Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

justice.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 748 posts

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#81

Post by engineer_22 »

ivraatiems wrote: post #12

How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me. A word to the unwise: If you have done something, anything, that you have a credible reason to believe the United States government thinks is illegal, shut up . Do not do any of the following: * Go on a podcast and talk about it * Go on a Twitter livestream and talk about i…

SBF's mother and father are both Standford law professors - so he knows all this.

He has another angle. Maybe he was trying to taint the jury pool. He was up to something, but what?

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#82

Post by bushbaba »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #54
andrewmutz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an officer testified in support of you about what he witnessed, why would that be hearsay?

IANAL. But it's unlikely the Police officer actually "witnessed" anything that'll help you. If you tell police officer you did something bad, it's essentially a confession and reported as such. If you tell police officer you did something good, it's hearsay - you told it to officer who told it to judge & jury. Then there's jurisdictional details as to their role and rules of evidence etc that will vary from country t…

Also if a cop lies hard to say who is right. But if you never talked to a cop unless your lawyer was present with recording equipment, etc. well, that’s a much more solid defense.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#83

Post by 2devnull »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
ivraatiems wrote: post #12

How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me. A word to the unwise: If you have done something, anything, that you have a credible reason to believe the United States government thinks is illegal, shut up . Do not do any of the following: * Go on a podcast and talk about it * Go on a Twitter livestream and talk about i…

> How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had political influence, and given his general lack of awareness, I’m willing to give merit to his believing he was immune. Similar to how people outside securities think insider trading is more rampant than it is, insider…

I think this is a bit far fetched. He was the scion of famous law professors. He grew up around the law. To think he didn’t understand what the general public does about the law takes a special kind of … assumption that directly contradicts the obvious facts. He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on here. How could he not?

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#84

Post by 2devnull »

Xeoncross wrote: post #18
ivraatiems wrote: post #12

How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me. A word to the unwise: If you have done something, anything, that you have a credible reason to believe the United States government thinks is illegal, shut up . Do not do any of the following: * Go on a podcast and talk about it * Go on a Twitter livestream and talk about i…

I don't pity SBF, but this advice is important for innocent citizens. It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you. A police officer can testify against you, but if they try to support you it will be dismissed as "hearsay".

There are times when it doesn’t apply. But yes, for most people in most situations, as most of us know, you don’t talk. It’s called the fifth amendment. School children learn about it in civics class.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#85

Post by [deleted] »

jpmattia wrote: post #16

> "did transmit and cause to be transmitted by wire, radio, and television communication" Note to self: Remember to use only free-space lightwave communications to avoid committing wire fraud. Edit: Removed "fiber" because it looks too much like a wire and avoid being busted by outside1234!

[deleted]

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#86

Post by thefaux »

2devnull wrote: post #84
Xeoncross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't pity SBF, but this advice is important for innocent citizens. It's unfortunate that anything you say to law enforcement can be used against you - but none of it can be used for you. A police officer can testify against you, but if they try to support you it will be dismissed as "hearsay".

There are times when it doesn’t apply. But yes, for most people in most situations, as most of us know, you don’t talk. It’s called the fifth amendment. School children learn about it in civics class.

Do we even have civics in most schools anymore?

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#87

Post by DonHopkins »

ivraatiems wrote: post #12

How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me. A word to the unwise: If you have done something, anything, that you have a credible reason to believe the United States government thinks is illegal, shut up . Do not do any of the following: * Go on a podcast and talk about it * Go on a Twitter livestream and talk about i…

I beg to differ. By all means, keep talking!

I just don't follow my own advice I give to criminals like SBF.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#88

Post by belter »

TrickyRick wrote: post #44
hprotagonist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE obligatory “don’t talk to the police” link.

I'm impressed it took a whole 33 minutes for this to be linked!

Yes but they always miss Part 2 :-)

"Don't Talk to the Police Part 2" - https://youtu.be/tIt-l2YmH8M

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#89

Post by rootusrootus »

2devnull wrote: post #83
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had political influence, and given his general lack of awareness, I’m willing to give merit to his believing he was immune. Similar to how people outside securities think insider trading is more rampant than it is, insider…

I think this is a bit far fetched. He was the scion of famous law professors. He grew up around the law. To think he didn’t understand what the general public does about the law takes a special kind of … assumption that directly contradicts the obvious facts. He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on here. How could he not?

> He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on here. How could he not?

There are actual lawyers on HN. I don't think proximity to lawyers makes one as knowledgeable as an actual one.

Re: The United States of America vs. Samuel Bankman-Fried Indictment [pdf]

#90

Post by estebank »

2devnull wrote: post #83
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How anyone could look at this man's behavior over the last few weeks and not think he was on a fast track to a federal penitentiary is beyond me Seeing how thoroughly he convinced people that he had political influence, and given his general lack of awareness, I’m willing to give merit to his believing he was immune. Similar to how people outside securities think insider trading is more rampant than it is, insider…

I think this is a bit far fetched. He was the scion of famous law professors. He grew up around the law. To think he didn’t understand what the general public does about the law takes a special kind of … assumption that directly contradicts the obvious facts. He very likely knows more about the law than anyone on here. How could he not?

My father is a civil engineer. That doesn't qualify me to build a bridge.
Post reply on HN