should have been placed, and the DA made it quite clear in his initial comments that wealth and earning power of the accussed was a deciding factor in reducing the charges for plea. He said it, not me, and he's welcome to the backwash from his ill-advised comments. As to your contention the guy didn't do anything reckless, he hit a person, drove off, and tried to cover it up. I'd say that qualifies as "reckless." Had he stayed at the scene, and called the cops, your argument would hold merit. Given the basic facts we have here, your argument doesn't.

Criminal cases are seperate from civil cases. They may have some relation, but they are different animals (ask Kernblach) and one should not influence the outcome of another. At this point you have no inkling of the doc's intent, other than he wanted felony charge pursued. He sure doesn't seem happy about the present outcome, and I don't particularly blame him, when the DA says the defendants financial worth/earning power was a consideration in the plea offer. You may not like it when people complain about the rich getting special treatment. This time it is true. The DA admits it.

You can't blame people being upset about that, even if you think it's unfair folks slag the rich. Note I'm not slagging the rich-- I'm slagging one particular guy (and the DA who aids him) whose money has allowed him at least partially out of a jam. A single member is not necessarily representative of a larger group.

We'll see as to your assertions about Ernzinger's future, but I won't be surprised if he continues on his merry path. Of course you're an expert and I'm an idiot who doesn't know a thing about the issues of being a financial advisor (or so you assume. I'll let you go on holding your assumptions dear).

BTW, I didn't call Erzinger "perp". You might try reading.