6 ms·

As usual, you can't make a criminal case if you don't use the tools we give prosecutors to make cases. Where are the home searches? The wiretaps? You can't jus

As usual, you can't make a criminal case if you don't use the tools we give prosecutors to make cases. Where are the home searches? The wiretaps? You can't just go "maybe discovery in this civil case will reveal the criminal conspiracy" and then go "eh, guess not".

nickff 5y ago
What kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am almost certain that the Sacklers thought they were producing drugs which would relieve pain and help end-users live happier and more productive lives. This may have been self-deception, but I don't have the knowledge to do a cost-benefit analysis of this situation (though I'd be interested to see one on opiods).
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. The question is whether and to what extent the family members, as individuals, might be criminally (or civilly) responsible.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. It's much easier to convict the corporation than its members.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      Which is the root of the problem. The Sacklers get throw the company under the bus and walk away with billions in ill-gotten gains. A company shouldn’t be capable of committing crimes - there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things.
      - gruez 5y ago
        >there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things. People do get convicted of misconduct at a corporation. It's just that in some (most?) instances, the criminality is so diffuse that you can't convict anyone of anything, so you end up convicting the corporation instead.
        biaachmonkie 5y ago
        So then everyone should be convicted/sentenced to prison for the crimes of the corporation they are a part of in proportion to their ownership and/or control over the corporation.
- jasonlaramburu 5y ago
  >What kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the state needs to prove intent to kill. It could have been negligence, eg they knew people were getting addicted but declined to change their aggressive marketing tactics.
- aurizon 5y ago
  AH, Just the person I have in mind for my Florida waterfront property. Only 6 feet deep at the shore at low tide..... I say that because of your belief in the humanitarian nature of the sacklers. The sacklers wove a web of fraud and arm's length de-facto murder that they need to be tried, one at a time for them, with no trial bail allowed. I fully expect the sacklers to run for it one day to a place they can not be extradited from, or even vanish off shore if it looks like they will ever get called on to pay for their crimes. Without their actions perhaps 400,000 to 450,000 of their victims might be alive. They were, for the most parts, people led down a garden path of inexorable addiction and death. There are a few million, who were damaged, but lived. (why do you think the sacklers want immunity forever?)The toll of human suffering and death that leads directly to their front door - that is what the Justice Department knows and pursues. They were not criminals - at the start, they followed the $$, to our cost. Some people can resist addiction - cold turkey people, like me. I had flesh eating disease after my legs being crushed in a car accident. (pix available, PM me, I still have persistent muscle loss areas) They used, on me, a cocktail of antibiotics fed by an auto-pump, that also created intense pain. The infection was defeated, and the pain was suppressed by oxy-contin. After the infection subsided and the pain left, the oxy-contin was cut off by the doctors. It was then that I felt what addiction was like - intense fidgets(but no more pain), twitch, sleeplessness, etc. I was one of those who are capable of cutting it off, cold turkey, which is what I did. After 2 weeks it was gone. I still have some of the pills left - in case the pain returned. Apparently a high % of people can not self cold turkey like I can. I also do not drink at all, never liked booze in any form. I could never understand alcoholics either? If I have 8 drinks, I get woozy, lose co-ordination etc - it is pleasant, being drunk, but I can take it it leave it. I suspect that alcohol and oxy-contin addicts must get a supreme pleasure - I pleasure I do not get. It is possible that if I got the intense addict's pleasure that I would also be unable to resist it as well, I am lucky to be in that segment of mankind that does not get this intense pleasure - if only we could bottle it and end addictions??. Sorry for the rant, but I hate to see the sacklers skate free with their billions, which others suffered and suffer on. sackler = lower case, they are low grade people in all respects.
gruez 5y ago
>Where are the home searches? The wiretaps? what are you expecting to turn up? Documents/recordings that say "yep we totally knew that oxycotin was addictive and we're moving profits out with the goal of hiding them from creditors"?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Given how many people have been caught being exactly that stupid, why not? It's at least worth a shot.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  "[W]hat do you think is going on in all of these courtrooms right now? We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family? I think [the investment banker’s] advice was just violated in a Virginia courtroom. My thought is to lever up where we can, and try to generate some additional income. We may well need it. . . . Even if we have to keep it in cash, it’s better to have the leverage now while we can get it than thinking it will be there for us when we get sued."[1] [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/download#page=53 https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/downl...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 5y ago
    If that's really the best quote the prosecution can come up with, I can see why the state settled. I suppose you can see this as the smoking gun, if you were already convinced of it, but from a skeptical reading it's really not that obvious. Are they talking about hiding money from creditors? Or just finding other ways of making money now that their previous money-maker (perdue pharma) is going under? Is the state going to convince the jury of that better than the defense?
    - 5y ago
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Prosecutors do have those tools, though? I mean, in the specific case of wire taps, we probably wouldn't even have that word it the corresponding investigative tool did not exist. But we also have laws around when they can and can't be applied. There are standards of evidence and suspicion that must be reached. Due process exists even for billionaires. Also, prosecutors or investigators might not use those tools if they doubt useful evidence would be uncovered.
- mrDmrTmrJ 5y ago
  Civil suits and criminal cases have different standards of evidence. It maybe that the Sacklers could not be convicted of a felony crime but *may be convicted in a series of massive civil suits. Certainly this sounds weird, but there's very clear president. OJ Simpson was both acquitted in criminal court and convicted in a civil suit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civil_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civi...
nosackler2 5y ago
>> As usual, you can't make a criminal case if you don't use the tools we give prosecutors to make cases. Where are the home searches? The wiretaps? Those tools (and criminal proceedings) are usually reserved for persons of color. For everyone else, we have white glove treatment. The best hope we have to prosecute the Sacklers properly is if one of them converts to Islam, then you'll see the gears of justice turn.

nickff 5y ago

What kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am almost certain that the Sacklers thought they were producing drugs which would relieve pain and help end-users live happier and more productive lives. This may have been self-deception, but I don't have the knowledge to do a cost-benefit analysis of this situation (though I'd be interested to see one on opiods).

elliekelly 5y ago
Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. The question is whether and to what extent the family members, as individuals, might be criminally (or civilly) responsible.
- gruez 5y ago
  >Purdue, the company, has pleaded guilty to two crimes. Presumably there is plenty of evidence of criminal activity. It's much easier to convict the corporation than its members.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    Which is the root of the problem. The Sacklers get throw the company under the bus and walk away with billions in ill-gotten gains. A company shouldn’t be capable of committing crimes - there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things.
    - gruez 5y ago
      >there has to be at least one person who caused the company to do illegal things. People do get convicted of misconduct at a corporation. It's just that in some (most?) instances, the criminality is so diffuse that you can't convict anyone of anything, so you end up convicting the corporation instead.
      - biaachmonkie 5y ago
        So then everyone should be convicted/sentenced to prison for the crimes of the corporation they are a part of in proportion to their ownership and/or control over the corporation.
jasonlaramburu 5y ago
>What kind of evidence are you expecting to be discovered? Teleconferences where they discuss intentionally killing people by causing overdoses? I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the state needs to prove intent to kill. It could have been negligence, eg they knew people were getting addicted but declined to change their aggressive marketing tactics.
aurizon 5y ago
AH, Just the person I have in mind for my Florida waterfront property. Only 6 feet deep at the shore at low tide..... I say that because of your belief in the humanitarian nature of the sacklers. The sacklers wove a web of fraud and arm's length de-facto murder that they need to be tried, one at a time for them, with no trial bail allowed. I fully expect the sacklers to run for it one day to a place they can not be extradited from, or even vanish off shore if it looks like they will ever get called on to pay for their crimes. Without their actions perhaps 400,000 to 450,000 of their victims might be alive. They were, for the most parts, people led down a garden path of inexorable addiction and death. There are a few million, who were damaged, but lived. (why do you think the sacklers want immunity forever?)The toll of human suffering and death that leads directly to their front door - that is what the Justice Department knows and pursues. They were not criminals - at the start, they followed the $$, to our cost. Some people can resist addiction - cold turkey people, like me. I had flesh eating disease after my legs being crushed in a car accident. (pix available, PM me, I still have persistent muscle loss areas) They used, on me, a cocktail of antibiotics fed by an auto-pump, that also created intense pain. The infection was defeated, and the pain was suppressed by oxy-contin. After the infection subsided and the pain left, the oxy-contin was cut off by the doctors. It was then that I felt what addiction was like - intense fidgets(but no more pain), twitch, sleeplessness, etc. I was one of those who are capable of cutting it off, cold turkey, which is what I did. After 2 weeks it was gone. I still have some of the pills left - in case the pain returned. Apparently a high % of people can not self cold turkey like I can. I also do not drink at all, never liked booze in any form. I could never understand alcoholics either? If I have 8 drinks, I get woozy, lose co-ordination etc - it is pleasant, being drunk, but I can take it it leave it. I suspect that alcohol and oxy-contin addicts must get a supreme pleasure - I pleasure I do not get. It is possible that if I got the intense addict's pleasure that I would also be unable to resist it as well, I am lucky to be in that segment of mankind that does not get this intense pleasure - if only we could bottle it and end addictions??. Sorry for the rant, but I hate to see the sacklers skate free with their billions, which others suffered and suffer on. sackler = lower case, they are low grade people in all respects.

gruez 5y ago

>Where are the home searches? The wiretaps? what are you expecting to turn up? Documents/recordings that say "yep we totally knew that oxycotin was addictive and we're moving profits out with the goal of hiding them from creditors"?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 5y ago
Given how many people have been caught being exactly that stupid, why not? It's at least worth a shot.
pseudalopex 5y ago
"[W]hat do you think is going on in all of these courtrooms right now? We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family? I think [the investment banker’s] advice was just violated in a Virginia courtroom. My thought is to lever up where we can, and try to generate some additional income. We may well need it. . . . Even if we have to keep it in cash, it’s better to have the leverage now while we can get it than thinking it will be there for us when we get sued."[1] [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/download#page=53 https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1329736/downl...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 5y ago
  If that's really the best quote the prosecution can come up with, I can see why the state settled. I suppose you can see this as the smoking gun, if you were already convinced of it, but from a skeptical reading it's really not that obvious. Are they talking about hiding money from creditors? Or just finding other ways of making money now that their previous money-maker (perdue pharma) is going under? Is the state going to convince the jury of that better than the defense?
  - 5y ago

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

Prosecutors do have those tools, though? I mean, in the specific case of wire taps, we probably wouldn't even have that word it the corresponding investigative tool did not exist. But we also have laws around when they can and can't be applied. There are standards of evidence and suspicion that must be reached. Due process exists even for billionaires. Also, prosecutors or investigators might not use those tools if they doubt useful evidence would be uncovered.

mrDmrTmrJ 5y ago
Civil suits and criminal cases have different standards of evidence. It maybe that the Sacklers could not be convicted of a felony crime but *may be convicted in a series of massive civil suits. Certainly this sounds weird, but there's very clear president. OJ Simpson was both acquitted in criminal court and convicted in a civil suit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civil_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#Civi...

nosackler2 5y ago

>> As usual, you can't make a criminal case if you don't use the tools we give prosecutors to make cases. Where are the home searches? The wiretaps? Those tools (and criminal proceedings) are usually reserved for persons of color. For everyone else, we have white glove treatment. The best hope we have to prosecute the Sacklers properly is if one of them converts to Islam, then you'll see the gears of justice turn.