U.S. seeks 15 years for Elizabeth Holmes over Theranos fraud
reuters.com
reuters.com
But what happens to her in that case? If the court does sign off on a restitution penalty, is it the equivalent of a creditor's judgment against her? I believe acts of fraud can't be discharged in bankruptcy, so is this judgment something that would hang over her forever? Could the defrauded parties garnish her wages?
Just curious as to how the logistics of "unpayable restitution penalties" play out in the real world.
That said, California is a community property state, which means that income and debts that are incurred during the marriage are considered the joint property of both spouses. Again though, Holmes debt and her husband's wealth were acquired before their marriage, so in that case it's easy to keep these separate.
Is only being incurred now, at the verdict.
> husband's wealth
Acquired before marriage, and would have to have been mind bogglingly stupid, knowing the risk of a liability finding, not to protect that with a prenuptial.
IANAL but that's generally not how it works. The timing of when the debt was incurred here would be considered when the conduct occurred that resulted in the verdict.
> not to protect that with a prenuptial
Would probably want a prenup for other reasons, but wouldn't be necessary here. Just need to ensure his pre-marriage assets weren't commingled with community property during the marriage.
Also, I can't imagine his family would have jumped for joy over it either without consulting several lawyers ahead of time.
I guarantee there's a prenup.
When you marry someone you become some sort of combined entity where assets/liabilities now belong to the husband-and-wife-estate figure and not by any of them individually (obv. disregarding the effects of prenups and similar clauses).
"Title III also protects individuals by limiting the amount of earnings that may be garnished in any workweek or pay period to the lesser of 25 percent of disposable earnings or the amount by which disposable earnings are greater than 30 times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by Section 6(a) (1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This limit applies regardless of how many garnishment orders an employer receives. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour."
It also states that if state limits are smaller than the state limits apply.
A bankruptcy judge later transferred the rights from the publisher to the Goldman family. Why I have no idea. But it isn't like it was "taken" from Mr. Simpson or he "had to give" the proceeds. He got his money from the publisher and later a bankruptcy judge decided the publisher could be parted with their income stream.
Obviously you can, if you negotiate it with the ghostwriter - who would just be your employee anyway or even be a team of writers, so all the copyrights can remain with you - same way Marvel has the copyright for stuff people wrote for them.
Rather than the obvious "here sign this form that says we can publish a book about this and put your name on it"?
>Florida has one of the most generous homestead exemptions found in any state. Under the Florida exemption system, homeowners may exempt an unlimited amount of value in their home or other property covered by the homestead exemption. However, the property cannot be larger than half an acre in a municipality or 160 acres elsewhere.
Texas has one similar:
>You can protect an unlimited amount of equity in your principal residence. It applies to properties on 10 acres or less in a city, town, or village or 100 acres or less in the country (families can double this to 200 acres).
If you are "high value" and potentially at risk of a lawsuit, it is worth considering relocating to a state with favorable bankruptcy laws.
I get maternal instincts. I get bodily autonomy.
But to make a choice to get pregnant during a trial in which you are facing up to 20 years in federal prison (with all the restrictions on parole that that incurs) was either: "she believes her own shit, to this day, that she was just one step away from a miracle", "she is only focused on herself", or "callous ploy to win favoritism from jurors" (which I also wouldn't put past her, given her multiple chameleonic efforts, above and beyond the turtlenecks and deep voice acting).
(downvotes notwithstanding: the US court system is quite literally full, which is why these things take so long. Even if a judge wanted to, their schedule often simply isn't open until months, sometimes more than a year, later)
It’s all rather depressing.
And the judgement is so large, even after prison she'll never have wealth beyond a middle-class lifestyle. She'll be like Jordan Belfort and die with a debt of several hundred million dollars.
Edit: context for my guess https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_disparity#Evidenc...
What?
It's a reasonable compromise that we punish the male in this situation more harshly than the female because he couldn't get himself pregnant during the trial?
That's not reasonable in any sense of the word. Even less so when you read through all the details and realize that Elizabeth was not an abused, cowed underling of the Balwani mastermind, but an active, and in many cases, initiating and driving part of the crimes they committed.
If that was the logic, Balwani would have a pretty solid grounds for appeal. "We're punishing you more because your co-conspirator has a kid now".
The child is innocent but the mother is weaponizing her fetus and using it as a pawn. What is an appropriate answer or solution for the mother (ab)using the child as a hostage tactic?
There are lots of thriving and competent single parents out there. The kid can live with and be raised by daddy. In fact, the father has so much money and resources there is no reason for this kid to ever want for anything.
I obviously don't know anything personally about Mrs. Holmes, but given her husband's wealth she can be assured any children she has will be provided for even if she is in prison for the rest of her life.
How is this good, considerate, or fair to your child?
There are no billionaire heirs dumb enough to have a child with an incarcerated woman. There is at least 1 foolish enough to have a child with a woman with pending charges however.
In this case it seems even more obviously bad to factor this since she got pregnant when she knew she was going to trial and likely to be convicted. Some even say the defense team wanted her pregnant for the trial. If the rule is "if you have a baby you don't have to go to jail" what type of moral hazard is this?
this case got me thinking, clearly Holmes needs to be punished for wrong doing, clearly there also needs to be a deterrence, and yet the trade off in damaging the life of an innocent seems unnecessary for me. What kind of penalty would serve the first two aims yet not result on the third?
I would still argue you are to fixated on the singular case of the child. The harm Holmes did here effected hundreds if not tens of thousands of people extremely negatively (think of all the years/funding for bio research thrown down the toilet) and any future deterrence of behavior like this is worth it.
What if someone doesn't have a child when they're arrested but, due to the complexity of the case, they're able to get pregnant and have a baby before sentencing?
That would be a good way to avoid prison, no?
- do you advocate for the same lenience for all parents of young children (including e.g. those convicted of violent crimes)?
- do you advocate for the same lenience for people who become parents between arrest and sentencing?
If we make the case that a criminal should receive a lessor sentence because it impacts their child, does that mean that any single mom or dad who robs a business should be able to get the same treatment? A reduced sentence for armed robbery, for example?
Continuing to play devils advocate here: how do we know such a criminal would create a safe and nurturing environment for the child? Or how do we know they don’t end up raising another sociopath in their own image?
My own 2 cents: from the literature I’ve read about Elizabeth Holmes, it would not shock me that having a child was part of the defense’s strategy.
How do you know a 16-year old single mother will create apropriate atmosphere? Should we perhaps mandate abortions to anyone who hasn't passed an exam and hasn't been issued a breeding licence?
The way this works today, a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty.
Nobody is talking about 16 year olds or abortions. Are you sure you’re not deliberately changing the topic and really are debating in good faith?
Why do you believe it’s appropriate to compare a random 16 year old with a convicted criminal, who is awaiting sentencing?
> a person is competence at raising children is untill social services prove otherwise. Kinda like innocent until proved guilty
And no one is arguing against that. You’re making a straw man argument.
Well, if you can question innate right in this situation, maybe you can question them in other situations too? Then do we even have rights, to parenting, family life an others?
For a crime you render the punishment as prescribed in law, no more, no less.
The world could stand to use more empathy. If we can't find any for a small child being torn away from their mother, we are broken humans in need of repair.
If Elizabeth Holmes had succeeded in her endeavour her child would likely have been raised by a nanny
"Due _entirely_ to the conscious, calculated, criminal and repeated actions of their mother" is quite the caveat to your statement, no?
There are many many loving homes. The child's father is absolutely capable of raising the child, no?
What you're actually asking for is empathy for this child ("who did nothing wrong") over empathy for the victims of criminal activity (who also "did nothing wrong").
Should we apply the categorical imperative?
However he is young and shouldn't be prevented from visiting mommy in prison, but that doesn't mean society has to let mommy go (or even do a reduced sentence or an alternate sentence).
Many, many, many children already lose a parent to crime (either by them being murdered or them being the murderer).
You are being (as I read and reply) down-voted but that is a valid point. The government will prosecute parents for what they do to their children but under another circumstance the government will not take child impact into account (in the sentence) that is what that sentence does harmfully to children. Irony.
Meanwhile, Sunny Balwani is facing more charges and possibly more jail time than Lizzie, even though she was clearly the mastermind behind everything. He was her co-conspirator, but if it hadn't been him it'd have been some other sucker.
The justice system is so political, it makes no sense.