5 ms·

What do they say about karma?

Jgrubb 11y ago
Gonna knock you right on the head.
15thandwhatever 11y ago
In this particular case, "karma" appears to be "upsetting the morals of enough people, that regulatory and prosecutorial parties become invested in digging up enough of your past until they find something that sticks". I believe the word you're looking for is "witch hunt". I'm not saying I agree with the guy, or defend his actions in any circumstance. I'm just saying that if you told folks "the world is round" during the flat era, you'd be treated and investigated the same way.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  This has nothing to do with him stating an unpopular truth and being unjustly sanctioned for it. This is simply someone who has no apparent morals and who has pissed off enough people in enough places of authority that some of it pays off in a negative way. That's only a matter of time when this is your chosen life-style.
  - 15thandwhatever 11y ago
    Pissing off people in high places cuts both ways -- for people lacking morals not yet convicted, convicted criminals, AND for people pushing unpopular beliefs way before they're universally accepted as truths (e.g. current climate change debates, the US civil rights movement), and even more so for people whose professional lives advance societies but their private lives are an embarrassment to said people of authority (e.g. Alan Turing, Bill Clinton, and Eliot Spitzer as mentioned in another comment) His high-flying antics, in my opinion, seem to have accelerated a 2012 case (as pionar mentioned) that appeared to be slow moving, until now. I don't particularly like Martin, but I also don't like that his behavior was ignored until his public presence made some authority figures uneasy that their morals were being challenged, especially since his actions w.r.t. pricing were legally allowed. (The "Do we have anything against him?" scenario) You're indirectly advocating a position where everyone should stay in line and never go against the grain, because if you piss off the wrong people of authority, you deserve the negative actions that happen to you over time.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Well, you can't have it both ways. Either some of his stuff is prosecutable and then the timing hardly matters as long as it happens within the statue of limitations it's all the same to me. Or, none of it should be prosecuted because someone will always say: "oh, this is because of 'x' that he also did but is not prosecuted for". You can't win like that. If he did something that is illegal then fine, go after him. Clearly being a douchebag and an immoral asshole is not illegal so I don't see any link with this particular case there, other than maybe that being of such a character caused him to do this in the first place.
      - 15thandwhatever 11y ago
        @jacquesm, Or for a counterpoint: maybe it all comes down to an intentional strategy of timing? And our debate of morality vs. objectivity is late to the game. As in, people of authority are already aware of his actions (versus my original depiction of them as "sleeping giants"), but don't have enough strength (quality evidence, clear-cut violations, etc) to convict so the case proceeds at a glacial pace. i.e. If they were to present the case at that point in time, they'd encounter too many people in the objective camp (me) vs. the moral camp (you), who'd issue a jury verdict of not guilty. But with the very negative, public antics that Martin undertakes, he changes public opinion which directly impacts the makeup of his jurors and additional evidence where if the case was presented at the current time, it'd come out with a guilty verdict. EDIT: left out "and additional evidence" in reply.
        jacquesm 11y ago
        Or because of limited resources they go after the most visible violators as a signal to the rest. Take your pick. But without evidence that this is the case it could also simply be coincidence or slow moving wheels of justice.
- tux3 11y ago
  You have a point that there is a bit of a witch hunt, however I think there's a big difference between a witch hunt for wrongspeak and being in the spotlight for rising drug prices to absurd levels, then finding out fraudulent behavior. I wish him a fair trial.
- gotchange 11y ago
  "Witch hunt"? Huh? He's a victim now? You could do better than this man to refute my claim of karma in action without playing the victim card. This douche insisted repeatedly that he is not breaking any laws and playing by the rules to gouge people and I say that the feds aren't breaking any laws here and playing by the rules too. Does it sound 100% fair to target him like this? Maybe not but neither was his scheme to suck the blood of his victims in distress and need. At least he's still got the chance to defend himself and present his case before a judge in a normal trial unlike what he did to those patients where he ordered them to pay him the exorbitant amount (fine) without any legal recourse to reverse that decision. I say that he's in much better position now than what many of his victims are thanks to his greed and selfishness.
- pionar 11y ago
  >I believe the word you're looking for is "witch hunt". It's not a witch hunt. Dude's been under investigation for 3 years. The article states this: "The Securities and Exchange Commission, which according to court documents opened an investigation into Shkreli in 2012, is expected to file a parallel civil complaint against him, according to people familiar with the matter."
  - 15thandwhatever 11y ago
    Here's another case in the same vein, where a very public CEO with strong opinions had lost a decision in a very nasty sexual harassment case (while stating even more of his strong opinions in the duration of the case) which wasn't going to put a dent in his net worth, but later picked up on securities fraud: https://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/benjamin-wey-founder-and-president-of-new-york-global-group-arrested-and-charged-in-manhattan-federal-court-for-securities-fraud-arising-out-of-fraudulent-reverse-merger-scheme-involving-chinese-companies https://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/benjamin-wey... I don't care for their actions, I'm concerned about the subjectivity of legal scrutiny.
gargravarr 11y ago
What goes around comes around, as they say...
- gargravarr 11y ago
  Well, was not expecting the downvotes. Yes, my comment was based on the first impression of the article, like quite a few others, so it was indeed hasty and misinformed. I will say though, there is another adage that applies - 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. For someone who was under investigation already for financial irregularities, this is some outlandish behaviour that was certain to draw attention, the wrong kind at that. I can only hope justice is served through due process. I won't be unhappy if he's convicted of fraud though.

Gonna knock you right on the head.

In this particular case, "karma" appears to be "upsetting the morals of enough people, that regulatory and prosecutorial parties become invested in digging up enough of your past until they find something that sticks". I believe the word you're looking for is "witch hunt". I'm not saying I agree with the guy, or defend his actions in any circumstance. I'm just saying that if you told folks "the world is round" during the flat era, you'd be treated and investigated the same way.

jacquesm 11y ago
This has nothing to do with him stating an unpopular truth and being unjustly sanctioned for it. This is simply someone who has no apparent morals and who has pissed off enough people in enough places of authority that some of it pays off in a negative way. That's only a matter of time when this is your chosen life-style.
- 15thandwhatever 11y ago
  Pissing off people in high places cuts both ways -- for people lacking morals not yet convicted, convicted criminals, AND for people pushing unpopular beliefs way before they're universally accepted as truths (e.g. current climate change debates, the US civil rights movement), and even more so for people whose professional lives advance societies but their private lives are an embarrassment to said people of authority (e.g. Alan Turing, Bill Clinton, and Eliot Spitzer as mentioned in another comment) His high-flying antics, in my opinion, seem to have accelerated a 2012 case (as pionar mentioned) that appeared to be slow moving, until now. I don't particularly like Martin, but I also don't like that his behavior was ignored until his public presence made some authority figures uneasy that their morals were being challenged, especially since his actions w.r.t. pricing were legally allowed. (The "Do we have anything against him?" scenario) You're indirectly advocating a position where everyone should stay in line and never go against the grain, because if you piss off the wrong people of authority, you deserve the negative actions that happen to you over time.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Well, you can't have it both ways. Either some of his stuff is prosecutable and then the timing hardly matters as long as it happens within the statue of limitations it's all the same to me. Or, none of it should be prosecuted because someone will always say: "oh, this is because of 'x' that he also did but is not prosecuted for". You can't win like that. If he did something that is illegal then fine, go after him. Clearly being a douchebag and an immoral asshole is not illegal so I don't see any link with this particular case there, other than maybe that being of such a character caused him to do this in the first place.
    - 15thandwhatever 11y ago
      @jacquesm, Or for a counterpoint: maybe it all comes down to an intentional strategy of timing? And our debate of morality vs. objectivity is late to the game. As in, people of authority are already aware of his actions (versus my original depiction of them as "sleeping giants"), but don't have enough strength (quality evidence, clear-cut violations, etc) to convict so the case proceeds at a glacial pace. i.e. If they were to present the case at that point in time, they'd encounter too many people in the objective camp (me) vs. the moral camp (you), who'd issue a jury verdict of not guilty. But with the very negative, public antics that Martin undertakes, he changes public opinion which directly impacts the makeup of his jurors and additional evidence where if the case was presented at the current time, it'd come out with a guilty verdict. EDIT: left out "and additional evidence" in reply.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        Or because of limited resources they go after the most visible violators as a signal to the rest. Take your pick. But without evidence that this is the case it could also simply be coincidence or slow moving wheels of justice.
tux3 11y ago
You have a point that there is a bit of a witch hunt, however I think there's a big difference between a witch hunt for wrongspeak and being in the spotlight for rising drug prices to absurd levels, then finding out fraudulent behavior. I wish him a fair trial.
gotchange 11y ago
"Witch hunt"? Huh? He's a victim now? You could do better than this man to refute my claim of karma in action without playing the victim card. This douche insisted repeatedly that he is not breaking any laws and playing by the rules to gouge people and I say that the feds aren't breaking any laws here and playing by the rules too. Does it sound 100% fair to target him like this? Maybe not but neither was his scheme to suck the blood of his victims in distress and need. At least he's still got the chance to defend himself and present his case before a judge in a normal trial unlike what he did to those patients where he ordered them to pay him the exorbitant amount (fine) without any legal recourse to reverse that decision. I say that he's in much better position now than what many of his victims are thanks to his greed and selfishness.
pionar 11y ago
>I believe the word you're looking for is "witch hunt". It's not a witch hunt. Dude's been under investigation for 3 years. The article states this: "The Securities and Exchange Commission, which according to court documents opened an investigation into Shkreli in 2012, is expected to file a parallel civil complaint against him, according to people familiar with the matter."
- 15thandwhatever 11y ago
  Here's another case in the same vein, where a very public CEO with strong opinions had lost a decision in a very nasty sexual harassment case (while stating even more of his strong opinions in the duration of the case) which wasn't going to put a dent in his net worth, but later picked up on securities fraud: https://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/benjamin-wey-founder-and-president-of-new-york-global-group-arrested-and-charged-in-manhattan-federal-court-for-securities-fraud-arising-out-of-fraudulent-reverse-merger-scheme-involving-chinese-companies https://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/benjamin-wey... I don't care for their actions, I'm concerned about the subjectivity of legal scrutiny.

gargravarr 11y ago

What goes around comes around, as they say...

gargravarr 11y ago
Well, was not expecting the downvotes. Yes, my comment was based on the first impression of the article, like quite a few others, so it was indeed hasty and misinformed. I will say though, there is another adage that applies - 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'. For someone who was under investigation already for financial irregularities, this is some outlandish behaviour that was certain to draw attention, the wrong kind at that. I can only hope justice is served through due process. I won't be unhappy if he's convicted of fraud though.