Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/11/theranos-elizabeth-holmes-loses-bid-to-stay-out-of-prison.html

by zvonimirs • 3 years ago

176 272 3 years ago

If you steal more than $5K three times in California, you will get 25 years in prison [1], and while I think that's disgusting and detestable, I don't want any elites getting special treatment either, so as to force change in those sentencing guidelines.

[1] https://www.kannlawoffice.com/grand-theft.html

throwaway5959• 3 years ago

It's pretty disgusting how little jail time she's receiving for the scope of her crimes.

sebzim4500• 3 years ago

11 years is quite a long time and seems suitable for scamming some idiots out of their money.

IMO the reason it seems low is that people get such unreasonably long sentences for doing far less.

adrr• 3 years ago

Stealing tens of millions from VC funds that have multi billion dollar portfolios. Thats the scope. Compared to stealing catalytic converter off someone making $40k a year and who has $2,000 in the bank and will need to spend half their savings to replace their catalytic converter.

IIAOPSW5• 3 years ago

Right, but Holmes didn't steal $5k more than three times. She stole millions of dollars but only did it once. So your statute doesn't apply.

arthurcolle• 3 years ago

Can't tell if serious. Can you see how the second might be seen as worse than the first? Literally perverse incentives.

"Go big or go home" and no worries! Couple years in Federal summer camp and you go back to your cushy upper class lifestyle as a consultant or startup advisor, or "executive coaching" for other future/wannabe scammers

rootusrootus2• 3 years ago

She only got caught once, but as an ongoing thing I think it's safe to say that she stole more than once.

everyone• 3 years ago

Wouldnt every individual investment count as an individual instance of theft?

causi• 3 years ago

I'm flatly amazed they couldn't prove anybody died as a result of her deliberate greed-fueled negligence in providing fake medical test results. She should be charged with manslaughter.

harveywi• 3 years ago

The fundamental question is whether the law distributes over addition.

gumby3• 3 years ago

I don't want any elites getting special treatment either...

These days I normally roll my eyes and stop reading when I encounter someone saying "the elites" but in this case it is 100% appropriate: she was a member of a wealthy elite, and both deliberately and casually used her connections from the get go.

explaininjs2• 3 years ago

Did you mean "causally"? Not sure the degree of formality is relevant.

thih9• 3 years ago

If you steal more than $5K three times in California (...)

Possible typo, linked article lists $950.

Quote: "Grand Theft is punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system. (...) If you get three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in a state prison. (...) to be guilty of Grand Theft under CPC §§487(a)-(d), you must: Take property or services worth more than $950; or (...)".

Source is the same, i.e.: https://www.kannlawoffice.com/grand-theft.html

dragonwriter5• 3 years ago

The federal sentencing guidelines have nothing to do with California state criminal law. Of course, if an act is both a federal and state crime, you can be prosecuted for each.

In fact, if an act is a crime in multiple states (which is possible), you can be charged and punished separately by each state as well as the federal government if it is also a federal crime. This rarely happens even where theoretically possible, but it can (its much more common for other jurisdictions to prosecute if you are acquitted in one but the act could be prosecuted in another as well.)

ashwagary2• 3 years ago

if an act is a crime in multiple states (which is possible), you can be charged and punished separately by each state

For the California three strikes law, am I correct in guessing all three strikes have to be in the state of California, or can 1-2 of the earlier strikes be in another state?

If the former is true, is the optimal choice after 2 strikes to leave California permanently (other than ceasing criminal activity of course)?

bradleyjg2• 3 years ago

Three strikes and you’re out isn’t about retribution, it’s about the strong evidence that the specific deterrence and rehabilitation effect of prison will not work on a particular individual.

p_j_w2• 3 years ago

rehabilitation effect of prison

There is no such effect in the USA. Prisons are 100% not designed to rehabilitate anyone here.

burnished2• 3 years ago

Anyone guilty of wage theft getting hit by that law?

Just saying, in practice its clearly not about jailing menaces to society.

cscurmudgeon• 3 years ago

Are you from the area? On the way I literally walk through multiple open air stolen goods sellers that have been around for years.

The bay area is famous for folks walking out stores with stolen goods:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-san-francisco-sho...

You can kill someone with a gun and spend just 7 years in prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kate_Steinle

Btw, I fully support Holmes getting punished but lets not misrepresent the ground reality.

trinsic2• 3 years ago

Yea, my wife works at a retail store here in the bay area and theft so normalized its unbelievable to me. They hire low paying loss prevention staff that have 0 power to do anything and just use to their time to look daunting while following shoplifters around so they can claim insurance loss when they walk out of the store with merch. They don't call the police or do anything that could be cause for the criminals to bring a suit against the store for violating their rights.

diydsp• 3 years ago

Three strikes can be triggered with much less, even petty theft can trigger it. In this example, the defendant received 25 years in prison for his third crime of stealing a pair of socks[0]

"Specifically, the Three Strikes law made it possible for a repeat offender to receive a prison sentence of 25 years to life for a nonserious or nonviolent felony (for example, petty theft with a prior)"[1]

[0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-an...

[1] https://lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

nickpinkston2• 3 years ago

Disgusting... thanks for sharing.

stametseater4• 3 years ago

Good, her children will be better off not being raised by a felon mother. The father's family has plenty of money, the kids will be well cared for without her around. With luck the father will find a new mother for the kids and they'll forget about Holmes.

oh_sigh• 3 years ago

There is no such place as Byron, Texas.

ojbyrne• 3 years ago

Seems like a typo. There is a federal correctional facility in Bryan, Texas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Prison_Camp,_Bryan

tptacek4• 3 years ago

It's FPC Bryan.

KindAndFriendly• 3 years ago

Reading this entire story, it baffles me that as of today I can still add a "Full Self-Driving Capability" option when ordering a Tesla.

nailer• 3 years ago

I am amazed at that too. If you need to pay attention and intervene, it’s clearly not ‘full self driving’.

haliskerbas• 3 years ago

$TSLA made enough people rich I suppose. I saw some gains myself although not on a large scale. Still don’t like the guy but there’s the old adage “for my friends everything, for my enemies the law”.

If $TSLA plummets a crazy amount the tables may turn

estebank• 3 years ago

Still don’t like the guy but there’s the old adage

Interestingly, Juan Domingo Peron's version of that adage was "For our friends, everything. For our enemies, not even justice." I'm not sure which one is worse, but they are certainly both evocative.

If $TSLA plummets a crazy amount the tables may turn

It depends. What happened here is that Holmes screwed over peers, and not just consumers. I don't think anything will happen to $TSLA's CEO unless except through malice aimed at his peers that affects their wealth.

JumpCrisscross20• 3 years ago

it baffles me that as of today I can still add a "Full Self-Driving Capability" option when ordering a Tesla

Capability, not feature. I know that isn’t how it’s marketed. But Elon isn’t claiming he has Level 5 right now. Most FSD buyers seem aware they’re paying into a research effort.

Fraud requires knowledge and intent. You’re making a good case for a class action lawsuit, i.e. civil action. Not for putting someone in jail.

ljw10012• 3 years ago

It’s a “full” capability they’re incapable of delivering. It’s really hard to see how your distinction has any meaning.

InitialLastName• 3 years ago

Capability implies that the car can do the thing (software included). Until the car can do it, it's all "hypothetical capability".

Selling a "capability" that won't get delivered within the expected lifetime of the car is just marketing garbage.

MBCook2• 3 years ago

I have 0% faith the current hardware will ever run a real level 5 solution.

It will require better processors, better cameras, LiDAR, more RAM, something.

vel0city2• 3 years ago

In 2019 Musk publicly stated Model 3's would support robotic taxi functionality in 2020.

stametseater4• 3 years ago

"The person in the driver's seat is only there for legal reasons."

gnu8• 3 years ago

Is level 5 where you call a rich person black car service?

bluescarni• 3 years ago

Most FSD buyers seem aware they’re paying into a research effort.

Shades of Star Citizen right there.

LanceJones6• 3 years ago

I'm an FSD Beta user. If you stop reading at "Full Self Driving Capability", then yes, it's an issue for a potential purchaser. But if you read just a little bit more, it becomes more clear what you're buying. I don't feel "fooled" and neither do 1000s of other Beta testers with whom I regularly communicate on Discord.

lesuorac2• 3 years ago

Oh good point, I should be more careful of what I read.

It's "Full Self Driving" not "Full Self Driving without Accidents".

lotsofpulp• 3 years ago

It is not about not being fooled, it is about maintaining standards so that people in society can spend less time ensuring they do not get fooled.

ok_dad5• 3 years ago

I'm an FSD Beta user... 1000s of other Beta testers

Ah, so the hundreds of thousands or millions who bought FSD years ago should be happy that a few thousand of you get to test out a system with your own lives. Great.

Edit: Don't bother responding if you're a Tesla or Elon fanboy/fangirl. I'm not interested in being insulted any longer by you folks.

figassis• 3 years ago

Don't think this is the point. Calling something Oranges, and then saying "they're not really oranges, but an approximation, but we call them oranges bc it sounds cool" is still fraudulent in my view.

paxys2• 3 years ago

The difference is that TSLA investors are happy.

gigatexal• 3 years ago

Both statements are hella cynical and 10000% true.

donatj2• 3 years ago

I imagine there is something in the paperwork you sign when you pay for it that basically says roughly "this may never actually materialize" and that's the key difference.

cjensen• 3 years ago

Self-delusion is not fraud. It's only a crime when you are not deluded and knowingly lie.

pclmulqdq5• 3 years ago

Building your company so that you can keep up your own delusions (and repeat them to customers) in spite of evidence sounds like it might be fraud.

falseeq6• 3 years ago

This is a dumb comment. Leading with stretched claims that are then clarified in the fine print is different than outright lying. No one who did a modicum of due diligence bought a Tesla thinking they were getting a completely self-driving car that requires no human input.

There’s a reason why we have specific false and deceptive advertising laws. Most of it doesn’t rise to the level of fraud. Fraud requires a lie and reasonable/justifiable detrimental reliance on that lie.

mbfg• 3 years ago

the only crime here (or anywhere) is screwing with rich people's money.

nullc2• 3 years ago

I wonder if dealers are still telling people that the future robotaxi service means that the car will entirely pay for itself?

rurp3• 3 years ago

Man, that's a blast from the past. Elon was claiming that was about to happen seven years ago.

asveikau2• 3 years ago

It's also baffling that she faces consequences for financial fraud and not the impact on patient health of knowingly giving faulty test results.

SketchySeaBeast2• 3 years ago

Yeah, I hate saying stuff like "it only matters when it hits the pockets of the rich" because it's reductive and cynical, but seriously - how are the patients not better protected here? How is that not the bigger story?

pas4• 3 years ago

that was what could be proved in court personally (that she had intent)

when it comes to the patient health there was not this clear paper trail

00F_7• 3 years ago

wrong. watch the latest FSD videos. FSD has proved all the detractors wrong. it drives unbelievably well. and the rate of improvement is astounding. this comment might have been valid a few years ago but not anymore.

memish• 3 years ago

It demonstrably has FSD capability. Marques Brownlee has a video from last year where it drove him to his studio.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nF0K2nJ7N8

gvedem2• 3 years ago

Marques Brownlee has a video from last year where it drove him to his studio.

I don't know where to start with this if you think that one, year-old video is somehow proof that Tesla FSD is ready for use--and, say, the recall earlier this year isn't indication that maybe it's not.

JumpCrisscross20• 3 years ago

A perverse culture of presumed lawlessness has migrated from Wall Street to Silicon Valley. You see it, here, when top-voted comments scoff at the notion of a perpetrator getting jail time. Hopefully, these sentences result in people being less cavalier about criminality. (Andreessen pivoting back to pumping web3 tempers my hope.)

LadyCailin2• 3 years ago

The top comment is wondering why Musk isn’t in jail too. A sentiment I also hold.

joering22• 3 years ago

He is too big to jail. He legally/lawfully been spending nice chunk of revenue for lobbying and has many ex-politicians working for him. So unless you operate in gray area (maybe one day your car will self drive) and not in black area (our machines never worked and actually some people even die because of misdiagnosis), you should be good to continue. I also think he has reason to attach himself so much to politics - you already have many republicans like Jim Jordan strongly defending him (like with Trump) regardless of any law breaking.

ExMachina733• 3 years ago

Any bets she actually reports? Odds anyone? I feel a woman of her means and personality may try to disappear, go off grid. Does she still have access to money? Were her assets frozen?

jeffwask• 3 years ago

She tried before sentencing and was caught.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/20/tech/elizabeth-holmes-mexico/...

tptacek4• 3 years ago

People say stuff like this because it's fun to talk about, not because it's a live issue. Do you actually want to bet? There aren't a lot of serious odds you could suggest for this where I wouldn't bet she shows up, like everybody else does.

standardUser3• 3 years ago

The last I heard, the founders of Ubiome had fled the country and are wanted by the FBI after their company was raided. Not everyone "shows up" if they have the means to flee.

shadowgovt2• 3 years ago

That would be a bad idea.

Skipping town on a sentence puts one in a rarified category where enforcement is now a federal problem, and the FBI has long memories, an international reach, and no statute of limitations on how long they can hunt a person who is sentenced. At which point, if they fall back under US custody, they get to start their sentence (as well as go on trial for the additional penalties associated with fleeing custody).

I'm aware of one case where for a suspect in a murder, the FBI put together a yacht party in a foreign country, got the target on the ship, sailed it out to international waters, and took them into custody at that point. I'm loathe to see what ends they'd go to to apprehend someone with a sentence hanging over them.

cale-• 3 years ago

That case sounds interesting, but I couldn't find anything on a cursory google. Can you provide some more details? Thanks

jjulius• 3 years ago

That would be a bad idea.

And one she's certainly (allegedly?) entertained in the past ~year[0].

As evidence of what they described as her “attempt to flee the country shortly after she was convicted,” prosecutors highlighted the plane ticket Holmes had booked for Jan. 26, 2022, without any scheduled return date.
They complained to her defense team that she hadn’t notified them or the court about the trip, which violated her bail conditions...

[0]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/elizabeth-hol...

dragonwriter5• 3 years ago

Skipping town on a sentence puts one in a rarified category where enforcement is now a federal problem

Enforcement of federal crimes like those Holmes was charged with is federal to start with. Skipping sentence makes it a US Marshals’ problem, though.

I’m aware of one case where for a suspect in a murder, the FBI put together a yacht party in a foreign country, got the target on the ship, sailed it out to international waters, and took them into custody at that point.

Federal law enforcement has straight up hired people to kidnap a suspect from a country with which we have an extradition treaty; your example is hardly extreme. (And I’m talking about before the War on Terror.)

Though the best example of that is the DEA, not the FBI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Alvarez-Macha...

BearOso• 3 years ago

I dunno. This woman was so afraid of being imprisoned that she got herself pregnant twice. And others have mentioned the airplane tickets that were found before sentencing. I believe she'll try anything to get out of it.

boeingUH60• 3 years ago

You definitely don’t want to be a fugitive. If she tries to escape and gets caught (chances are any escapee will), they’ll stick her in a tough high-security prison, not the minimum security camp she’s meant to report to.

stametseater4• 3 years ago

A woman of her means is not accustomed to life on the run.

Alupis3• 3 years ago

There are many places that do not extradite, even if you are known to be living there.

Life on the run is a Hollywood thing - the CIA isn't going to kick down her door and blackbag her back to the US. If she leaves the US, she is effectively gone unless she does something really stupid.

paxys2• 3 years ago

Spending a couple years in minimum security prison before being let out for "good behavior" with your slate clean is a much better prospect than spending your entire life on the run from the law.

ExMachina733• 3 years ago

According to the wikipedia article, even with good behavior she will serve a minimum 9.5 years with no possibility of parole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elizabeth_A._...

rurp3• 3 years ago

I don't know, living off of the grid sounds like it can get pretty uncomfortable. She doesn't really seem like the roughing it type. She probably has a better chance of using her money and connections to try and overturn the conviction on appeal, or maybe beg a future president for a pardon.

AndrewKemendo• 3 years ago

Holmes, Madoff etc... are all the proof that you need that the only people who go to Jail for fraud are the ones whose fraud hurts specifically investors.

JumpCrisscross20• 3 years ago

the only people who go to Jail for fraud are the ones whose fraud hurts specifically investors

Minus all the other fraud convictions constantly being handed down in America, sure.

mywittyname• 3 years ago

I think the OP meant more, "the only rich people".

Having enough money to have the direct line to someone important in a political party is valuable. Enough prosecutors have a mind for future ambitions and understand that some battles just aren't worth fighting.

That doesn't make for straight up immunity, but it does change the calculus enough that so long as no one else really cares about your crime, they can let it slide or negotiate it down to something trivial.

jkaptur• 3 years ago

Just from pop culture, I can come up with a counterexample: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/reality-show-cast-membe...

I'm not saying you're wrong in the aggregate, but can't you make a better argument? How can noting two people who went to jail for one reason be "all the proof you need"?

superkuh• 3 years ago

The context here is the rich and powerful. A reality show actor is not in that group and doesn't have those priveledges. Prosecuting someone like that does not make the powerful uncomfortable by setting a precedent so it's done all the time.

But the only time one of their in-group is sent to prison is when it hurts other rich and powerful.

Aperocky• 3 years ago

Plaster this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value

ljw10012• 3 years ago

Exactly. Only an amateur criminal steals from the rich.

pankajdoharey• 3 years ago

However you put it, but this judgement proves that justice exists, and i am happy to see scammers put behind bars in the mother of democracy. USA in-spite of its gun culture still rocks in some aspects.

dc-programmer• 3 years ago

Shkreli served prison time for fraud that did not lose investors money. But I think what you are saying has some truth to it

indigodaddy• 3 years ago

I don’t know why but in my own perverse way, I can sometimes root for her, even still. Maybe I just see her as a cartoon/movie villain (we will sometimes root for them)—- I somehow don’t accept her a real person.

standardUser3• 3 years ago

I have a really hard time believing that non-violent crimes should result in a person being locked in a cage. I'd rather see restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage, like when a reckless driver gets their license revoked. Besides, a free person with a job can pay back their debt to society, literally, with money, instead of the rest of us paying their living costs.

EDIT: As comments point out, it is arguable that the crimes in question are violent because they directly jeopardized people's health.

JumpCrisscross20• 3 years ago

non-violent crimes

I’m in a similar boat. But corruption is uniquely caustic to a society. In its erosion of trust. And in its perpetrators’ unique ability to bounce back and cause trouble anew. Fraud at this scale, at Holmes’ level, is similar in those attributes.

restrictions that limit their ability to do more damage

Under what penalty?

free person with a job can pay back their debt to society

Construct a restriction on Holmes. I’ll propose a loophole. Then consider the cost of constantly litigating that with her.

hef19898• 3 years ago

SBF and Bernie Madoff sure would like that approach.

realusername2• 3 years ago

Given she falsified medical results for so long, it's guaranteed some people have died as a result of her actions, that goes further than your average fraud

azmarks• 3 years ago

She was not convicted on any charges about falsified medical results. She was only convicted on defrauding investors

luckylion2• 3 years ago

In short: you don't want them to feel any consequences beyond having to pay back the money.

I'm sure that'll work great as a deterrent.

francisofascii• 3 years ago

Jail and paying money are not the only two deterrents available.

Spoom• 3 years ago

Any time I've ever heard fines used in the context of a business, it's never paying back the money. It's paying back a fraction of the money. And usually it's to the government, not to the people harmed.

from4• 3 years ago

Mandatory sentence reductions for milestones like 50%, 75%, 100% of ordered restitution/forfeiture would almost certainly incentivize repayment. Right now the federal government collects 7% of what they are owned from criminal defendants, see https://sci-hub.se/https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/d... (page 2). It has been proven that white collar criminals are typically the more calculating type and that they weigh the risks of getting caught so if there is a good reason to preserve at least some of the money they fraudulently obtain instead of spending it all on luxury goods they will likely do so. It's very difficult to argue that the current system is effective when there are people who caused bank failures through million dollar frauds getting 7-8 years in prison and $100 a month restitution payment plans. Right now your "intended loss" (not actual loss) is all that matters for the purpose of sentencing guidelines calculation - for instance if you submit a fraudulent loan application for $50k and don't get it (or get it but pay it back) you're just as bad as the guy who got it and spent it at all.

standardUser3• 3 years ago

Freedoms can be restricted in many ways that don't involve locking someone in a cage and covering their living expenses.

chrisbrandow• 3 years ago

I 100% agree. I hate to bring it up in the context of a criminal that is already priveleged and insulated from so much of the unfairness of the criminal justice system, but almost all non-violent crime should be handled in non-prison ways. Honestly, who is better off because she's sitting in a jail cell for years?

Of course, it's legitimately hard for politicians to signal to voters that they take this stuff seriously without proposing longer and longer prison sentences for things that worry voters, which are usually crimes that "other people" do: high dollar white collar crime, drug dealing, etc.

EamonnMR• 3 years ago

Honestly, who is better off because she's sitting in a jail cell for years?

Anyone who needs to trust their blood test results. If faking such results lands you in jail, that makes me trust the results and I can make medically relevant decisions based on them.

kasperni• 3 years ago

I think most people would rather have a proper beating. Than having someone steal their entire life savings.

sorokod4• 3 years ago

How would you rationalize violent/non-violent as boundary for jail/no-jail?

JumpCrisscross20• 3 years ago

rationalize violent/non-violent as boundary for jail/no-jail

Government has a monopoly on violence. This is a founding theory of why we have states. Furthermore, violence causes damage money can’t fix. Most non-violent crimes’ damages can be dollarised within margin.

nazka2• 3 years ago

I actually think it’s worst. One can be a problem of anger issues where, for a time, someone lost it and someone got punched in the face, the other is a long term thought calculated full aware of consequences and with no care for the other. It also usually results in several persons being impacted.

For instance Bayer knowing that their products were contaminated with HIV still chose to sell them. Monsanto with well all their stuff. Corporate crime is really crazier in my opinions. It’s armies of lawyers and businesses men, engineers and stuff having no problem for harm. It’s just less direct than a punch on the face.

Disclaimer: violence is still bad to horrible nonetheless.

JumpCrisscross20• 3 years ago

anger issues where, for a time, someone lost it and someone got punched in the face

This merits the consideration of jail time. Nobody said automatic jail for all violence—the facts and circumstances may merit mandated therapy, for instance. But if someone refuses and keeps popping off punches, yes, the isolation prerogative of jail time takes hold.

lesuorac2• 3 years ago

idk, corporations shell out a ton of money in fines for crimes they re-commit later on.

There's an argument that holmes would learn her lesson with a ~2yr sentence as opposed to an 11yr sentence. But I'm unconvinced that a 0yr sentence paid for by investor funds would prevent future crime.

It's like kids, they think you're joking about a penalty until you actual turn the car around once.

benjamoon• 3 years ago

People always seem to be more forgiving of non violent crimes, but just have your house broken into whist you’re asleep with you kids in the house and it can seriously mess you up. It’s such a massive violation and you’ll struggle to sleep in that house again. I’d take a punch in the face any day of the week.

chollida1• 3 years ago

What would you like her to do instead of jail time in this instance?

academia_hack• 3 years ago

Completely agree. I'm not sure who benefits from locking people in cages when their ability to roam free doesn't endanger anyone's safety. Ban her from owning equity in any business if you need to avoid repeat offenses.

If the purpose is retribution or deterrence there are so many cheaper and less cruel ways to achieve those ends than taking decades of life and handing hundreds of thousands of dollars to prison industrial complex: caning, banishment, compulsory face tattoos of shame, whatever. The only reason we have prison sentences for crimes like this (along with most property and drug crimes) is so we can torture people without having to look at it directly. I wonder what society would be like if juries had to personally flog each person they sentence, or execute them at the date of (life_expectancy-sentence_years). The way we deal with crime in America today is sanitized barbarism, but if you peel back any layer of the justice system it's pretty easy to see it for what it is.

mchannon3• 3 years ago

The Bureau of Prisons will designate where she goes, and unless there's some prevailing medical reason (unlikely), or other reasons involving cooperation, request, security threats, access to particular religious facilities, or a repeat stay, my understanding is they're constrained by statute to pick a reasonable distance from home (that might be only X years from release date though).

The women's FCI in Dublin, California is an easy drive and they (presumably) have her level of security. If she wants to say F California (maybe she did in her PSR) then maybe Bryan TX is her destination. Could also be some random third facility. I don't think if a flight risk to Mexico is a concern that they'd be sending her so close to Mexico, but it may upgrade her security level enough that Dublin's off the table.

It's all time and it all sucks. Her kids will get to see her if their father wants them to, perhaps every weekend.

AlbertCory3• 3 years ago

That's the theory. In reality, there are "prison consultants" who can help you get into a "better" prison.

You can ask for citations, and I actually found one [1].

[1] https://archive.ph/vFvq7

mchannon3• 3 years ago

Hucksters, almost all of them.

They prey on the desperate. They preyed on my family.

micromacrofoot5• 3 years ago

I don't think she, or other non-violent criminals, should be in prison. There are much more affordable and constructive ways to handle this. This isn't rehabilitation or justice, only punishment.

jotjotzzz• 3 years ago

You do the crime, you do the time! It's called punishment because it's a damn crime. A person who made the decision to use shoddy materials to build a building knowing it will collapse, and that building does collapse and killed thousands. So that person should be "rehabilitated"? Give me a break. A little common sense goes a long way.

micromacrofoot5• 3 years ago

what does common sense tell us about having incredibly high incarceration and recidivism rates? are we too stupid to do better than throw everyone in a cage?

exclusiv• 3 years ago

Making fraudulent claims for your medical device may not be traditionally violent. But it is.

polotics3• 3 years ago

Punishment is an essential element of justice. How can there be justice without punishment for the crimes committed. Or do you propose the dead will have their life rehabilitated somehow?

micromacrofoot5• 3 years ago

I was not aware that elizabeth holmes murdered people, how is this relevant?

layer8• 3 years ago

It is deterrence.

micromacrofoot5• 3 years ago

For who? the US has one of the highest recidivism rates in the world

polotics3• 3 years ago

The news IMHO is how come she's not yet behind bars?

rwmj• 3 years ago

It's strange isn't it! Does it happen in other countries that you can negotiate when your prison sentence starts? Here in the UK, the judge passes sentence and literally "sends you down" to the cells to start it. (The holding cells in larger courts are physically below the dock where the prisoner is sentenced https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/send-dow... )

Also this rule only seems to apply to rich people. Poor people even in America go straight to prison.

pas4• 3 years ago

in Hungary recently a famous musician got caught stealing electricity (for his apartments that were rented by others), got sentenced, but managed to postpone going to jail because he got sick.

kevin_thibedeau• 3 years ago

She conned her husband into another child.

wpietri9• 3 years ago

One of the questions I have about any fraudster is where they fall on the goof/sociopath spectrum. It's surprisingly easy to start a Ponzi scheme by accident, after all. You just offer investors good returns (legal), be too optimistic about how it will go (legal), and then give them the promised returns anyhow by using other investor money (very illegal). I suspect a number of companies even get away with it, as they get in the black fast enough to be able to cover things up. But a lot of the people who get caught look to be eager-to-please fuckups, not calculating criminals.

But if I ever had any question about Holmes, it was richly answered for me by her having not one but two children while under indictment for crimes that yielded an 11-year sentence. I cannot imagine the kind of person who has kids knowing there were good odds they'd have to abandon them for much of their childhood.

RajT88• 3 years ago

The kind of person who would start having children in hopes it would buy leniency in sentencing.

wpietri9• 3 years ago

That is a disturbingly plausible explanation.

robocat• 3 years ago

then give them the promised returns anyhow by using other investor money (very illegal)

Actually, that is normal accepted business in many cases, and not illegal except in specific circumstances.

Classic example is commercial real estate bonds, where they roll over (the new bonds pay the old bond holders).

Or an IPO looks like a Ponzi, but usually isn't.

wpietri9• 3 years ago

An IPO doesn't involve the company paying stockholders. It involves investors paying the company. Then previous stockholders sell their shares to future ones.

And bondholders understand up front that they are getting cash back on a particular date; that's the whole deal with a bond. Stockholders, though, expect profits to come from a functioning enterprise that generates value, not newer stockholders.

HelloMcFly3• 3 years ago

I don't like Holmes and am pleased she's getting some comeuppance, but I can play Devil's Advocate in this one space: maybe she always wanted kids, focused on her career (lol), then this all happened, XYZ. Holmes is 39 years old. If she really, truly wanted biological children then now was the time to make sure it happened. She's a villain, but she's also a complex human being that probably has multiple priorities, goals, ambitions, etc.

Devil's advocating myself: she could freeze eggs too, yes. Can't speculate on the pros and cons of different decisions.

pas4• 3 years ago

she, as most sociopaths, was overly ambitious, that got her into trouble after all.

probably has the same mindset now regarding "having kids" or "family"

wpietri9• 3 years ago

I never said she didn't want children. She may well have. So what?

She wanted investors' money, too. Having wants does not justify harm to others.

kepler1• 3 years ago

Now that the ruling has landed, it's clear she's going to prison, and her born and unborn kids have outlasted their purpose, I'm sure she's going to ship them off to whatever outsourced child supervision service she's procured for that purpose. As long as the price was good.

mikl• 3 years ago

Couldn’t happen to a nicer gal. Fraudulent businesspeople far too seldom get any serious consequences.

donatj2• 3 years ago

Are ankle monitors in this day and age not to the point where we can't keep people who are yet to be sentenced out of prison?

ejb9992• 3 years ago

she has been tried and convicted already.

dragonwriter5• 3 years ago

Are ankle monitors in this day and age not to the point where we can't keep people who are yet to be convicted out of prison?

She has been tried, convicted, and sentenced, and is trying to avoid prison during her appeal, so your question is irrelevant here.

jdthedisciple• 3 years ago

I'm shocked at the sympathy HN has for this criminal.

The same people who blame the investors for being so "naive" to believe her BS.

joering22• 3 years ago

I doubt she ever see a day behind bars. Like Ramesh "Sunny" Balwani. You would think guy is in prison; meanwhile both Wiki and some other pretty decent sources clearly state "free on $500,000 bail".

aklemm• 3 years ago

Squeezing in a couple pregnancies while faced with spending her remaining childbearing years in prison adds to the drama and sadness here. What a lady.

Elizabeth Holmes loses bid to stay out of prison

Related Stories