GUILTY: Theranos' Elizabeth Holmes has been convicted of fraud of over $140 million!!

slowerthanu wrote:

Too wealthy and attractive for prison. Media loves this story so they can show her picture again

Not too wealthy now...

Rojo detector wrote:

I'm betting $100 that this was posted by rojo.

I looked it up. Not him.

I can almost always spot his posts. I was reading a thread five minutes ago Rojo started under another name. I feel. He's more likely to do that than reply to his own posts.

Racket wrote:

Rojo, I agree the claims against her are substantial, but your generally egregious and obtuse position on many social issues makes me think you're only obsessed with this issue because you enjoy seeing a woman in power fail.

What egregious and obtuse positions on social issues does Rojo have?

He'll often ask questions that others won't ask but I don't understand what egregious or obtuse positions he has. H

Luv2Run wrote:

slowerthanu wrote:

Too wealthy and attractive for prison. Media loves this story so they can show her picture again

Not too wealthy now...

She is not attractive either.

HashtagMETOO wrote:

Giypomu wrote:

She is not attractive either.

I'd still facefuk her!!

Looks like an unhealthy deer in headlights to me. Pass!

Oh yeah? What about Bernie, Paula, and your brother?

rojo wrote:

I love to see the big fall. I love to see hypocrite frauds go down whether it's Madoff, Jeter, Lance, or Holmes. Sex has nothing to do with it.

DC Runnerman wrote:

Racket wrote:

Rojo, I agree the claims against her are substantial, but your generally egregious and obtuse position on many social issues makes me think you're only obsessed with this issue because you enjoy seeing a woman in power fail.

When I read his post, I wondered what his angle was. Was it because he didn't agree with her politically? He perceived her to be a "liberal"? I'm not defending her, but I do think there is some basis for his interest in this case which he did not disclose. He'll never tell us the full story, but there is a method to his madness.

but rojo is a liberal snowflake

rojo wrote:

I love to see the big fall.

You love to see people fail?? That is a disgusting opinion. Do you not see that?

Used to work as a lawyer in a VC practice, representing both start-ups and investors. The short answer is that the SEC can't bring criminal charges, can only bring civil charges, but refers possible criminal complaints to the DOJ for it to bring criminal charges if it chooses. So, rojo, your Republican/Trump DOJ decided not to bring criminal charges here. Given how Trump's administration works, that would lead me to believe that she's a big Republican campaign contributor or has some other influence, or that at least it would have been embarrassing enough to prominent Republicans (board of directors, etc) for them not to pursue this. For what it's worth, I never used to view the world this way but there's no level of corruption that I think is beyond Trump and his team. If you don't want to think it's a conspiracy among the Republicans, then the classic answer is that it was determined that they didn't have a strong enough case to win "beyond a reasonable doubt". Don't forget that the SEC's civil charges have a lower legal standard. There are so many standard disclaimers in the deal docs about unproven technology, risk of regulatory issues, risk of complete loss, etc. that there is probably plenty of wiggle room to build a defense around the idea that the investors were forewarned about the many risks and thus no fraud. Again, prosecutors would have to prove fraud beyond a reasonable doubt.

rojo wrote:

I've been obsessed with this case for years. I really think she should be in the slammer and don't get why she is getting off the hook.

Yes, she agreed to give up voting control of the company, 19 million shares and pay a $500,000 fine. However, she basically defrauded millions from investors and then risked the lives of thousands. How is that not worthy of a criminal prosecution?

And the 19 million shares she is giving up are only worth anything because of the fraud. The same thing is true - she's paying a $500,000 fine yet all of her net worth comes from her running this fraudulent company.

Any chance she ever spend a day in the slammer?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-charged-fraud-20180314-story.html

rojo wrote:

I've been obsessed with this case for years. I really think she should be in the slammer and don't get why she is getting off the hook.

Yes, she agreed to give up voting control of the company, 19 million shares and pay a $500,000 fine. However, she basically defrauded millions from investors and then risked the lives of thousands. How is that not worthy of a criminal prosecution?

And the 19 million shares she is giving up are only worth anything because of the fraud. The same thing is true - she's paying a $500,000 fine yet all of her net worth comes from her running this fraudulent company.

Any chance she ever spend a day in the slammer?

I don't disagree with you about this matter, which is all too typical of SEC settlements, but it's important to recognize that the SEC doesn't have authority to prosecute criminal cases, which is the job of the Department of Justice. As far as I am aware, this settlement has no preclusive effect on any criminal proceedings; Holmes can still end up in the "slammer" for a very long time -- and, if the SEC's allegations are generally correct, that's where she belongs. Her alleged misdeeds are obviously orders of magnitude beyond those for which Martin Shkreli was sentenced to seven years.

She was the face of what was a bad idea transformed into an out-and-out fraud. Whether she was the prime mover behind all this is hard to say (I would bet not), but her inexperience and personal incompetence probably played a role in the absence of criminal charges. However, it would be very wrong if she personally nets a nickel out of this scam. She should take out student loans and finish her college education now that she possibly has the maturity to benefit from college.

If Galen Rupp and Mary Cain had a kid, it would look like Elizabeth Holmes.

There... you won't be able to unsee that ever again.

Should have said "absence of a criminal referral".

former VC lawyer wrote:

Used to work as a lawyer in a VC practice, representing both start-ups and investors. The short answer is that the SEC can't bring criminal charges, can only bring civil charges, but refers possible criminal complaints to the DOJ for it to bring criminal charges if it chooses. So, rojo, your Republican/Trump DOJ decided not to bring criminal charges here.

I don't see the basis for your conclusion that "DOJ decided not to bring criminal charges here."

"The settlement leaves unanswered whether federal prosecutors will pursue criminal charges. Theranos was under scrutiny by Justice Department prosecutors in San Francisco, but the status of any probe is unclear. Abraham Simmons, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in San Francisco, declined to comment."

It certainly wouldn't shock me if DOJ declines to prosecute. Billion-dollar fraudsters remain a privileged class in both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Giypomu wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

Not too wealthy now...

She is not attractive either.

+1000

And have you seen a video where she speaks? Oof!

Coach Cookie wrote:

If Galen Rupp and Mary Cain had a kid, it would look like Elizabeth Holmes.

There... you won't be able to unsee that ever again.

Omg, you are right.

#FreeShkreli

rojo wrote:

I hate the idea that Silicon Valley thinks they are so amazing.

1) that is a really weird thing to be fired up and offended over, since it has zero impact on you personally.

2) Silicon Valley doesnt think (if it is possible for an entire industry to have thoughts, that is) it is so amazing. Rather, outsiders think Silicon Valley is amazing. That is why they are pouring money in. If outsiders werent enamored, no investments would be coming in and it would be just another overcrowded middle class suburb. You are probably right that it is a bubble, but there are some legitimately clever ideas coming out, not just bad ones.

3) if your issue with silicon valley is the way that companies are able to leverage massive loans to enrich the ceo/president and a few key employees without ever turning a profit, with the only possible endings being a buyout or bankruptcy, surely you arent so naive to the world to believe they came up with that idea, or are the inly industry still doing this? In fact, its great timing considering the repeal attempt that just cleared the senate today to repeal laws enacted to combat very similar practices in the financial services industry, to try to ward off another bubble/recession stemming from that sector.

Why is the Southeast Conference so interested in her? Recruiting violations? Some other track -related issue? I ask this because this is -- or was -- a running-related site, and because one of the owners of this site seems really interested in this topic, I figured it must be running- related.

Perhaps you should just re-name this site "Lets Rant" -- you won't have to change much of what you are doing.