Here:
Much of Holmes’ lawyers recommendations regarding total loss calculations, which are essential to wire fraud sentences, are redacted from the public court filing, but they’re arguing prosecutors can’t prove the $1.54 million she got in salaried compensation between 2010 and 2015 was connected to criminal activity. . . .
They also say Theranos wasn’t a Ponzi scheme — “it was a real company,” which prosecutors don’t dispute.
“It developed valuable, innovative technology (assays, hardware, and software), including inventions and advancements that were recognized as innovative by the United States Patent & Trademark Office. It had real commercial relationships and provided real services to customers. The investments were not used to line Ms. Holmes’ pockets or those of anyone else; to the contrary, the investments went toward the company’s mission to make health information more accessible,” according to the memo.
That’s one way to put it! I love the bit about “real services to consumers.” The blood test is fake, but the service is real.
Can you imagine, working for this law firm and your job is to write things like that? You must have to throw up every evening after returning home from a day of work doing that.
For those who haven’t been following the news, background on this story is here.
P.S. I just noticed the bit above about the “valuable, innovative technology (assays, hardware, and software).” Isn’t it some kind of violation of professional ethics to flat-out lie like that? Their technology was to take a bunch of existing assays, put them in a black box, have a crappy robot arm operate them all, and then have a fake progress indicator on the outside of the box so that they could con people into thinking they had valuable, innovative technology.
Theranos developed valuable, innovative technology in the same sense that three-card monte was valuable, innovative technology. Whoever invented three-card monte was a goddam genius. It could be considered technology, it was innovative in the sense of being a new way to separate people from their money, and it was valuable to the people who ran the con. Three-card monte also, like Theranos, provided real services to customers. I have a friend who got scammed on three-card monte on a NYC street corner back in the 80s. For a mere $20 she gained a story she can tell forever. That’s a real service!
I am not a lawyer and don’t know what legal terms like habeas corpus mean, but my people have a word for the argument her lawyers are making. Chutzpah.
Caveat emptor
– on account of unwarranted good faith.
Else, I am in no hurry to understand the laws of her country to the relevant degree…
“Isn’t it some kind of violation of professional ethics to flat-out lie like that? ”
Apparently not for lawyers, as the ones who have become politicians do it all the time. Stacey Abrams and Hilary Clinton both repeatedly claimed election fraud.
And what about all the other professions that become politicians and, during the course of being a politician, outright lie? You’d think it would be against the professional ethics of clergy, but Raphael Warnock has also repeatedly claimed election fraud.
You might think it’s a party thing but of course the infamous Dr. Oz to partakes liberally in lying, both as a doctor and a politician. But I guess the diff between Oz and Clinton/Warnock/Abrams is that the press is all over the former individual, whereas only Fox News is all over the later group.
And is there anything to the Defund the Police movement that’s **NOT** lying? Maybe the reason “Defunders” get a pass from the press is…oh…no reason. I guess we can pin “defund” lying on just about every profession: reporters, editors, doctors, lawyers, activists, advocates, politicians, clergy, teachers, scientists, professors, administrators….but I guess on the upside, while Theranos hosed over lots of wealthy investors, “defund” has resulted in a wild crime spree claiming the lives of lots of innocent every day people. So it’s not as bad as Theranos’ lawyers.
I like the idea of “Advocate” and “Activist” as professions – they certainly seem to be professions these days. Who’s going to write up the code of ethics for them?
Chipmunk:
But it is considered an ethics violation when politicians lie! The issue with politicians is that we have to choose between two options, so you have to balance their ethics violations against their policy positions, political skills, etc.
chipmunk
I really grow tired of your blatant political bias and your willingness to let it overwhelm any nuance or subtlety that should be required for real understanding. Some of the Democratic bogey(wo)men you cite have indeed claimed fraud. Hilary Clinton has raised concerns – mostly about voting rights and Russian interference – and i think lumping them as the same thing as Trump’s claims of fraud is disingenuous. There are serious issues with American voting and they deserve serious attention. Labeling all concerns as equal and calling them claims of “fraud” does not help understand how we can improve things. All it does is reiterate your political beliefs which I am tired of hearing.
Dale – You do have a point, and a good one, but I was having an unenjoyable Friday until I read the comment. It provided a good chuckle and a brief sense that someone else might be having a worse day. It helped get a little bit further through the day.
The law has its own rules (I am lawyer). A lawyer cannot “knowingly” make a false statement. This is one reason why many lawyers (like Kohberg’s Pennsylvania public defender) do not ask the client whether he did it or not.
To be fair to lawyers, given that court proceedings are designed as an adversarial system, it is necessary that defense lawyers make the most effective argument that they can for their clients, and that if the client wants them to push a particular line they do so, if at all possible. You don’t want a system where a convict felon can make the case that they were only convicted because “the system” – including their own lawyers – conspired against them. My only remaining worry about this is when lawyers trained in this system transfer their skills and style of argument to other areas.
Ag:
I’m fine with lawyers doing their job, not so fine with the expectation that a lawyer has to pull out the stops and behave unethically. This came up in an earlier comment thread: