If $TSLA plummets a crazy amount the tables may turn
Interestingly, Juan Domingo Peron's version of that adage was "For our friends, everything. For our enemies, not even justice." I'm not sure which one is worse, but they are certainly both evocative.
> If $TSLA plummets a crazy amount the tables may turn
It depends. What happened here is that Holmes screwed over peers, and not just consumers. I don't think anything will happen to $TSLA's CEO unless except through malice aimed at his peers that affects their wealth.
He needs to watch out for the Saudis, for sure.
when it comes to the patient health there was not this clear paper trail
I don't know where to start with this if you think that one, year-old video is somehow proof that Tesla FSD is ready for use--and, say, the recall earlier this year isn't indication that maybe it's not.
Ah, so the hundreds of thousands or millions who bought FSD years ago should be happy that a few thousand of you get to test out a system with your own lives. Great.
Edit: Don't bother responding if you're a Tesla or Elon fanboy/fangirl. I'm not interested in being insulted any longer by you folks.
It's "Full Self Driving" not "Full Self Driving without Accidents".
There’s a reason why we have specific false and deceptive advertising laws. Most of it doesn’t rise to the level of fraud. Fraud requires a lie and reasonable/justifiable detrimental reliance on that lie.
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 someone in jail.
Selling a "capability" that won't get delivered within the expected lifetime of the car is just marketing garbage.
It’s made clear that isn’t the definition of capability they’re using [1].
I am not a fan of the Autopilot branding. But I struggle to see how someone buys FSD capability, realises their mistake on delivery and is then unable to get restitution through either a return or a resale.
[1] "the facility or potential for an indicated use or deployment," emphasis on "potential" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capability
It will require better processors, better cameras, LiDAR, more RAM, something.
Me either! But that’s not fraud. It’s delusion. We don’t criminalise it because the difference between genius and crazy is often only apparent ex post facto.
No evidence these forecasts were made in bad faith. Delusion isn’t criminal. It’s mis-selling in the here and now, in absolute terms, in a way that causes damage, that is problematic.
Shades of Star Citizen right there.
https://www.sae.org/binaries/content/assets/cm/content/blog/...
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"?
But the only time one of their in-group is sent to prison is when it hurts other rich and powerful.
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...
Minus all the other fraud convictions constantly being handed down in America, sure.
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.
This ignores the other side of the calculus: the political and career benefits of high-profile takedowns. I don't claim this balances across the power spectrum. But it's a far cry from the dystopia OP posits.
These days I normally roll my eyes and stop reading when I encounter someone saying "the elites" but in this case it is 100% appropriate: she was a member of a wealthy elite, and both deliberately and casually used her connections from the get go.
Her deliberate use was exploiting her very close childhood friendship with Tim Draper's kids to get Draper to fund her and use his network to find other investors and to get the message out. Another was her using her network to get a number of distracting and bizarre board members (ex generals and the like), especially when Vally VCs (other than Draper) refused to give the company the time of day.
The casual way I noticed was how she just slipped into a milieu of Ted talks, various "though leader" pieces, and circulated at Davos and wherever. No gawky fish-out-of-water period.
This is quite different from the typical nerd "has to get used to things" situation and gave her tremendous credibility with the rubes outside the valley.
I would drive or bike past their office on Page Mill and for a long time had no idea what they did, despite having been in the life sciences myself at the time. They were weirdly physically in Silicon Valley but simultaneously not part of it.
"Specifically, the Three Strikes law made it possible for a repeat offender to receive a prison sentence of 25 years to life for a nonserious or nonviolent felony (for example, petty theft with a prior)"[1]
[0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-an...
In fact, if an act is a crime in multiple states (which is possible), you can be charged and punished separately by each state as well as the federal government if it is also a federal crime. This rarely happens even where theoretically possible, but it can (its much more common for other jurisdictions to prosecute if you are acquitted in one but the act could be prosecuted in another as well.)
For the California three strikes law, am I correct in guessing all three strikes have to be in the state of California, or can 1-2 of the earlier strikes be in another state?
If the former is true, is the optimal choice after 2 strikes to leave California permanently (other than ceasing criminal activity of course)?
The prior strikes don't have to be in California or under California law, but if they are convictions from another jurisdiction, the conviction must include all the elements of a California offense which would be countable as a prior strike (one that is classified as a “serious or violent felony”.)
The final strike must be a conviction under California law.
> If the former is true, is the optimal choice after 2 strikes to leave California permanently
Well, I suppose, but note that sonething like 23 other states and the Federal government have three strikes laws, too, and many of them (including the federal one) consider prior strikes from other jurisdictions.
And habitual criminals aren’t often warmly welcomed by foreign immigration authorities.
There is no such effect in the USA. Prisons are 100% not designed to rehabilitate anyone here.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Trejo#Life_of_crime_and_...
Just saying, in practice its clearly not about jailing menaces to society.
… or did you just want to flog your hobbyhorse regardless of how poor the fit was?
The bay area is famous for folks walking out stores with stolen goods:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-san-francisco-sho...
You can kill someone with a gun and spend just 7 years in prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kate_Steinle
Btw, I fully support Holmes getting punished but lets not misrepresent the ground reality.
IMO the reason it seems low is that people get such unreasonably long sentences for doing far less.
And 11 federal years is a longer sentence than 11 years in most state systems, since there is much less opportunity to serve less than a full sentence in the federal system (short of executive pardon/commutation). There’s very limited good conduct time, but no systematic parole eligibility and early release.
Agreed. Of course she deserves more prison time for scamming the patients, but she wasn't convicted for that.
Possible typo, linked article lists $950.
Quote: "Grand Theft is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system. (...) If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison. (...) to be guilty of Grand Theft under CPC §§487(a)-(d), you must: Take property or services worth more than $950; or (...)".
Source is the same, i.e.: https://www.kannlawoffice.com/grand-theft.html
"Go big or go home" and no worries! Couple years in Federal summer camp and you go back to your cushy upper class lifestyle as a consultant or startup advisor, or "executive coaching" for other future/wannabe scammers
Don't blame me. Make better wishes.
It ends up being a long chain of probabilities. Would the real test have shown a false negative? Would the treatment have definitely cured them (given that most treatments aren't 100% effective)? Would they have even sought treatment? Etc, etc.
It's kind of like how if a substance ends up causing cancer it's very hard to prove that an individual got cancer from that substance. You can see the effect in aggregate, but at an individual level it's very hard to prove they got it from this substance instead of pollution or smoking or eating too much meat or flying or whatever.
This is the same. You can say in aggregate that the patients would have lived longer with accurate tests, but it's hard to say what an individual outcome would have been.
The women's FCI in Dublin, California is an easy drive and they (presumably) have her level of security. If she wants to say F California (maybe she did in her PSR) then maybe Bryan TX is her destination. Could also be some random third facility. I don't think if a flight risk to Mexico is a concern that they'd be sending her so close to Mexico, but it may upgrade her security level enough that Dublin's off the table.
It's all time and it all sucks. Her kids will get to see her if their father wants them to, perhaps every weekend.
You can ask for citations, and I actually found one [1].
They prey on the desperate. They preyed on my family.
But if I ever had any question about Holmes, it was richly answered for me by her having not one but two children while under indictment for crimes that yielded an 11-year sentence. I cannot imagine the kind of person who has kids knowing there were good odds they'd have to abandon them for much of their childhood.
Devil's advocating myself: she could freeze eggs too, yes. Can't speculate on the pros and cons of different decisions.
She wanted investors' money, too. Having wants does not justify harm to others.
The harm is no greater than any other person that decides to have a child as a single parent.
The children will have a father, and a mother to visit until they are in their teens.
That is more family than a single woman who goes to the sperm bank to have children.
probably has the same mindset now regarding "having kids" or "family"
Actually, that is normal accepted business in many cases, and not illegal except in specific circumstances.
Classic example is commercial real estate bonds, where they roll over (the new bonds pay the old bond holders).
Or an IPO looks like a Ponzi, but usually isn't.
And bondholders understand up front that they are getting cash back on a particular date; that's the whole deal with a bond. Stockholders, though, expect profits to come from a functioning enterprise that generates value, not newer stockholders.
Skipping town on a sentence puts one in a rarified category where enforcement is now a federal problem, and the FBI has long memories, an international reach, and no statute of limitations on how long they can hunt a person who is sentenced. At which point, if they fall back under US custody, they get to start their sentence (as well as go on trial for the additional penalties associated with fleeing custody).
I'm aware of one case where for a suspect in a murder, the FBI put together a yacht party in a foreign country, got the target on the ship, sailed it out to international waters, and took them into custody at that point. I'm loathe to see what ends they'd go to to apprehend someone with a sentence hanging over them.
Enforcement of federal crimes like those Holmes was charged with is federal to start with. Skipping sentence makes it a US Marshals’ problem, though.
> I’m aware of one case where for a suspect in a murder, the FBI put together a yacht party in a foreign country, got the target on the ship, sailed it out to international waters, and took them into custody at that point.
Federal law enforcement has straight up hired people to kidnap a suspect from a country with which we have an extradition treaty; your example is hardly extreme. (And I’m talking about before the War on Terror.)
Though the best example of that is the DEA, not the FBI:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez-Macha...
And one she's certainly (allegedly?) entertained in the past ~year[0].
>As evidence of what they described as her “attempt to flee the country shortly after she was convicted,” prosecutors highlighted the plane ticket Holmes had booked for Jan. 26, 2022, without any scheduled return date.
>They complained to her defense team that she hadn’t notified them or the court about the trip, which violated her bail conditions...
[0]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/elizabeth-hol...
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/tech/elizabeth-holmes-mexico/...
Life on the run is a Hollywood thing - the CIA isn't going to kick down her door and blackbag her back to the US. If she leaves the US, she is effectively gone unless she does something really stupid.
The FBI generally works through Interpol to bring back international fugitives (for example, Tamara Dadyan) but will also "blackbag" fugitives if necessary. It's just not necessary to do that very often.
Also this rule only seems to apply to rich people. Poor people even in America go straight to prison.
She has been tried, convicted, and sentenced, and is trying to avoid prison during her appeal, so your question is irrelevant here.
The same people who blame the investors for being so "naive" to believe her BS.
EDIT: As comments point out, it is arguable that the crimes in question are violent because they directly jeopardized people's health.
I’m in a similar boat. But corruption is uniquely caustic to a society. In its erosion of trust. And in its perpetrators’ unique ability to bounce back and cause trouble anew. Fraud at this scale, at Holmes’ level, is similar in those attributes.
> restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage
Under what penalty?
> free person with a job can pay back their debt to society
Construct a restriction on Holmes. I’ll propose a loophole. Then consider the cost of constantly litigating that with her.
For instance Bayer knowing that their products were contaminated with HIV still chose to sell them. Monsanto with well all their stuff. Corporate crime is really crazier in my opinions. It’s armies of lawyers and businesses men, engineers and stuff having no problem for harm. It’s just less direct than a punch on the face.
Disclaimer: violence is still bad to horrible nonetheless.
This merits the consideration of jail time. Nobody said automatic jail for all violence—the facts and circumstances may merit mandated therapy, for instance. But if someone refuses and keeps popping off punches, yes, the isolation prerogative of jail time takes hold.
Of course, it's legitimately hard for politicians to signal to voters that they take this stuff seriously without proposing longer and longer prison sentences for things that worry voters, which are usually crimes that "other people" do: high dollar white collar crime, drug dealing, etc.
Anyone who needs to trust their blood test results. If faking such results lands you in jail, that makes me trust the results and I can make medically relevant decisions based on them.
There's an argument that holmes would learn her lesson with a ~2yr sentence as opposed to an 11yr sentence. But I'm unconvinced that a 0yr sentence paid for by investor funds would prevent future crime.
It's like kids, they think you're joking about a penalty until you actual turn the car around once.
Government has a monopoly on violence. This is a founding theory of why we have states. Furthermore, violence causes damage money can’t fix. Most non-violent crimes’ damages can be dollarised within margin.
Assuming bad faith by the manufacturer, how would you "dollarise" damage caused by incorrect sample analysis that caused the death of a patient ?
I'm sure that'll work great as a deterrent.
House arrest won't be on the table either ("what good does that do?"). Being barred from starting a company? I can see people arguing against that ("but it'll allow her to pay back the money sooner") for the same reasons they're arguing against punishment.
If the purpose is retribution or deterrence there are so many cheaper and less cruel ways to achieve those ends than taking decades of life and handing hundreds of thousands of dollars to prison industrial complex: caning, banishment, compulsory face tattoos of shame, whatever. The only reason we have prison sentences for crimes like this (along with most property and drug crimes) is so we can torture people without having to look at it directly. I wonder what society would be like if juries had to personally flog each person they sentence, or execute them at the date of (life_expectancy-sentence_years). The way we deal with crime in America today is sanitized barbarism, but if you peel back any layer of the justice system it's pretty easy to see it for what it is.
