3 ms·

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 p

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.
- sseveran 9y ago
  Nah, the SEC rarely actually prosecutes someone (or more correctly works with DOJ to indict them and try them.) It is just how the SEC typically does business. They, (and other regulators, CTFC, SROs) take these little actions all the time in the financial industry. I think when see a case where they really try and nail someone then you look for the politics.
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  "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" - you are alleging that in this specific case there was politically determined something - without any evidence whatsoever.
  - wolf550e 9y ago
    You two are using different meanings of "political". There is no allegation of pulling strings and getting SEC lawyers to decide something based on her name, her connections. They act according to policy, based only on objective measures of the case. But, it can be the policy of the SEC to objectively consider chances of winning (or getting a fraud conviction) and proceed to trial only if the chances are better than 90%, and it can be the policy of the SEC to go to trial on even 10% chances of winning, to generate as many fraud convictions as possible (at great expense to the tax payer). Both policies are valid (I think), and the choice is political (subjective). A presidential candidate might get elected on a platform that includes going harder after well connected rich people doing white collar crimes, and then appoint a new head of the SEC to enact this new policy of being willing to spend more money to try to get people in jail for fraud.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      "might". But we are talking about a specific case here. Does anyone have any evidence that SEC attorneys used considerations other than legal strategies in their decision to settle with Holmes? No? I rest my case.
      - pron 9y ago
        I don't mean political in the same sense that you do. I don't mean back-room deals, but decisions that are based on prioritization of values and resources in society.

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.

sseveran 9y ago
Nah, the SEC rarely actually prosecutes someone (or more correctly works with DOJ to indict them and try them.) It is just how the SEC typically does business. They, (and other regulators, CTFC, SROs) take these little actions all the time in the financial industry. I think when see a case where they really try and nail someone then you look for the politics.
vasilipupkin 9y ago
"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" - you are alleging that in this specific case there was politically determined something - without any evidence whatsoever.
- wolf550e 9y ago
  You two are using different meanings of "political". There is no allegation of pulling strings and getting SEC lawyers to decide something based on her name, her connections. They act according to policy, based only on objective measures of the case. But, it can be the policy of the SEC to objectively consider chances of winning (or getting a fraud conviction) and proceed to trial only if the chances are better than 90%, and it can be the policy of the SEC to go to trial on even 10% chances of winning, to generate as many fraud convictions as possible (at great expense to the tax payer). Both policies are valid (I think), and the choice is political (subjective). A presidential candidate might get elected on a platform that includes going harder after well connected rich people doing white collar crimes, and then appoint a new head of the SEC to enact this new policy of being willing to spend more money to try to get people in jail for fraud.
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    "might". But we are talking about a specific case here. Does anyone have any evidence that SEC attorneys used considerations other than legal strategies in their decision to settle with Holmes? No? I rest my case.
    - pron 9y ago
      I don't mean political in the same sense that you do. I don't mean back-room deals, but decisions that are based on prioritization of values and resources in society.