Are ankle monitors in this day and age not to the point where we can't keep people who are yet to be sentenced out of prison?
she has been tried and convicted already.
Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
161–170 of 315 posts
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I'm gonna need a source for that... I don't know of any collaboration between the two companies or overlap between their cars in general.
I think this is a Theranos reference that went over everyone's heads. Theranos were using Siemens machines while pretending to use their own technology. Obviously Tesla is not doing anything like this, and GP's point is that they are not similar.
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#163I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage, like when a reckless driver gets their license revoked. Besides, a free person with a job can pay back their debt to society, literally, with money, instead of the rest of us paying their living costs. EDIT: As comments point out, it is a…
Given she falsified medical results for so long, it's guaranteed some people have died as a result of her actions, that goes further than your average fraud
She was not convicted on any charges about falsified medical results. She was only convicted on defrauding investors
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#164Holmes, Madoff etc... are all the proof that you need that the only people who go to Jail for fraud are the ones whose fraud hurts specifically investors.
> the only people who go to Jail for fraud are the ones whose fraud hurts specifically investors Minus all the other fraud convictions constantly being handed down in America, sure.
I think the OP meant more, "the only rich people".
Having enough money to have the direct line to someone important in a political party is valuable. Enough prosecutors have a mind for future ambitions and understand that some battles just aren't worth fighting.
That doesn't make for straight up immunity, but it does change the calculus enough that so long as no one else really cares about your crime, they can let it slide or negotiate it down to something trivial.
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#165If you steal more than $5K three times in California, you will get 25 years in prison [1], and while I think that's disgusting and detestable, I don't want any elites getting special treatment either, so as to force change in those sentencing guidelines. [1] https://www.kannlawoffice.com/grand-theft.html
Right, but Holmes didn't steal $5k more than three times. She stole millions of dollars but only did it once. So your statute doesn't apply.
The fundamental question is whether the law distributes over addition.
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just from pop culture, I can come up with a counterexample: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/reality-show-cast-membe... I'm not saying you're wrong in the aggregate, but can't you make a better argument? How can noting two people who went to jail for one reason be "all the proof you need"?
The context here is the rich and powerful. A reality show actor is not in that group and doesn't have those priveledges. Prosecuting someone like that does not make the powerful uncomfortable by setting a precedent so it's done all the time. But the only time one of their in-group is sent to prison is when it hurts other rich and powerful.
There are investment fraud prosecutions literally all the time, they just get 5-10 years in prison usually, not life. They aren't on national news because few people know the scammer or the victims.
Here are a handful from this year alone:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67034239/1/united-state...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66964256/1/united-state...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66760869/1/united-state...
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65767429/17/united-stat...
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#167Holmes, Madoff etc... are all the proof that you need that the only people who go to Jail for fraud are the ones whose fraud hurts specifically investors.
Shkreli served prison time for fraud that did not lose investors money. But I think what you are saying has some truth to it
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you actually want to bet? I'd be happy to take your money.
No, because there's probably a lot of eyeballs on her at this moment. She's probably the very definition of a flight risk I would imagine, given her personality, the scope of her crimes, and her previous attempt to flee. However, you make it sound like it's super difficult to disappear. It can be as simple as getting on a boat and sailing off into the night, or an airplane... no Hollywood plot necessary - no one woul…
>No, because there's probably a lot of eyeballs on her at this moment.
Going on the lam for the rest of your life, with (or without?) your two young children, can't be a whole lot better than serving your white-collar time, can it? I mean, it's not like she's independently wealthy and can vanish to some tropical island.
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it baffles me that as of today I can still add a "Full Self-Driving Capability" option when ordering a Tesla Capability, not feature. I know that isn’t how it’s marketed. But Elon isn’t claiming he has Level 5 right now. Most FSD buyers seem aware they’re paying into a research effort. Fraud requires knowledge and intent. You’re making a good case for a class action lawsuit, i.e. civil action. Not for putting someo…
Is level 5 where you call a rich person black car service?
Level 5, as defined by the SAE, is a fully self driving system that will never ask you to take control and operates under all possible conditions.
https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/blog/...
Re: Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selling a product that does X that neither currently does X nor can in the future do X seems like fraud to me.
> nor can in the future do X We don’t know this. That’s the point.
Generally, when you don't know that a product definitely can do something, you don't sell it saying that it has the "capability" to do it. That's fraud.