3 ms·

Yeah, it's easy for the government to threaten plebs with prison for misreporting a few thousands in taxes...because they can't defend themselves like Holmes do

Yeah, it's easy for the government to threaten plebs with prison for misreporting a few thousands in taxes...because they can't defend themselves like Holmes does.

vasilipupkin 9y ago
let's dispense with political bullshit. A protracted lawsuit would cost the government millions of dollars with an uncertain outcome. Instead, Holmes is paying the government 500K and returning shares. The SEC is going to court against Balwani, where the case is presumably stronger. the plebs is strictly better off and not everything the government does is bad.
- briandear 9y ago
  So if it’s too expensive, we should let criminals walk? Fraud is a crime you know. She should be in jail. Kids have gone to prison for marijuana possession and this lady walks? Martha Stewart and that Martin guy went to prison for less.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    no, you are totally confused. SEC doesn't have a strong case to prove that Holmes is a criminal. get it? you have to PROVE first that Holmes is a criminal and SEC decided, based on the quality of the evidence, that it is better off settling with her than trying to PROVE she is a criminal.
- pron 9y ago
  Saying that people are better off with a quick resolution rather than a court case is also a political statement, as it's an opinion on what we as a society should value.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    no. people are better off with a quick resolution because professional attorneys at the SEC decided that the legal case against Holmes is not strong enough to waste taxpayer money trying to PROVE she committed a crime. Calling their decision into question without a shred of evidence that they did something suboptimal, based on your political beliefs alone, is what I am advocating against. EDIT: Which part of this statement are the downvoters disagreeing with ?
    - pron 9y ago
      I am not saying you are wrong, only that you're making a political statement. Determining when to bet on a court case and when not to is a political decision -- do you draw the line at 85% chance of conviction? 60? 30? It can certainly be pragmatic with respect to certain metrics, but choosing those metrics, e.g. deciding that the aim should be the minimization of public expense and risk of failure is very much political. The metrics we need to optimize aren't chosen for us by the laws of nature, but by our political values.
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        no, I am not. Attorneys at the SEC made this determination based on everything they had on Holmes. Calling their decision biased against poor people vs rich people, etc, political rather than legal, etc. without any evidence is bullshit.
        pron 9y ago
        > based on everything they had on Holmes ... and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved. Not only is the decision on the threshold political, but the risk itself is determined by the resources at the defendant's disposal. I am not saying that their decision is necessarily biased against poor people, but I am pointing out that there is a political stance involved no matter which way you come down on this issue.
        9y ago

Yeah, it's easy for the government to threaten plebs with prison for misreporting a few thousands in taxes...because they can't defend themselves like Holmes does.

vasilipupkin 9y ago

let's dispense with political bullshit. A protracted lawsuit would cost the government millions of dollars with an uncertain outcome. Instead, Holmes is paying the government 500K and returning shares. The SEC is going to court against Balwani, where the case is presumably stronger. the plebs is strictly better off and not everything the government does is bad.

briandear 9y ago
So if it’s too expensive, we should let criminals walk? Fraud is a crime you know. She should be in jail. Kids have gone to prison for marijuana possession and this lady walks? Martha Stewart and that Martin guy went to prison for less.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  no, you are totally confused. SEC doesn't have a strong case to prove that Holmes is a criminal. get it? you have to PROVE first that Holmes is a criminal and SEC decided, based on the quality of the evidence, that it is better off settling with her than trying to PROVE she is a criminal.
pron 9y ago
Saying that people are better off with a quick resolution rather than a court case is also a political statement, as it's an opinion on what we as a society should value.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  no. people are better off with a quick resolution because professional attorneys at the SEC decided that the legal case against Holmes is not strong enough to waste taxpayer money trying to PROVE she committed a crime. Calling their decision into question without a shred of evidence that they did something suboptimal, based on your political beliefs alone, is what I am advocating against. EDIT: Which part of this statement are the downvoters disagreeing with ?
  - pron 9y ago
    I am not saying you are wrong, only that you're making a political statement. Determining when to bet on a court case and when not to is a political decision -- do you draw the line at 85% chance of conviction? 60? 30? It can certainly be pragmatic with respect to certain metrics, but choosing those metrics, e.g. deciding that the aim should be the minimization of public expense and risk of failure is very much political. The metrics we need to optimize aren't chosen for us by the laws of nature, but by our political values.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      no, I am not. Attorneys at the SEC made this determination based on everything they had on Holmes. Calling their decision biased against poor people vs rich people, etc, political rather than legal, etc. without any evidence is bullshit.
      - pron 9y ago
        > based on everything they had on Holmes ... and a decision on when it is worth it to pursue a case. Unless the chance at conviction is zero, there is some politically determined risk threshold involved. Not only is the decision on the threshold political, but the risk itself is determined by the resources at the defendant's disposal. I am not saying that their decision is necessarily biased against poor people, but I am pointing out that there is a political stance involved no matter which way you come down on this issue.
        9y ago