Talk:Michael Milken/Controversial lawsuit

Didn't do anything wrong
Milken didn't do anything wrong. How about some words from those that point that out? Economizer 05:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If he didn't do anything wrong, why is he a convicted felon? T.E. Goodwin 05:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because he was the victim of a witch-hunt and because he didn't play by the rules of the Good Ole Boys. The smear term "junk bond" is evidence of that. The term was a media invention to leverage opinion against the kind of business Milken was involved in. Sh0t 19:07, 01 May 2007
 * Victim of a witch-hunt? He is a convicted felon who pleaded guilty himself! And thanks to that plea he managed to save his brother (who probably was as guilty as he was) and his (tainted) family fortune. He was not, ever, a victim. He was never helpless and had the money and the means to fight. He chose not to, probably because he was guilty and he knew it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ALMAJU (talk • contribs) 14:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lying to your colleagues/employees about the size of your bonus, 10 million vs. 550 million, is wrong.

This page is disgusting and completely biased AGAINST MILKEN.
Plenty of serious historical review now sees Milken, very simply, as a victim of a witch hunt. Primarily by a glamour-seeking Guiliani.

The "robber barons" of an earlier era were typically seen as "pure evil" right through to, say, the 1970s. Now the "robber barons" are simply seen as high-achieving capitalists, who were maligned by socialists and leftists. (Ayn Rand was one of the first to vigorously defend and champion the so-called "robber barons.")

Most capitalists and libertarians today see Milken in exactly the same way - a straightforward witch-hunt VICTIM. He is a modern day "robber baron" and a victimized HERO to most capitalist, libertarian thinkers.

This ridiculous WIkipedia article is as left-wing and uninformed as any other ridiculous left-wing, statist-leaning WIkipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.36.207 (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that this was a "witch hunt" is comical in light of the evidence presented at trial. I don't have any idea what the "leftist" rant is about in connection with this story. It was a straightforward criminal law case conducted in a court of law and it resulted in a conviction. Thats not a "witch hunt"  no matter how many times one falsely repeats it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.160.9 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I was surprised to see a criminal celebrated so subjectively on Wikipedia. I am ashamed to be working in finance, when fraud is mistaken for business, like it is here with Milken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swinkiel (talk • contribs) 11:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Fellow readers and writers, MM broke US laws and did time, so he is a criminal by definition. Still, there is room for discussion about the nature of the crimes. Would any of the thinks that MM was convicted for be criminal in Canada or the UK? If not, they given his humanitarian contributions, we can cut the man some slack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.122.21 (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't "cut the man some slack" in neutral articles. He is a criminal by definition of the laws of his country and you can't say that he isn't just because you believe that Canada or the UK would yield different results in court due to differing laws.  You've introduced something that is not fact to this discussion and it is irrelevent.  MM was found to be a criminal.  You cannot change the facts.  --Benefros (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Guilty pleas
Does anybody have a very good memory? Which one is which of these charges? And what do they mean?--130.237.89.4 06:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Milken planned or thought to engage in a series of unlawful security transactions.
 * Was this the thing where they earned an instant markup by buying the bonds themsels and then selling them slightly more expensive to the institutions?


 * Charge involving tax fraud. The charge relates to Ivan Boesky’s false 13-d statement.
 * What kind of tax fraud?


 * Helped a client reduce his income tax liability by selling him two investments and then buying them back at a lower price.
 * Is this the same thing as above, or a spearate charge?


 * Milken suggested that Ivan Boesky buy MCA stock to hide that Golden Nugget was selling (MCA) and to assure him no loss in a sale to Drexel (what sale?).
 * Can this be explained better?


 * Failed to disclose in written form an agreed-upon adjustment in transaction prices between Drexel and a client.
 * Is this the "four reporting violations" that the article speaks about?

Edits to watch

 * 00:59, 7 Mar 2005 (personal details and Milken writings removed).--Jerryseinfeld 21:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 01:43, 18 Jan 2005 (1987 salary removed).--Jerryseinfeld 21:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 16:02, 27 Jan 2005 ($700 million number added).--Jerryseinfeld 21:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Balance Needed
Jesse Kornbluth's involvement with Milken is controversial in itself and his book should not be used as a source. At one point it was slated to be a movie staring Robert Deniro. Kornbluth was then hired by Time Warner, which was long involved with Milken. Kornbluth completely accepted Milken's statements and attacked his critics including Boesky, whose testimony was the basis for the case against Milken. Kornbluth also attacked Ben Stein, whose book about Milken may be the most detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.237.189 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am extremely concerned about this page, and believe that as it stands, it is a disservice to both readers and Wikipedia as a whole. This concern is two-fold.

1 - Milken has launched a massive public relations campaign. Because of this, contributors such as Jerryseinfeld can simply click a hyperlink and get lots of information that Milken has paid to distribute. Milken's supporters have an easy-to-access web page, while more balanced contributors have to do a little digging (it's no surprise Milken tried to pay off at least one journalist who wrote a book on him). As a result, much of this page simply repeats the public relations drivel that Milken spouts.

In the world I live in, when a person is a convicted felon, you simply do not take his words and claims at face value. Not even Milken's most fervent supporters can deny the simple fact that he was convicted on finance-related charges and served time.

Because of this, the vast majority of the information given on Milken here - from early childhood to his post-sentence actions - is nothing but positive, public relations-initiated statements. Such things have no place in an encyclopedia.

2 - Contributors have shown definite ignorance of basic economic tenets, and this is apparent from Milken's detractors. For example, I have not found a link describing the S&L scandal. While Milken was a major cause - and beneficiary - of this unfortunate event, there are others at fault, such as government deregulators and unscrupulous thrift managers.

Because of the inexorable state of this entry, I formally ask that its neutrality be disputed until such time as it can be completely rewritten with balanced sources, and its organization should reflect this. --L. 16:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for the record--the 'journalist' Milken tried to "pay off" was Connie Bruck, who wrote an extremely biased book "Predator's Ball", whose highlight was alleged orgies in Beverly Hills involving Milken clients (Milken himself is very straight laced). A clear cheapo IMO.  And Milken was within his constitutional rights to try and buy her book.  She declined, which was also within her rights.  Nothing sinister here, it's not like he made death threats against her.  Read Fischel's book "Payback" for the other side of the story. Furthermore, the US govt used Gestapo-like tactics to force Milken to settle, so it is not fair to say he is a 'convicted felon' who cannot be trusted--I believe he pleaded 'Nolo Contendere', which is not the same as 'guilty'.  The US government, via Giuliani, who is an elected district attorney and hence biased by definition, used RICO --a law the US congress intended only to be used against mobsters --to freeze Milken's cash flow.  How would you plead if the government said that unless you settled you could not write another check from your checking account?  The same was done against the law firm of Kaye Scholer LLP when the US govt wanted to target one of their clients.  I've run a business, and believe me, when anybody, be it bank or government, cuts off your cash flow, you are dead meat within a matter of weeks at best.  This is like having a loaded gun put against your head and being asked to sign a contract.  Milken had no choice but to settle.  The Milken trial was political rabble rousing of the worst sort, usually reserved to Stalinist show trials.  I've lived in a socialist country, and believe me, it's not fun.   69.107.96.61 7 March 2005

Try again. A person has the right to sue for libel or slander should a book say false things about them; Milken didn't do this. BTW, quite a few of the "writers" who side w/Milken are on his payroll; future revisions to this page will contain a comprehensive chart on who's getting paid by whom.

And please refrain from using loaded terms like "Gestapo" or "socialism" or "Stalinist show trial." In my experience, Milken's supporters generally start calling their opponents "communist" after a few well-placed arguments, so you're not adding anything to the discussion...if an anonymous Wiki contributor could be said to add anything to a discussion. --L. 15:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "After a few well-placed arguments" -- I'll take that as a concession, albeit back-handed. if an anonymous Wiki contributor -- and, what, "L", are you if not anon.?  Let's face it: those who Milken enriched, be it businesses or traders, are not contributing to Wikipedia, the haunt of librarians and others of a more illiberal persuasion (in the classic sense).  And FYI the laws of libel and slander in the US are not biased in favor of the plaintiff, as they are in England.  Milken, as a public figure, would lose unless he could show actual malice, which is nearly impossible to prove. 69.107.96.61 8 March 2005

"haunt of librarians and others of a more illiberal persuasion" - I'll take that as an admission of ideological considerations, and this opens the perfect opportunity to try and correct this terrible entry. And FYI, as an American who believes in free speech, I'll favor my country's libel laws over those of others (if you know who David Irving is, I'm sure you'll see my point). --L. 01:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) _______________________________

DEN OF THIEVES

Anyone interested in this story should read "Den of Thieves" by James Stewart.

Milken's Unethical Actions
The "Milken's Unethical Actions" is obvious POV. This article needs to be rewritten in a more NPOV manner. RickK 07:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

"Milken's Unethical Actions" was clearly in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral point of view. I attempted to address this by highlighting the arguments made by Fischel in his book "Payback". 69.107.96.61 07:11, 7 March 2005 (UTC)

Court documents
This article could use some court documents or a more detailed review of the guilty pleas.

And how big was the fine, his site says $200 million, another page $600 million, another $1 billion, another $1.1 billion, another "$200 million fine and $400 million in restitution".

One page reads "Milken was indicted under in March 1989, and pleaded guilty in April 1990 to six felony counts. He paid a $600 million fine under a plea bargain that promised him no jail time. In November 1990 judge Kimba Wood sentenced him to 10 years, plea bargain or no plea bargain. But Milken never got his $600 million back.". And then one reads "The guilty plea carried with it a potential maximum prison sentence of 28 years, compared to a potential 500 year sentence if he had been convicted on the original charges." This clearly need some clarification.

Then another page writes that he handed over $600 to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and then $900 million to the Resolution Trust Corp. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and then another $47 million to the SEC.

The article says "six felony counts of securities fraud". His page says "five securities and reporting violations". - Jerryseinfeld 23:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * For future reference, and to repeat what was made clear above - things that come from Milken's page are untrustworthy, as is any claim by a felon. User:L.


 * This article states there were "six violations" but only lists five. I numbered each of the five (previously bulleted) to make this descrepancy more obvious.  Whichever is correct, this article needs to cite court documents or at least something like a credible/neutral newspaper report - the Fobes "list of billionares" bio blurb I cited for now, is probably too much of a distant source (plus it does not list each violation). --Georgeryp 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1998
"In 1998, without admitting any guilt, he returned $47 million in fees". Did he "return" the money to the companies? Who says so?--Jerryseinfeld 21:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2006
On this date this article states simultaneously that Mr. Milken is worth $2b and $3b. Which is it? Of course it is tough to estimate the fortune of a private individual, but the gap is $1b U.S. dollars. Bigturtle 14:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Largest Paycheck Ever
In my 1994 Guinness Book of Records it mentions that Michael Milken was the beneficiary of the largest paycheck ever ($500m while he was at Drexel Burnham Lambert). Could someone verify this, and see if it is still the largest paycheck ever? zDust

Presently the article is a puff piece that whitewashes the fact that his actions led to hundreds of thousands of unemployed people and deleterious conditions for blue collar americans to this very day. It is an outrage that a convicted criminal be provided free publicity like this. There is no comment about the negative effects on the economy or population of the U.S. nor anything other than the briefest of mentions of his conviction.
 * Seriously? He *created* millions of jobs.PStrait (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite Needed Here
As noted previously, this article needs serious revision. Not only is it not wikified, it is filled with statements without attribution. Sources? Mr. Milken's website? This is more like an essay that was written by an apologetic press agent in my opinion. Anyone else concur? T.E. Goodwin 05:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

He payed $900,000,000?
According to Milken's website, he did not pay 9 million dollars in fines. I don't know if this is true or not. Here is the link to his website: Epachamo 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you mean $900M, not $9M. Well, that link is kind of evasive - it denies $1B but not $900M.  It admits to $200 million but goes on to say there were "other  payments". No grand total is provided.  The brief bio on Forbes' 2007 list of billionares gives $900M, so I cited that as the source in this article. --Georgeryp 01:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

According to several articles including this one in the NY Times. Michael Milken paid the SEC $400 million dollars.---The chart also misstated the amount that Michael R. Milken was fined in a 1990 securities case. It was $200 million, not $600 million. Mr. Milken also paid $400 million in civil restitution to the Securities and Exchange Commission http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/business/09star.html?pagewanted=print&position= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.160.9 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

After fact-tagging a sentence in the "Sentencing" section, the discussion here led me to see that the following edits were responsible for messing up that sentence: 16:38, 2 January 2008 71.208.104.122 (this edit misinterpreted the $900M amount); and 21:24, & 21:25, 25 January 2009 24.60.210.115 (these edits added the Guiness Book of World Records, but lacked a cite). So, I undid the effects of those edits by restoring the sentence as it was when Georgeryp added the Forbes citation to it (01:16, 2 May 2007). Someone who has the cite to the Guiness record can put it back, but in the appropriate place; e.g., if the record refers only to the $200M fine, that place would currently be the similar paragraph in the "Guilty plea" section. --Rich Janis (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing a book by Harvey_A._Silverglate
It is unacceptable that User:50withaBullet has a history of spinning the article away from a semi NPOV. In this set of revisions 50withaBullet began citing Harvey Silvergate's book as if it were a NPOV -- but it is far from neutral. Harvey Silvergate represented Milken in legal matters -- so much so that his September 2009 CV from his own website reads:


 * "Represented Michael Milken in post-conviction matters, dealing largely with the question of whether the defendant’s conduct in fact constituted a violation of law;"

--Benefros (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good catch. This has been a recurrent problem. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz
An anonymous editor has repeatedly added a phrase in the opening paragraph about Milkin being a white-collar criminal, and a couple of sentences about Alan Dershowitz being Milken's attorney. The former is already amply covered by the lead--with more than a paragraph addressing the subject, while the latter doesn't seem like the sort of thing that belongs in the lead at all. Binarybits (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On this and the previous issue, semiprotection may be needed if it continues.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Felony Conviction
I have readded the Felony conviction to the opening line that was undone by Binarybits because a "guilty plea" is a conviction without a trial, as opposed to an indictment which is merely a charge without disposition. Part of the reason why Milken is known is for his conviction of several felonies rather than misdemeanors, which is relatively rare for white collar crime because of the difficulty under the law in establishing proof and his conviction made him notorious. Two, the conviction is why he served a prison sentence. If his case had any other disposition than a conviction he would not have served a jail term. Stevenmitchell (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a conviction without a trial, but we don't have to engage in that interpretation for the reader, when we can easily say that he pleaded guilty to multiple counts. I adjusted the wording slightly to say that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * However, he pleaded guilty to multiple counts of a felony, which without that specification biases the tone in the other direction. Simply "pleading guilty to multiple counts" could just as easily be inferred as "violations" or misdemeanors. By removing the caliber of the "convictions", the statement is essentially watered-down to tepid levels of significance. How is it an "interpretation" to say that someone was convicted of a "felony" rather than a "parking violation" or "criminal violation". It is simply a fact - no more, no less... The readers can determine for themselves whether they think that a felony is a serious offense or not.  He additionally received a permanent disbarment from ever participating in the financial services markets.  I added those words to specifically denote the severity of his actions without including his disbarment from the industry. How many people are barred for life from an industry?  And especially in an industry that is largely unregulated. You have weakened the tone too much... Then rightfully, his permanent disbarment should be part of the opening statement... Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added "felony" counts and a sentence on the permanent bar. My quarrel was with your suggestion that we simply say he was "convicted" without indicating this was a guilty plea. A guily plea is a stronger indicator of guilt than a not guilty plea, so I don't quite get the reluctance to say that if you feel the article is too soft on Milken. In fact, it is too soft on Milken. See section below. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Guilty Plea section and tone generally
There are some statements in this section that require sourcing. Someone just put on "citation needed" tags and I agree. Also the phrasing is a bit POV. If sourcing can't be found, these statements need to be removed.

Speaking of sourcing, I'm not happy with the fact that there are nine references to Dan G. Stone's book April Fools without specific page numbers. When a book is cited this frequently, page numbers should be provided for each cite. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto for the Kornbluth book. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

More generally, reading through this article, I'm not happy with the tone. It's not neutral, and very largely the article seems to function as an apologia for Milken. This is especially so in the lengthy section describing his prosecution and guilty plea. One comes away with the notion that he was pressured into pleading to protect his brother, for example, and that he is more of a misunderstood hero than a convicted felon. We need to be balanced and fair, but this tips too far in the wrong direction.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea that he pled guilty to protect his brother isn't some Wikipedia editor's fantasy--it was a widely-discussed view at the time it happened. Obviously others disagreed, and Wikipedia should report on both sides, but I don't see any reason we should downplay that view which (to me at least) looks both plausible and well-sourced.Binarybits (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying omit it completely, if it can be sourced. Not too happy about the sourcing to the books, as I Think that you need page numbers. But I have a general problem with the tone of that and similar sections. The man is not Charles Manson, he's done some positive things before and since, but I think the writing could be more neutral. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)