8 ms·

Amazon admits no basis for damages in $1M asset seizure by DOJ?

127 points by ilamont 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago
This will end with a big payday for her and her husband. I'm not sure who will end up paying but they do have damages. If it were a race between which billionaire I like the least Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos and Gates are making life really hard for each other.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _jab 4y ago
  Why are people hating on Gates these days? The others all spent their wealth on occasionally bizarre self-indulgent passion projects; Gates went into philanthropy. I know the man isn’t perfect but surely he’s a tier above those other three.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Did you miss all of the shite Microsoft pulled while Gates was still at the helm and the Epstein connection? I don't think you should be able to spend your way out of a bunch of stuff like that.
    - chasd00 4y ago
      There's an entire generation that only knows Gates as some sort of saint. Older folks here see him, rightly, as only trying to buy his way into heaven now that most of the blood has been washed off the money.
  - 2devnull 4y ago
    I’m amazed anyone could think that. What’s your take on Soros?
    - malfist 4y ago
      Why would their take on Soros matter at all here?
      - philjohn 4y ago
        It's always interesting as well, that Mercer and Koch do all of the things certain segments accuse Soros of, but they aren't up in arms about them in the same way. The "teamification" of politics is complete.
        2devnull 4y ago
        I’m not a “they.” Truly, I have no team and I sort of feel bad that others do. Soros didn’t make his money in a very honorable way, nor did the Koch brothers. They both have decided to use politics to exercise the same avarice that made them rich, perhaps deluding themselves and others into thinking that it’s ok if they are “doing good for the public.” Unending greed for political influence isn’t much better than greed for cash. It’s all just will to power. I feel similarly about most professional politicians, which is why I don’t have a team.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - frakt0x90 4y ago
    I agree with you. The argument I've heard is that Gates used to be just as much of a shark as any of the others back in the 90s/early 2000s but spent a lot to reverse his public image into a philanthropist. While that may or may not be true, it's certainly true that he does an extraordinary amount of charity with his money now in contrast to most of the others on the list.
    - 2devnull 4y ago
      They call it reputation laundering. His wife left him after the Epstein thing blew up. Former associates describe him as a pretty terrible person. Being evil and then making a show of your charity, which is often just another outlet for your own personal power trips doesn’t suddenly make you a good person. It’s just buying indulgences, but instead of the church it’s a corrupt fourth estate.
      - cjbgkagh 4y ago
        People who know him think he’s terrible, the whole humble Warren Buffet act is done for PR (the same reason Warren Buffet does it). He wasn’t just palling around with Epstein, his friendship continued after Epstein was convicted. His excuse was that Epstein gave him access… as if Bill G wasn’t the richest person on the planet at the time.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        And more often than not those foundations are tax dodges in disguise, you can't spend that much money in a reasonable fashion anyway.
        timsneath 4y ago
        It seems that this is a common misperception for some reason. There are certainly many charities that are ineffective at their mission, inefficient with their funds or working on a mission that few would consider worthwhile. (And there are also some great charities out there that are effective, efficient and important, such as https://givedirectly.org https://givedirectly.org.) But charities (of which non-profit foundations are a subclass) aren't a "tax dodge". Money that you give to a charity is untaxed, so you can claim a refund on income taxes you've already paid on that money. But you don't get new money that you haven't already earned from the IRS; every penny given is money that you already had, and the tax refund is purely of tax that is no longer due on that money. It's possible to be cynical of the motives of some philanthropic gifts, but Gates (and others) aren't financially better off from their giving itself.
  - fmo1973 4y ago
    Do a search on jeffrey epstein and bill gates
  - rtpg 4y ago
    Guy personally lobbied against having vaccine tech be put in the public domain. Hard to imagine what can counterbalance that (if ethics worked like carbon credits, which they don't)
    - sumedh 4y ago
      > Guy personally lobbied against having vaccine tech be put in the public domain. I think the reason was that he didnt want company to manufacture vaccines with defects and no quality control. In theory that sounds reasonable.
  - lost_tourist 4y ago
    Only thing I can figure is cheating on his wife and cursory friendship with Epstein? It doesn't take a whole lot for the far left and far right to hate people and simplify complexity down to one or two character flaws for the "hate to flow"
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Cursory? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
  - catach 4y ago
    It's difficult to compare them: Gates has had 14 years of philanthropic retirement to redeem his image. Bezos stepped down from Amazon in 2021, not sure if it counts as a retirement yet. Musk is still two years away from Gates' retirement age. And Zuckerberg is 15 years away from Gates' retirement age.
  - gnu8 4y ago
    Have you used BeOS or Netscape lately? Do you recall when Internet Explorer became the dominant web browser and then saw no development for five years? Do you remember when the most widespread malware on the internet was Windows 2000? Bill Gates is nothing but mindless aggression and wanton destruction. He is Vladimir Putin for your computer. Giving some money away does not erase his misdeeds or change him into a good person. We know his character.
  - somenewaccount1 4y ago
    For myself, Microsoft crushing everything in the 90's, and more recently, shorting Tesla. I could care less about Elon, the car is still dope and pushes humanity forward while every aristocrat tried to snuff it, Bill included. The philanthropy bit I think is just a PR stunt. Bill is not a nice man, or a good man, IMHO.
  - coffeeblack 4y ago
    Gates is buying a good name. He’s not really doing any good imo. Hop on a plane and look at what the foundation is actually doing in places where they are doing it. I have never seen anything useful. But it “sounds” really awesome to people back in the West. Not sure about your hate on Musk though. Fighting climate change, preserving the only life in the universe that we know of, bringing connectivity to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged globally, among many other good things. Not sure what’s bad about that.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      If Musk stuck to fighting climate change and his Mars mission I'd be fine with him. But he doesn't. He uses his money to actively destroy people and their reputations just for the lolz, is a continuous source of noise rather than signal and is about equal parts destructive as he is creative. Given another couple of years like the last two I would not be surprised if he final tally ends up as a significant net negative for society.
      - coffeeblack 4y ago
        For example? Who did he “destroy for the lolz”?
        Xylakant 4y ago
        Remember the episode with the cavediver rescuing children from a flooded cave that musk called a pedophile and then refused to back down? That one for example.
        coffeeblack 4y ago
        You mean where he worked with the Thai government on a rescue plan, got attacked verbally by that dude, attacked back, and then the dude couldn’t take it? Yes, I remember that he apologized a day later, even though the other one started it. Sure I know, because it’s the one thing bad that’s repeated and repeated about him, and he didn’t even start it. And he apologized. Any example that is actually bad?
  - AlchemistCamp 4y ago
    Gates was against sharing vaccine technology with India while the country's hospitals were literally running out of oxygen and people gasping for breath. Then after finally acquiescing under intense pressure, his foundation ran illegal medical trials on vulnerable groups. Honestly it's a lot more concerning than the various Twitter dramas (or any web app dramas) so many here are obsessed with. https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/why-are-indians-so-angry-at-bill-gates/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/why-are-indians-so-angry-at-...
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    > Gates went into philanthropy And what does that mean to me? Successful businesses like Tesla and Spacex have done much more for the world through the technology they have developed than any donation ever has. I'm supposed to value charity more highly just because it's not profitable?
  - 111111101101 4y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9iF4k16be0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9iF4k16be0
  - wankle 4y ago
    https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=81838 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=... "Moreover, the fact that no males, only females of child-bearing age, were vaccinated..." Referenced from the above article: http://archive.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/01/29/gates_makes_10_billion_vaccines_pledge/ http://archive.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/... "We must make this the decade of vaccines," Bill Gates said in a statement. Referenced from the above article: https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero "Bill Gates warned that we weren’t ready for a global pandemic in a talk at TED2015. Now he’s working to make sure the world is better prepared next time around." https://singjupost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Innovating-to-Zero_-Bill-Gates-Full-Transcript.pdf https://singjupost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Innovating... "First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10% or 15%. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3."
  - DaniloDias 4y ago
    [dead]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  Unfortunately it wont. Amazon did not take her money. Who is she going to sue? The government who took her money? That's not going to happen. They would spend all the money they got back on attorney fees and still not have enough and then in the end their case would get tossed as civil asset forfeiture is not illegal. It sucks but that is the current American legal system.
LatteLazy 4y ago
I am very confused by this. First on Amazons claim: the key parts of the screenshots she herself provided are blacked out. So they show nothing?! Someone has specifically removed only the parts relevant to her claim. Second, on the Civil Forfeiture: They have gotten most but not all of the cash back. If the DOJ actually admit there is no case why not insist on all of it (and lawyers fees and interest etc)? And also, the DOJ are VERY clear the only reason they didn't fight the return of the money is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it. The DOJ having an open case AND secret sources seems like the opposite of proof you're innocent. Third, it seems entirely fair and reasonable for Amazon to have pressured the DOJ to seize/freeze assets. Isn't that very standard in any case of fraud (or whatever this is ultimately prosecuted as)? I don't know why Op talks about it like it is evidence of conspiracy... I don't know much about this case. Civil Forfeiture seems like bullshit to me. It's confusing to me how long US cases seem to take (both before and during court proceedings, ditto for the Jan 6th prosecutions that are only just getting going). But these claims seem suspicious as hell... Please do correct me if I am missing some key point here?
- abigail95 4y ago
  I find it shocking that's an allowable outcome, that you can have funds seized for 2 years, sue them to provide proof, and they can just return it back without showing what evidence they had. > ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it Too bad in my book. If you start arresting people and seizing property, just giving some of it back isn't good enough, you're going to have to explain yourself.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    This is where I get even more confused. I basically agree with you. And if it were me, I would be demanding ALL the money back. I wouldn't let them keep them keep $108k (17%) of the money. I'd have wanted every cent AND interest, fees, an apology etc. It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case. And calling that a win is even weirder (doubly so when you add on lawyers fees etc). The whole thread is extra confusing because further down there is (what I think is) a judges order to place into escrow $25mil (3.8mil and 21.3mil). Is that still locked up or has it been released? Because getting the DOJ to release 525k seems like a small win compared to still having 50x that amount tied up... It's confusion all the way down as far as I can tell... To be clear, 2 years is a very long time to wait IMHO. Not sure why the US system seems so slow or why people are tolerant of it.
chromatin 4y ago
There is the old(?) saying that America isn't a country; just three corporations in a trenchcoat. Illicit cooperation between megacorps and the organs of state do nothing to dispel the meme.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
staticman2 4y ago
Given the text is out of context, unattributed, and the meaningful parts have been redacted, the only reasonable conclusion is Amazon hasn't admitted anything.
- labcomputer 4y ago
  Nope. The text was redacted by the other party. The DOJ and Amazon are free to provide that additional context (since they did the redacting) if it would help them. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    It doesn't matter who redacted it. The tweet claims "Amazon admits no basis for damages..." The only possible source for this is a court filing by Amazon's attorney where Amazon admits there is no basis for damages. The tweet appears to be a redacted filing by the Twitter user's attorney. It doesn't support the headline at all. If you think it does, someone has sold you something.
    - dang 4y ago
      I've added a question mark to the title. If someone can suggest a better* title, we can change it again. I'm pretty lost here. * i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the original source
_2d30 4y ago
Why is this so highly upvoted? Is this a famous case? The tweet isn't exactly doing numbers... The first tweet is so heavily redacted and posted by an obviously biased source, I don't trust it at all. Very weird. I do hate civil asset forfeiture, though!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
MobileVet 4y ago
For context, here is the write up on the situation from Ms Nelson’s, CEO of The Riveter, Medium account. https://medium.com/@amy_riveter/the-united-states-of-amazon-the-day-amazon-sent-the-fbi-to-take-my-familys-bank-accounts-b5172b4ddda3 https://medium.com/@amy_riveter/the-united-states-of-amazon-...
kodah 4y ago
For those looking for context: https://www.geekwire.com/2021/former-aws-real-estate-managers-accused-taking-millions-kickbacks-challenge-amazons-motives-amid-fbi-investigation/ https://www.geekwire.com/2021/former-aws-real-estate-manager...
- ilamont 4y ago
  In court papers, Nelson’s attorneys claim provisions of his Amazon employment contract, inked in 2012 when he became the second member of the AWS real estate team, include broad allowances for outside work. They say the Justice Department has seized money he made independently of Amazon, and have taken Amy Nelson’s earnings as well. Carl Nelson has filed his own suit against Amazon, alleging that the company has run afoul of Washington state’s new law restricting non-competition agreements. His attorneys also claim Amazon has violated his contract by suing him in federal court in Virginia rather than in Washington state court, the venue set in the agreement. As evidence of Amazon endorsing outside business activities, and of company executives making liberal use of the contract provisions, Nelson’s attorneys point in part to Jassy’s investment in the ownership group behind the new Seattle Kraken NHL franchise, and Amazon’s subsequent purchase of naming rights for the team’s arena.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    Yes, let us point out the side business of the checks notes CEO of AWS and now CEO of Amazon. This would be like a Tesla employee suggesting they can do something because Elon does.
    - _ktx2 4y ago
      I mean, it's not unreasonable. If employees can't do it, why can Andy?
      - anonymousiam 4y ago
        Corporate executives are often not legally "employees", but have a contract with the company. This seemed to be the case with Nelson too (he had a contract).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tomohawk 4y ago
It's crazy how out of control the FBI is. It's time for another Church commission, prosecutions of misconduct, and a RIF.
- ctvo 4y ago
  Please cite where the FBI failed to follow the law in this case. The FBI is a law enforcement agency. If you have an issue with the law, that's separate. In this case it appears the law is the issue: > For most of the country’s history, civil forfeiture was an obscure backwater. At the time of the Founding, civil forfeiture was limited to confiscating ships and cargo that ran afoul of customs duties. But now civil forfeiture has become wildly popular across law enforcement, precisely because it doesn’t require a criminal conviction, or even an indictment, to confiscate someone’s property. Empty talking points from conspiracy videos you saw on Youtube aren't helpful.
  - voakbasda 4y ago
    Civil forfeiture is legalized theft. Rationalize its legality all you want, but it is the government agents acting like criminals. This kind of behavior flagrantly steals assets from lawful citizens. They are routinely overstepping the bounds of civil behavior, so these institutions need to be burned to the ground - literally if need be.
    - ctvo 4y ago
      > They are routinely overstepping the bounds of civil behavior, so these institutions need to be burned to the ground - literally if need be. Or you know, work on changing the civil forfeiture laws and save the libertarian revolt talk for another issue?
      - DaniloDias 4y ago
        [dead]
      - voakbasda 4y ago
looseOnIts 4y ago
[dead]
looseOnIts 4y ago
[dead]
fortituded0002 4y ago
Had to look up details of what was going on. "After the first FBI visit, Amazon filed a civil lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of Virginia and the Nelsons could finally see what was alleged. Carl's former job had involved scouting land for Amazon to buy and build data centers on — or putting together deals with commercial real estate developers to do all that for AWS — and then he'd present the best option to decision makers. The lawsuit, which was fleshed out in July, alleged a massive fraud and kickback scheme involving a number of defendants, including Carl. It claims they inflated the lease prices and land purchase transactions for AWS to gain illicit profits that were distributed through a web of shell entities, including Carl's real estate startup he'd founded on the side. It added up to a lot — violating the federal RICO statute (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and engaging in wire fraud, honest services fraud, money laundering, and breach of contract, among other things. Amazon is seeking to recover "tens of millions of dollars" in unjust enrichment along with damages. Carl agrees that the transactions took place, but argues they were completely legal and standard, all vetted by his lawyer and allowed per his employment contract..." Source: https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/founder-amy-nelson-was-madly-pulling-a-pandemic-pivot/432598 https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/founder-amy-nelson-w...
- Mistletoe 4y ago
  Ok this makes me feel better about the whole thing.
xbar 4y ago
Amazon weaponized civil foreiture. Civil forfeiture is just theft. DOJ/FBI will goon-enforce well-funded and completely bogus claims without any independent investigation on behalf of both large corporations and small, local law enforcement agencies. Every argument I have that these are acceptable practices in a free society requires Olympic mental gymnastics.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
wonderwonder 4y ago
In the US in certain states, Cops can use civil asset forfeiture to just take whatever they want and a portion of what is seized goes to the police department. So they are incentivized to just take. Pretty hard to defend yourself after the government has taken all of your money and the lawyers want to get paid. Civil asset forfeiture does not even require proof of a crime, only accusation that there may have been a crime. Travelling with a bunch of cash? Well that's probably for drugs and its our cash now. https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/22/dea-gives-former-marine-back-86900-cops-took-him-during-nevada-traffic-stop-caught-body-cam/ https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/22/dea-gives-former-marine-... Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination and a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment. It rewards cops and federal agencies for violating the rights of citizens that are generally ill equipped to fight back, even more so after their money is stolen.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > In the US in certain states, Cops can use civil asset forfeiture to just take whatever they want and a portion of what is seized goes to the police department. In some states, the share can be up to 100%. But even where states don’t allow that with state law forfeitures, directing the funds instead to state general funds or dedicated state funds not connected to the seizing agency, federal law allows state/local agencies to do federal-law forfeitures and keep a share.
- kennend3 4y ago
  This has become such a problem the Canadian government has been warning its citizens traveling to the US to avoid carrying cash. This is from 2014 when the problem seems to have really taken off. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-shakedown-police-won-t-charge-you-but-they-ll-grab-your-money-1.2760736 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-shakedown-police-won-...
raincom 4y ago
This is the result of revolving door (collusion between DOJ attorneys and private law firms). Where would these DOJ attorneys go if they want to get out of DOJ? The same private law firms in DC. That's why mega crops, uber wealthy have these law firms handle stuff for them; with a casual meeting at common friends' party, the private law firm attorney 'tells' DOJ guys what to do. And DOJ guys take it from there.
phiy 4y ago
So much context missing. There are zero details regarding the actual case, and this appears to be a small detail in a big complicated case. Anytime the feds bring a RICO case, it can be pretty hard to prove

127 points by ilamont 4y ago

This will end with a big payday for her and her husband. I'm not sure who will end up paying but they do have damages. If it were a race between which billionaire I like the least Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos and Gates are making life really hard for each other.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_jab 4y ago
Why are people hating on Gates these days? The others all spent their wealth on occasionally bizarre self-indulgent passion projects; Gates went into philanthropy. I know the man isn’t perfect but surely he’s a tier above those other three.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  Did you miss all of the shite Microsoft pulled while Gates was still at the helm and the Epstein connection? I don't think you should be able to spend your way out of a bunch of stuff like that.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    There's an entire generation that only knows Gates as some sort of saint. Older folks here see him, rightly, as only trying to buy his way into heaven now that most of the blood has been washed off the money.
- 2devnull 4y ago
  I’m amazed anyone could think that. What’s your take on Soros?
  - malfist 4y ago
    Why would their take on Soros matter at all here?
    - philjohn 4y ago
      It's always interesting as well, that Mercer and Koch do all of the things certain segments accuse Soros of, but they aren't up in arms about them in the same way. The "teamification" of politics is complete.
      - 2devnull 4y ago
        I’m not a “they.” Truly, I have no team and I sort of feel bad that others do. Soros didn’t make his money in a very honorable way, nor did the Koch brothers. They both have decided to use politics to exercise the same avarice that made them rich, perhaps deluding themselves and others into thinking that it’s ok if they are “doing good for the public.” Unending greed for political influence isn’t much better than greed for cash. It’s all just will to power. I feel similarly about most professional politicians, which is why I don’t have a team.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- frakt0x90 4y ago
  I agree with you. The argument I've heard is that Gates used to be just as much of a shark as any of the others back in the 90s/early 2000s but spent a lot to reverse his public image into a philanthropist. While that may or may not be true, it's certainly true that he does an extraordinary amount of charity with his money now in contrast to most of the others on the list.
  - 2devnull 4y ago
    They call it reputation laundering. His wife left him after the Epstein thing blew up. Former associates describe him as a pretty terrible person. Being evil and then making a show of your charity, which is often just another outlet for your own personal power trips doesn’t suddenly make you a good person. It’s just buying indulgences, but instead of the church it’s a corrupt fourth estate.
    - cjbgkagh 4y ago
      People who know him think he’s terrible, the whole humble Warren Buffet act is done for PR (the same reason Warren Buffet does it). He wasn’t just palling around with Epstein, his friendship continued after Epstein was convicted. His excuse was that Epstein gave him access… as if Bill G wasn’t the richest person on the planet at the time.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      And more often than not those foundations are tax dodges in disguise, you can't spend that much money in a reasonable fashion anyway.
      - timsneath 4y ago
        It seems that this is a common misperception for some reason. There are certainly many charities that are ineffective at their mission, inefficient with their funds or working on a mission that few would consider worthwhile. (And there are also some great charities out there that are effective, efficient and important, such as https://givedirectly.org https://givedirectly.org.) But charities (of which non-profit foundations are a subclass) aren't a "tax dodge". Money that you give to a charity is untaxed, so you can claim a refund on income taxes you've already paid on that money. But you don't get new money that you haven't already earned from the IRS; every penny given is money that you already had, and the tax refund is purely of tax that is no longer due on that money. It's possible to be cynical of the motives of some philanthropic gifts, but Gates (and others) aren't financially better off from their giving itself.
- fmo1973 4y ago
  Do a search on jeffrey epstein and bill gates
- rtpg 4y ago
  Guy personally lobbied against having vaccine tech be put in the public domain. Hard to imagine what can counterbalance that (if ethics worked like carbon credits, which they don't)
  - sumedh 4y ago
    > Guy personally lobbied against having vaccine tech be put in the public domain. I think the reason was that he didnt want company to manufacture vaccines with defects and no quality control. In theory that sounds reasonable.
- lost_tourist 4y ago
  Only thing I can figure is cheating on his wife and cursory friendship with Epstein? It doesn't take a whole lot for the far left and far right to hate people and simplify complexity down to one or two character flaws for the "hate to flow"
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Cursory? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-bill-gates.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-...
- catach 4y ago
  It's difficult to compare them: Gates has had 14 years of philanthropic retirement to redeem his image. Bezos stepped down from Amazon in 2021, not sure if it counts as a retirement yet. Musk is still two years away from Gates' retirement age. And Zuckerberg is 15 years away from Gates' retirement age.
- gnu8 4y ago
  Have you used BeOS or Netscape lately? Do you recall when Internet Explorer became the dominant web browser and then saw no development for five years? Do you remember when the most widespread malware on the internet was Windows 2000? Bill Gates is nothing but mindless aggression and wanton destruction. He is Vladimir Putin for your computer. Giving some money away does not erase his misdeeds or change him into a good person. We know his character.
- somenewaccount1 4y ago
  For myself, Microsoft crushing everything in the 90's, and more recently, shorting Tesla. I could care less about Elon, the car is still dope and pushes humanity forward while every aristocrat tried to snuff it, Bill included. The philanthropy bit I think is just a PR stunt. Bill is not a nice man, or a good man, IMHO.
- coffeeblack 4y ago
  Gates is buying a good name. He’s not really doing any good imo. Hop on a plane and look at what the foundation is actually doing in places where they are doing it. I have never seen anything useful. But it “sounds” really awesome to people back in the West. Not sure about your hate on Musk though. Fighting climate change, preserving the only life in the universe that we know of, bringing connectivity to the most vulnerable and disadvantaged globally, among many other good things. Not sure what’s bad about that.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    If Musk stuck to fighting climate change and his Mars mission I'd be fine with him. But he doesn't. He uses his money to actively destroy people and their reputations just for the lolz, is a continuous source of noise rather than signal and is about equal parts destructive as he is creative. Given another couple of years like the last two I would not be surprised if he final tally ends up as a significant net negative for society.
    - coffeeblack 4y ago
      For example? Who did he “destroy for the lolz”?
      - Xylakant 4y ago
        Remember the episode with the cavediver rescuing children from a flooded cave that musk called a pedophile and then refused to back down? That one for example.
        coffeeblack 4y ago
        You mean where he worked with the Thai government on a rescue plan, got attacked verbally by that dude, attacked back, and then the dude couldn’t take it? Yes, I remember that he apologized a day later, even though the other one started it. Sure I know, because it’s the one thing bad that’s repeated and repeated about him, and he didn’t even start it. And he apologized. Any example that is actually bad?
- AlchemistCamp 4y ago
  Gates was against sharing vaccine technology with India while the country's hospitals were literally running out of oxygen and people gasping for breath. Then after finally acquiescing under intense pressure, his foundation ran illegal medical trials on vulnerable groups. Honestly it's a lot more concerning than the various Twitter dramas (or any web app dramas) so many here are obsessed with. https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/why-are-indians-so-angry-at-bill-gates/ https://thediplomat.com/2021/06/why-are-indians-so-angry-at-...
- fallingknife 4y ago
  > Gates went into philanthropy And what does that mean to me? Successful businesses like Tesla and Spacex have done much more for the world through the technology they have developed than any donation ever has. I'm supposed to value charity more highly just because it's not profitable?
- 111111101101 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9iF4k16be0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9iF4k16be0
- wankle 4y ago
  https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=81838 https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=... "Moreover, the fact that no males, only females of child-bearing age, were vaccinated..." Referenced from the above article: http://archive.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/01/29/gates_makes_10_billion_vaccines_pledge/ http://archive.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/... "We must make this the decade of vaccines," Bill Gates said in a statement. Referenced from the above article: https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates_innovating_to_zero "Bill Gates warned that we weren’t ready for a global pandemic in a talk at TED2015. Now he’s working to make sure the world is better prepared next time around." https://singjupost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Innovating-to-Zero_-Bill-Gates-Full-Transcript.pdf https://singjupost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Innovating... "First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10% or 15%. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3."
- DaniloDias 4y ago
  [dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wonderwonder 4y ago
Unfortunately it wont. Amazon did not take her money. Who is she going to sue? The government who took her money? That's not going to happen. They would spend all the money they got back on attorney fees and still not have enough and then in the end their case would get tossed as civil asset forfeiture is not illegal. It sucks but that is the current American legal system.

LatteLazy 4y ago

I am very confused by this. First on Amazons claim: the key parts of the screenshots she herself provided are blacked out. So they show nothing?! Someone has specifically removed only the parts relevant to her claim. Second, on the Civil Forfeiture: They have gotten most but not all of the cash back. If the DOJ actually admit there is no case why not insist on all of it (and lawyers fees and interest etc)? And also, the DOJ are VERY clear the only reason they didn't fight the return of the money is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it. The DOJ having an open case AND secret sources seems like the opposite of proof you're innocent. Third, it seems entirely fair and reasonable for Amazon to have pressured the DOJ to seize/freeze assets. Isn't that very standard in any case of fraud (or whatever this is ultimately prosecuted as)? I don't know why Op talks about it like it is evidence of conspiracy... I don't know much about this case. Civil Forfeiture seems like bullshit to me. It's confusing to me how long US cases seem to take (both before and during court proceedings, ditto for the Jan 6th prosecutions that are only just getting going). But these claims seem suspicious as hell... Please do correct me if I am missing some key point here?

abigail95 4y ago
I find it shocking that's an allowable outcome, that you can have funds seized for 2 years, sue them to provide proof, and they can just return it back without showing what evidence they had. > ongoing criminal investigation and they don't want to prejudice it Too bad in my book. If you start arresting people and seizing property, just giving some of it back isn't good enough, you're going to have to explain yourself.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  This is where I get even more confused. I basically agree with you. And if it were me, I would be demanding ALL the money back. I wouldn't let them keep them keep $108k (17%) of the money. I'd have wanted every cent AND interest, fees, an apology etc. It's not clear to me why they settled IF they are actually innocent and would win in an actual court case. And calling that a win is even weirder (doubly so when you add on lawyers fees etc). The whole thread is extra confusing because further down there is (what I think is) a judges order to place into escrow $25mil (3.8mil and 21.3mil). Is that still locked up or has it been released? Because getting the DOJ to release 525k seems like a small win compared to still having 50x that amount tied up... It's confusion all the way down as far as I can tell... To be clear, 2 years is a very long time to wait IMHO. Not sure why the US system seems so slow or why people are tolerant of it.

chromatin 4y ago

There is the old(?) saying that America isn't a country; just three corporations in a trenchcoat. Illicit cooperation between megacorps and the organs of state do nothing to dispel the meme.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

staticman2 4y ago

Given the text is out of context, unattributed, and the meaningful parts have been redacted, the only reasonable conclusion is Amazon hasn't admitted anything.

labcomputer 4y ago
Nope. The text was redacted by the other party. The DOJ and Amazon are free to provide that additional context (since they did the redacting) if it would help them. The fact that they don’t speaks volumes.
- staticman2 4y ago
  It doesn't matter who redacted it. The tweet claims "Amazon admits no basis for damages..." The only possible source for this is a court filing by Amazon's attorney where Amazon admits there is no basis for damages. The tweet appears to be a redacted filing by the Twitter user's attorney. It doesn't support the headline at all. If you think it does, someone has sold you something.
  - dang 4y ago
    I've added a question mark to the title. If someone can suggest a better* title, we can change it again. I'm pretty lost here. * i.e. more accurate and neutral, preferably using representative language from the original source

_2d30 4y ago

Why is this so highly upvoted? Is this a famous case? The tweet isn't exactly doing numbers... The first tweet is so heavily redacted and posted by an obviously biased source, I don't trust it at all. Very weird. I do hate civil asset forfeiture, though!

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

MobileVet 4y ago

For context, here is the write up on the situation from Ms Nelson’s, CEO of The Riveter, Medium account. https://medium.com/@amy_riveter/the-united-states-of-amazon-the-day-amazon-sent-the-fbi-to-take-my-familys-bank-accounts-b5172b4ddda3 https://medium.com/@amy_riveter/the-united-states-of-amazon-...

kodah 4y ago

For those looking for context: https://www.geekwire.com/2021/former-aws-real-estate-managers-accused-taking-millions-kickbacks-challenge-amazons-motives-amid-fbi-investigation/ https://www.geekwire.com/2021/former-aws-real-estate-manager...

ilamont 4y ago
In court papers, Nelson’s attorneys claim provisions of his Amazon employment contract, inked in 2012 when he became the second member of the AWS real estate team, include broad allowances for outside work. They say the Justice Department has seized money he made independently of Amazon, and have taken Amy Nelson’s earnings as well. Carl Nelson has filed his own suit against Amazon, alleging that the company has run afoul of Washington state’s new law restricting non-competition agreements. His attorneys also claim Amazon has violated his contract by suing him in federal court in Virginia rather than in Washington state court, the venue set in the agreement. As evidence of Amazon endorsing outside business activities, and of company executives making liberal use of the contract provisions, Nelson’s attorneys point in part to Jassy’s investment in the ownership group behind the new Seattle Kraken NHL franchise, and Amazon’s subsequent purchase of naming rights for the team’s arena.
- coredog64 4y ago
  Yes, let us point out the side business of the checks notes CEO of AWS and now CEO of Amazon. This would be like a Tesla employee suggesting they can do something because Elon does.
  - _ktx2 4y ago
    I mean, it's not unreasonable. If employees can't do it, why can Andy?
    - anonymousiam 4y ago
      Corporate executives are often not legally "employees", but have a contract with the company. This seemed to be the case with Nelson too (he had a contract).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tomohawk 4y ago

It's crazy how out of control the FBI is. It's time for another Church commission, prosecutions of misconduct, and a RIF.

ctvo 4y ago
Please cite where the FBI failed to follow the law in this case. The FBI is a law enforcement agency. If you have an issue with the law, that's separate. In this case it appears the law is the issue: > For most of the country’s history, civil forfeiture was an obscure backwater. At the time of the Founding, civil forfeiture was limited to confiscating ships and cargo that ran afoul of customs duties. But now civil forfeiture has become wildly popular across law enforcement, precisely because it doesn’t require a criminal conviction, or even an indictment, to confiscate someone’s property. Empty talking points from conspiracy videos you saw on Youtube aren't helpful.
- voakbasda 4y ago
  Civil forfeiture is legalized theft. Rationalize its legality all you want, but it is the government agents acting like criminals. This kind of behavior flagrantly steals assets from lawful citizens. They are routinely overstepping the bounds of civil behavior, so these institutions need to be burned to the ground - literally if need be.
  - ctvo 4y ago
    > They are routinely overstepping the bounds of civil behavior, so these institutions need to be burned to the ground - literally if need be. Or you know, work on changing the civil forfeiture laws and save the libertarian revolt talk for another issue?
    - DaniloDias 4y ago
      [dead]
    - voakbasda 4y ago

looseOnIts 4y ago

[dead]

looseOnIts 4y ago

[dead]

fortituded0002 4y ago

Had to look up details of what was going on. "After the first FBI visit, Amazon filed a civil lawsuit in the Eastern District Court of Virginia and the Nelsons could finally see what was alleged. Carl's former job had involved scouting land for Amazon to buy and build data centers on — or putting together deals with commercial real estate developers to do all that for AWS — and then he'd present the best option to decision makers. The lawsuit, which was fleshed out in July, alleged a massive fraud and kickback scheme involving a number of defendants, including Carl. It claims they inflated the lease prices and land purchase transactions for AWS to gain illicit profits that were distributed through a web of shell entities, including Carl's real estate startup he'd founded on the side. It added up to a lot — violating the federal RICO statute (The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) and engaging in wire fraud, honest services fraud, money laundering, and breach of contract, among other things. Amazon is seeking to recover "tens of millions of dollars" in unjust enrichment along with damages. Carl agrees that the transactions took place, but argues they were completely legal and standard, all vetted by his lawyer and allowed per his employment contract..." Source: https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/founder-amy-nelson-was-madly-pulling-a-pandemic-pivot/432598 https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/founder-amy-nelson-w...

Mistletoe 4y ago
Ok this makes me feel better about the whole thing.

xbar 4y ago

Amazon weaponized civil foreiture. Civil forfeiture is just theft. DOJ/FBI will goon-enforce well-funded and completely bogus claims without any independent investigation on behalf of both large corporations and small, local law enforcement agencies. Every argument I have that these are acceptable practices in a free society requires Olympic mental gymnastics.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

wonderwonder 4y ago

In the US in certain states, Cops can use civil asset forfeiture to just take whatever they want and a portion of what is seized goes to the police department. So they are incentivized to just take. Pretty hard to defend yourself after the government has taken all of your money and the lawyers want to get paid. Civil asset forfeiture does not even require proof of a crime, only accusation that there may have been a crime. Travelling with a bunch of cash? Well that's probably for drugs and its our cash now. https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/22/dea-gives-former-marine-back-86900-cops-took-him-during-nevada-traffic-stop-caught-body-cam/ https://www.techdirt.com/2021/12/22/dea-gives-former-marine-... Civil asset forfeiture is an abomination and a flagrant violation of the 4th amendment. It rewards cops and federal agencies for violating the rights of citizens that are generally ill equipped to fight back, even more so after their money is stolen.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> In the US in certain states, Cops can use civil asset forfeiture to just take whatever they want and a portion of what is seized goes to the police department. In some states, the share can be up to 100%. But even where states don’t allow that with state law forfeitures, directing the funds instead to state general funds or dedicated state funds not connected to the seizing agency, federal law allows state/local agencies to do federal-law forfeitures and keep a share.
kennend3 4y ago
This has become such a problem the Canadian government has been warning its citizens traveling to the US to avoid carrying cash. This is from 2014 when the problem seems to have really taken off. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-shakedown-police-won-t-charge-you-but-they-ll-grab-your-money-1.2760736 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/american-shakedown-police-won-...

raincom 4y ago

This is the result of revolving door (collusion between DOJ attorneys and private law firms). Where would these DOJ attorneys go if they want to get out of DOJ? The same private law firms in DC. That's why mega crops, uber wealthy have these law firms handle stuff for them; with a casual meeting at common friends' party, the private law firm attorney 'tells' DOJ guys what to do. And DOJ guys take it from there.

phiy 4y ago

So much context missing. There are zero details regarding the actual case, and this appears to be a small detail in a big complicated case. Anytime the feds bring a RICO case, it can be pretty hard to prove