201–210 of 691 posts
There will be people like Sacklers until we start putting them away and throwing away the key. We do need to put rich people in jail at least every now and again, if for no other reason than to demonstrate we're not a banana republic.
"Purdue flourished under brothers Mortimer and Raymond Sackler, who died in 2010 and 2017, respectively."
I could see shielding from future civil liability as an option, but only after a true bankruptcy has occurred. Liquidate everything, and by that I mean everything , and then you can move on with your life. Definitely no shielding money in offshore accounts. If you're not willing to do that ... well, see you in court. Over and over, because every individual you hurt should have a chance to come at you with a liability…
One problem of which I was unaware is that the Sackler family has largely fled the United States. Pursuing their assets introduces vast complexities of international law. "In a brief filed on behalf of the relatives of Mortimer Sackler, most of whom are based overseas, lawyers warned of “significant litigation costs and risks” in seeking to enforce any foreign court judgments against the family if the settlement were…
There will be people like Sacklers until we start putting them away and throwing away the key. We do need to put rich people in jail at least every now and again, if for no other reason than to demonstrate we're not a banana republic.
Unfortunately, this is no longer possible to a great extent. "Purdue flourished under brothers Mortimer and Raymond Sackler, who died in 2010 and 2017, respectively."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would want justice (ie. jail time) not money Retribution not restitution [1]. “Justice” in this context is ambiguous. [1] https://open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/1-5-the-purpose...
What's the point of "restitution" if it came from the victims anyways? The Sacklers would have kept all of their ill-gotten gains under this settlement. The amount they'd be paying is practically just the interest from their earnings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> certain states (Washington was one, if I recall) argued that 6 billion dollars was such a pitifully small amount (relative to the damage done) that they declined to accept compensation As the dissent notes, “all 50 state Attorneys General have signed on to this plan.” The holdouts were “a small group of Canadian creditors and one lone individual.” I always thought of the Sackler carve-out as a scam. But the dissent…
> This ruling trades restitution for retribution IMO the money is a pittance, sounds like a lot but it's just a fraction of what the federal government spends on any given day. We can afford to carve out the financial resources to help victims. The retribution is totally worth it, because it needs to be understood that behavior like this will get punished. It should be painful , not just the cost of doing business.
It seems the case that the interests of the victims/plaintiffs (e.g. compensation) may be different than the public at large (e.g. punishment).
If so, perhaps the interests of the public should be pursued by a different avenue than the civil case of the victims, which requires superseding the agency of the victims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any corruption law that this court won't overturn? They seem extremely "pro" on quid pro quo.
They didn't "overturn" this "corruption law." This was a prosecution under 18 USC 666, which is titled "theft or bribery concerning programs receiving federal funds." In this case, the question was framed to the Supreme Court whether 18 USC 666 applies to so-called "gratuity" payments. That framing was because the prosecution in the case below could not prove that the defendant had anticipated a payment in the future…
If you can't prosecute with this level of evidence the law is effectively dead.
I could see shielding from future civil liability as an option, but only after a true bankruptcy has occurred. Liquidate everything, and by that I mean everything , and then you can move on with your life. Definitely no shielding money in offshore accounts. If you're not willing to do that ... well, see you in court. Over and over, because every individual you hurt should have a chance to come at you with a liability…
One problem of which I was unaware is that the Sackler family has largely fled the United States. Pursuing their assets introduces vast complexities of international law. "In a brief filed on behalf of the relatives of Mortimer Sackler, most of whom are based overseas, lawyers warned of “significant litigation costs and risks” in seeking to enforce any foreign court judgments against the family if the settlement were…
I understand your point, but basically they are saying: "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion and we will only pay part of what we likely would have owed."
Can you imagine a member of Congress or the President saying this? Forgoing immunity is a scorched earth tactic, but it is also one that will dissuade future abusers. We have those overseas money reporting laws that make it difficult for Americans to get bank accounts overseas. Let's use them!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This ruling trades restitution for retribution IMO the money is a pittance, sounds like a lot but it's just a fraction of what the federal government spends on any given day. We can afford to carve out the financial resources to help victims. The retribution is totally worth it, because it needs to be understood that behavior like this will get punished. It should be painful , not just the cost of doing business.
You may find the money a pittance, but the victims decided otherwise. It seems the case that the interests of the victims/plaintiffs (e.g. compensation) may be different than the public at large (e.g. punishment). If so, perhaps the interests of the public should be pursued by a different avenue than the civil case of the victims, which requires superseding the agency of the victims.
When you say 'the victims' are you implying they all agreed to this? So they are all okay with giving up their individual right to sue for damages? You make several points which imply that this is some kind of consensus position that everyone is okay with. That's the root of the problem, though -- this settlement in no way addresses the damage to all the victims.
Perhaps renegotiate the agreement so that it only immunizes Purdue/Sacklers from further civil action from
In any case, when I say pittance, I was clearly talking about relative to the financial resources of the US. This is a national problem, we can afford to solve it at a societal level without being forced into accepting an unjust settlement.
I could see shielding from future civil liability as an option, but only after a true bankruptcy has occurred. Liquidate everything, and by that I mean everything , and then you can move on with your life. Definitely no shielding money in offshore accounts. If you're not willing to do that ... well, see you in court. Over and over, because every individual you hurt should have a chance to come at you with a liability…
One problem of which I was unaware is that the Sackler family has largely fled the United States. Pursuing their assets introduces vast complexities of international law. "In a brief filed on behalf of the relatives of Mortimer Sackler, most of whom are based overseas, lawyers warned of “significant litigation costs and risks” in seeking to enforce any foreign court judgments against the family if the settlement were…
Throwing up our hands and declaring it an unsolvable issue just encourages others to misbehave and then escape the same way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They learned it from the tobacco industry probably.
Is there a recommended dosage and timing from the tobacco industry?