5 ms·

"are considerable and have value in a court of law" What is that value and in which court? The point is the prosecutors went for what they could reasonably pr

by zeruch 4y ago

"are considerable and have value in a court of law" What is that value and in which court? The point is the prosecutors went for what they could reasonably prosecute on, with evidence available.

Jensson 4y ago
The point is that wire fraud is apparently a much more serious crime than fraudulent medical practice, otherwise the fraudulent medical practice would be much easier to sue for. The problem is the law, not the prosecutors.
- marcus0x62 4y ago
  > The point is that wire fraud is apparently a much more serious crime than fraudulent medical practice, otherwise the fraudulent medical practice would be much easier to sue for. That does not follow, at all. The US Attorney's office cannot bring charges against violations of state law, and medicine is largely regulated by the individual states in the US. Additionally, the evidence in a particular case might make it easier to prove some charges than others. That's not a value judgement that one crime is "worse" than another. That's just reality. The Feds prosecuted Al Capone for tax evasion -- not because anybody thinks tax crimes are more serious than murder, but a) that's what they had jurisdiction over and b) it is what they could prove in court.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I always thought it was interesting feds don't have jurisdiction over most murder as it doesn't fit into one of the constitution approved uses of the federal government, but somehow merely sawing down a shotgun barrel or feeding crops you grow to your own animals is considered 'interstate trade' and thus subject to federal law. As if murder doesn't have effect on interstate trade at least as much as Filburn's crops did.
recuter 4y ago
That's all well and good procedually. I think the objection is not about the technicalities of the due process but the manner in which it seems to currently be optimized - results wise. It is very true as you say that it was easier to prosecute for wire fraud with evidence available so that's what they did. Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think?
- CoastalCoder 4y ago
  > Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think? I like the sentiment, but my impression is that an entrenched legal system like the U.S.'s is neigh impossible to rework shy of a major revolution. But I'm certainly no student of history or law. Can someone who is weigh in?
  - recuter 4y ago
    To me it seems that the practical application of the US legal system appears to be wildly evolving in all manner of directions lately rather than ossifying. But I am also not a law student. The populace certainly appears to be preoccupied with other areas of focus than what is discussed here I'll grant you that. Otherwise I don't really get why things couldn't be different. Perhaps that's what you mean. Bummer.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Ultimately, courts follow the laws as written by Congress or the relevant legislative bodies. The recent decades of partisan gridlock are putting judges in uncomfortable positions.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      IMO that is part of the problem. The courts often even bend backwards to follow the laws as written by the legislature rather than follow the constitution. You end up with insane interpretations, such as a federal law allowing prosecution of someone growing locally sourced pot seeds and smoking the product somehow being interpreted as interstate commerce. Another utterly bizarre one is merely the act of walking within 1000 feet of a school with a gun in hand is considered interstate commerce under the gun free school zone act. No matter if the act of was completely devoid of commercial nature.
saghm 4y ago
I don't think GP is disagreeing with you about what the law currently says but is lamenting that current law is in fact written this way. Regardless of the legality, it feels wrong (to me at least) from a moral standpoint that investors were better protected from the fraud in this case than the medical patients were.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Sure, but that isn't a problem with a faulty court system. Courts don't make the laws. If people feel that there should be stronger laws to protect patients, then they should look at the current law and suggest improvements.

by zeruch 4y ago

"are considerable and have value in a court of law" What is that value and in which court? The point is the prosecutors went for what they could reasonably prosecute on, with evidence available.

Jensson 4y ago

The point is that wire fraud is apparently a much more serious crime than fraudulent medical practice, otherwise the fraudulent medical practice would be much easier to sue for. The problem is the law, not the prosecutors.

marcus0x62 4y ago
> The point is that wire fraud is apparently a much more serious crime than fraudulent medical practice, otherwise the fraudulent medical practice would be much easier to sue for. That does not follow, at all. The US Attorney's office cannot bring charges against violations of state law, and medicine is largely regulated by the individual states in the US. Additionally, the evidence in a particular case might make it easier to prove some charges than others. That's not a value judgement that one crime is "worse" than another. That's just reality. The Feds prosecuted Al Capone for tax evasion -- not because anybody thinks tax crimes are more serious than murder, but a) that's what they had jurisdiction over and b) it is what they could prove in court.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I always thought it was interesting feds don't have jurisdiction over most murder as it doesn't fit into one of the constitution approved uses of the federal government, but somehow merely sawing down a shotgun barrel or feeding crops you grow to your own animals is considered 'interstate trade' and thus subject to federal law. As if murder doesn't have effect on interstate trade at least as much as Filburn's crops did.

recuter 4y ago

That's all well and good procedually. I think the objection is not about the technicalities of the due process but the manner in which it seems to currently be optimized - results wise. It is very true as you say that it was easier to prosecute for wire fraud with evidence available so that's what they did. Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think?

CoastalCoder 4y ago
> Maybe we should reevaluate what the system prioritizes making easy and what it makes hard. Don't you think? I like the sentiment, but my impression is that an entrenched legal system like the U.S.'s is neigh impossible to rework shy of a major revolution. But I'm certainly no student of history or law. Can someone who is weigh in?
- recuter 4y ago
  To me it seems that the practical application of the US legal system appears to be wildly evolving in all manner of directions lately rather than ossifying. But I am also not a law student. The populace certainly appears to be preoccupied with other areas of focus than what is discussed here I'll grant you that. Otherwise I don't really get why things couldn't be different. Perhaps that's what you mean. Bummer.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Ultimately, courts follow the laws as written by Congress or the relevant legislative bodies. The recent decades of partisan gridlock are putting judges in uncomfortable positions.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    IMO that is part of the problem. The courts often even bend backwards to follow the laws as written by the legislature rather than follow the constitution. You end up with insane interpretations, such as a federal law allowing prosecution of someone growing locally sourced pot seeds and smoking the product somehow being interpreted as interstate commerce. Another utterly bizarre one is merely the act of walking within 1000 feet of a school with a gun in hand is considered interstate commerce under the gun free school zone act. No matter if the act of was completely devoid of commercial nature.

saghm 4y ago

I don't think GP is disagreeing with you about what the law currently says but is lamenting that current law is in fact written this way. Regardless of the legality, it feels wrong (to me at least) from a moral standpoint that investors were better protected from the fraud in this case than the medical patients were.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Sure, but that isn't a problem with a faulty court system. Courts don't make the laws. If people feel that there should be stronger laws to protect patients, then they should look at the current law and suggest improvements.