Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay and ex-CEO Jeffrey Skilling “lied over and over and over again” to investors and employees “through accounting tricks, fiction, hocus-pocus, trickery, misleading statements, half-truths, omissions and outright lies,” federal prosecutor Kathryn H. Ruemmler told a packed courtroom on Monday during closing arguments in the 16-week-long case that could send the two former chiefs to prison for dozens of years.

Ruemmler paced back and forth before the jury box, her hands clasped behind her back, and reminded jurors about the weeks of testimony they have heard in the fraud and conspiracy trial of Lay and Skilling. The defense teams will deliver their closing summation on Tuesday, and on Wednesday, the prosecution will have three more hours to make closing statements. The case could go to the jury by Wednesday afternoon.

“It’s a simple story, ladies and gentlemen,” Ruemmler said. Skilling and Lay “loved Enron, they were Enron, Enron was their personal identity.” And the two men did whatever they had to do to keep the company’s stock price rising, she said. “When the stock price was high, these men and their lieutenants were on top of the world.” There is nothing wrong with making money, she said, but “you can’t get rich by cheating. You can’t get rich by deceiving.”

She reminded the eight women and four men on the jury panel what was at the heart of the case: Enron investors “lost millions and millions of dollars..There were victims of Enron. Real people. People who didn’t know what was going on inside Enron.” This trial, Ruemmler noted, “is about lies and choices. It’s the lies these men told, and the choices they were willing to take.”

Lay and Skilling put their own needs and desires ahead of the investors, Ruemmler charged.

“Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling got up on the witness stand and they said there was no fraud at Enron.” Ruemmler then sarcastically reviewed some of the defendants’ testimony, reminding jurors they had, at various times during their testimony, said that “stock sales weren’t stock sales, and incriminating conversations were just misunderstandings. You know that is absurd…flatly absurd…You cannot stretch the common sense or the truth that far. Witness after witness after witness came into this courtroom and said, ‘ I lied’,’ ‘we lied’, ‘I stole’, ‘we stole’.”

As Enron’s fortunes began to worsen in 2001, the Washington, DC-based prosecutor told the jury, “Mr. Skilling and Mr. Lay had a choice. They could come clean and tell the truth about Enron’s financial condition. Or they could lie to cover it up. They chose to lie.”

Ruemmler, the deputy director of the Enron Task Force, tried to debunk the defense’s argument that Enron was brought down by a few executives’ misdeeds, by short sellers and by a run on the bank. She recalled the January 2001 analyst conference call, where Skilling said Enron was not an energy trading company but a logistics company.

“That’s not true, and frankly, it can’t be defended by the evidence,” she said. Mark Koenig, the former chief of Enron’s investor relations unit and his assistant Paula Rieker both testified for the prosecution that in 2000, Skilling pushed Enron executives to revise its earnings upward by one or more cents to meet or beat analyst expectations.

“Abracadabra, just like that,” she said, snapping her fingers. “Have you been presented evidence for exactly where that extra penny came from? No.” Recalling another alleged incident to revise earnings, she said, “This is fraud, plain and simple…If they manipulated the earnings, then their financial statements are false.”

Ruemmler forcefully reminded jurors of Skilling’s statements that he knew very little about the infamous LJM special purpose entities run by then-CFO Andrew Fastow. “Come on. Does [Skilling] really expect you to buy that?” Skilling, she said, “was extremely hands-on.”

The jurors were asked to consider three things when they begin deliberations to decide the 28 counts against Skilling and the six against Lay.

“First, look at all of the evidence as a whole,” Ruemmler said. “Ask yourself, ‘how does this piece of testimony fit with this piece of testimony?’ Look at what picture emerges…Second, rely on your common sense…Third, keep your eye on the ball” and don’t be distracted by the version of events offered by the defense.

Before Ruemmler began her closing, presiding U.S. District Judge Sim Lake spent about 90 minutes reviewing the 50 pages of instructions to the jury panel that will weigh the fate of Lay and Skilling later this week.

“You as jurors are the judges of the facts,” Lake said. He cautioned the jurors to decide the case only on the evidence presented “without prejudice or sympathy.”

Lay, whose website is devoted to defense exhibits and trial testimony, posted a new message concerning the trial to “reflect back on my case.” He wrote, “I have read that some people were surprised by my forcefulness when I testified on my own behalf. I will continue to forcefully defend myself against all false accusations as I proclaim my innocence of the crimes of which I have been accused. We are confident that I will be found not guilty of all charges.

©Copyright 2006Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.