41–50 of 90 posts
They seemed like clowns to me (including calling to ask us to come pitch, setting up a time, and then forgetting about it when we showed up). Seeing them at industry events they didn't seem like they knew what they were doing. So how did they get LPs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> government's monopoly on violence Can I get a source on this?
This is a sort of tenant of the modern state if you look at it a certain way. Ultimately the threat of violence is invested in the state to ensure the law is followed. It is not a pitchfork and torch mob that should come after you should you appear to have committed a serious crime, but rather the government's police agencies that will come to arrest you, very physically if need be. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/…
Thanks for the clarification + source.
I'm curious to know: - Does the firm and/or the individual have enough money? i.e. will the settlement, once paid, make investors whole? - Why does stealing $7 three times get someone a life sentence, but stealing $7MM once get zero jail time?
It doesn't--stealing $7 isn't a felony, and no three-strikes state predicates a life sentence on three non-felonies.
But to address your general point: there are two different kinds of things. Criminal law isn't just about the effect, but the culpability of the offender. Is the offender a "bad person?" How bad is she? The outcome of killing a person can be anything from no crime at all to murder depending on the mental state of the person who did it--accidentally, recklessly, or intentionally.
"Stealing" is easy to prove and easy to understand as something intrinsically wrong, so we draw a harsh, bright-line rule against it. Financial "fraud," however, is much more complicated. With fraud, the actual transfer of money is voluntary. The crime instead relates to the circumstances surrounding the transfer. What representations were made, etc.? In this case, the $7 million was "excess fees." What exactly is "excess fees" and why are they such a clear violation of social norms that the person belongs in prison?
That's why we have civil actions. Civil actions address a broad range of conduct that we want to discourage, but which isn't so obviously intrinsically immoral that we want to send people to jail over it (even when they involve lot of money). As folks correctly point out below, the underlying conduct could support criminal prosecutions, which may still come. But the SEC's civil suit serves a different function.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
that is the accepted definition of State. a State can arm a faction (police, army, etc), and have the freedom to decide how to use it (removing you from some place, keeping you at another place, invading another State, etc). a corporation and citizens can't. hence a monopoly on violence.
And like many social science "theories" it's entirely incongruous with reality. One counter-example suffices to disprove a universal claim. The United States is that exception, because our constitution explicitly recognizes, not grants, our right to arm ourselves independently of the State (or States really), only with some regulation permitted. The actual definition of State can easily be found in the dictionary: "a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, would you do it again? Has there been any damage to your professional life?
Article is about the whistleblower/commenter above. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-09/he-blew-t...
How much do puppy-petting parties cost?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> government's monopoly on violence Can I get a source on this?
Max Weber. However, he stated it as Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Politics as a Vocation. http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/class%20readings/weber/po...
The people who asked me to come in were "partners" who I had good conversations with, but when I came in it was only interns who took the meetings. Now, that's not crazy in the valley, but what is crazy is that the interns had no connection with the partner, had no idea the meeting was going to happen, no background on our company and absolutely no technical or market knowledge around Augmented Reality, which is what they claimed to be experts in. This was in both cases.
After the blow up at the end of 2016, I received an email from yet another "partner" in 2017 asking to meet up. I asked them if anything had fundamentally changed and this was the response:
"In many ways, everything has fundamentally changed haha.
If you're available though, I'd love for you and your co-founder to join us for a Warriors game next week. We're still waiting on the other series to wrap up, but we expect to have a home game Monday night. We have a box at Oracle Arena, and it would be great if you guys could come along."
So clearly they had no problems throwing money around. Seems nothing changed.
Really sad honestly.
I'm curious to know: - Does the firm and/or the individual have enough money? i.e. will the settlement, once paid, make investors whole? - Why does stealing $7 three times get someone a life sentence, but stealing $7MM once get zero jail time?
I'm curious to know: - Does the firm and/or the individual have enough money? i.e. will the settlement, once paid, make investors whole? - Why does stealing $7 three times get someone a life sentence, but stealing $7MM once get zero jail time?
(Though until 2013, Indiana actually had a no minimum.)
150 Investments Made
175 Limited Partners
5 Years of Experience
0 Lawsuits Filed
Maybe he can post a "Days since last SEC action" sign in the office.