No? I’d say that fits within my claim that he was in over his head and desperately trying to get back in the black.
In my book, “in over his head” means “made some bad business deals” not “stole from the investors”.
I literally quoted you. Here, I’ll quote you again:
You absolutely did assert that, in this case, the judge would be “basing sentences on stuff that has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings.”
I have demonstrated that a) the sentences will be based on stuff that has everything to do with the criminal proceedings and b) that how much money the victim lost is not the main or only consideration.
So congrats. You can sleep easy.
Lying to investors and stealing money are different actions than fudging the books.
But my point was that according to your own cite, Matt Levine, Shrkeli was convicted of fraud for the investment schemes (ie - misrepresenting himself to investors) and attempted stock manipulation - “But he was acquitted of the charge of looting Retrophin to pay off his hedge funds’ investors.”
So it’s in accurate to describe Shrkeli’s convictions as being for shady accounting.
There is nothing in Martin Shrkeli’s action to support him acting in good faith to his investors. When he lied to his first set of investors to raise his initial funds - that was not him being in over his head.
Also, his investment schemes never worked. He just swiped the money from elsewhere to prop them up and get out of trouble.
At this point I have to conclude this is misinterpretation, willful or otherwise, on your end. I could respond quoting you quoting myself and try to convince you I know what I believe, but that seems silly. I hope you sleep well, too.
I don’t believe he lied when raising capital for the initial fund. I don’t recall seeing anything about that. He lied about the account balances after he began investing and losing.
I don’t see how you can conclude his scheme didn’t “work” in a monetary sense. Who lost money? As far as acting in good faith towards his investors, I’d say he did insofar as their interests happened to align with his. The guy seems like a sociopath.
Trom - this is not about my opinions or interpretations. I keep repeating your own words. I’ll quote them a third time:
This is not an interpretation or a dream sequence.
This is you, Trom, speaking English, and saying, "I understand the schadenfreude aspect of this, but also don’t delight in the idea of a judge basing sentences on stuff that has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings..
I know gaslighting is popular these days, but everyone on this board can now see you, Trom, saying, “I understand the schadenfreude aspect of this, but also don’t delight in the idea of a judge basing sentences on stuff that has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings.”
And just so you’re clear - I mean, all the rest of twigged it, but I’m sure you think you’re coy - we all understand that the antecedent (look it up) of “this” in that sentence is “this case”. IE - the Martin Shkreli case, which is the one you were claiming is the case where the judge was going to base his sentence on something other than the criminal proceedings which resulted in Shrkeli’s convictions on three counts.
Your words, Trom.
And as I noted by citing the actual sentencing standards, you are incorrect in state that in this case, the judge would be passing sentence based on something other than the criminal proceedings.
Glad we got that straightened out.
The assertion that Martin Shkreli lied in raising capital funds for the initial investment came from your own cite, Trom.
Which I quoted in the article to which you replied. But here. Here’s the link again - which Trom originally posted in post #97, where you wrote:
And here’s the direct link again to Trom’s cite, Blumberg lawyer-turned-humorous-columnist Matt Levine:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-07/shkreli-s-delight-and-crypto-karma
And here the quote from Matt Lavine (the guy Trom cited):
According to your own citation, Trom, Shkreli’s first move was to lie to investors to raise funds for his first hedge fund scheme.
“Not losing money” is not sole the metric by which a scheme is judged.
The first two schemes themselves never generated any money on their own. That’s why they didn’t work. He probably expected them to make money, but they never did.
The reason the investors of the first two schemes didn’t lose money was because Shrkeli “appropriated” the money from a third scheme and paid them off. This doesn’t mean that the first two schemes were successful in any way.
But whether he paid them off because he was acting a bizarro world version of good faith or because he just wanted them out of his hair is an open question. It was at this point that the Feds interrupted his crime wave, so we don’t know what his next move was going to be.
Given that you concede the guy is probably a sociopath, believing that he was acting with his investors best interests in mind is purely an act of faith.
How does somebody like Shkreli exist? Is this typical of NYC wheelers and dealers? I’ve only been to NYC once, in a JFK layover, so my knowledge of the culture is minimal.
From his wiki, he grew up the child of immigrant janitors, so it’s not like he was brought up spoiled and privileged. Charles Ponzi also had humble origins. How did he become such a money-sucking scumbag? Is the American Dream to blame?
Um, it would be another layer in the pyramid. :smack:
Same reason people who get promoted to Manager positions often turn into egotistical and unethical scumbags. They get some power and/or money and it goes straight to their heads. Success fuels ego. “I deserve this. I’m better than those people. I’ve shown I’m above those idiots!”
I’m a big mouthed asshole, I admit it. It has caused me a lot of problems in my life and particularly in my career. Some of the most unforgivable sins I’ve ever committed on the job include speaking to a couple of my managers as if we were equals, as if we were both human. I could literally see their minds reeling in anger and surprise that I would dare to address them as anything more than their inferior.
The NYC wheelers and dealer all live in Manhattan, along with A) empty apartments bought by oil sheiks and Russian oligarchs as investment property; and B) the desperately poor.
The rest of us all moved out to Brooklyn years ago, where we make locally-sourced, artisinal hot sauce and pickles, and listen to Indie Rock and 78 rpm records of “Sweet Georgia Brown” and “Give the Fiddler a Dram.”
Pfft. Nobody listens to “Give the Fiddler a Dram” anymore.
:smack:
The thread went like this:
Lots of people - “SHKRELI IS A MONSTER! FUCK THAT PRICE GOUGING PIECE OF SHIT!”
Me in my first post in the thread: “I understand the schadenfreude aspect of this, but also don’t delight in the idea of a judge basing sentences on stuff that has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings.”
What I meant by this sentence (ha!) was I don’t like the **idea **of a judge considering all the hatred of Shkreli for unrelated issues when deciding on a sentence. He should be judged on the charges he was convicted of.
You then incorrectly interpreted this to mean I was explicitly saying the judge would use unrelated factors when making the sentencing decision. This is an incorrect interpretation of my position and not up for debate. I’m explicitly telling you my opinion.
You then asserted that I pronounced with certainty that the judge in this case would use unrelated facts. I then attempted to clarify by saying, “I made no claim that would be the case. I said I am uncomfortable with the idea of judges using things unrelated to a criminal case when deciding on a sentence.”
You then went full Don Quixote and this is where we are now. You want me to be arguing that the judge is going to, in fact, make a ruling to appease the mob. I really don’t know how to proceed from here. I’m telling what I mean, which is something only I know, and you’re telling me I’m wrong. It doesn’t work like that.
This argument is as fascinating as Martin Shkreli is endearing.
Yeah, but do you know many internet points is this one worth?
(Stares at you with puppy dog eyes and a quivering lip)
Damn! Out-hipstered again!
But he IS a price gouging piece of shit…
Who also got caught committing fraud.
Hmmm, now you’ve got me thinking we could take Brooklyn by storm playing old Kingston Trio-esque whaling songs…
(Ah, now ya gots a hankerin’ fer ack-tual Kingston Trio whalin’ shanties, aincha?
Well, I found ya one, ya scurvy landlubbahs…)
.
Ultimately he
- Is a money-gouging monumental douchebag.
- Taunted the Feds saying there is nothing they can do to him.
- Did something that gives them the opportunity to do something to him.
Number 1 may be why it is being covered in so much detail, but 2+3 is the recipe to get your balls nailed to the wall with extra-dull nails.
Pfffft. The Kingston Tro is for White People. We Brooklyn hipsters listen to Evan MacColl and A.L. Lloyd’s BLOW BOYS BLOW, the favorite album of Captain Beefheart.
Just listened to Blow Boys Blow on YouTube… man, that is Authentic Frontier Gibberish On A Boat!
But don’t forget Bill Murray interviewing Christopher Guest’s music visionary character on Lampoon Radio Hour’s “Insomnia Time with Ron Fields”:
“Excuse me… Whaling Songs. No more country music. No more classical music. Fuhgetit, fuhgetit. Sorry, no more rock and roll. Just Whaling Songs.”
To stay on topic, Christopher Guest is so douchey in that piece that he’s one percent as douchey as Shkreli.
Ha!
Confirmation that Martin Shkreli is indeed in the general population of MDC in Brooklyn;
And verified here;
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/
MARTIN SHKRELI
Register Number: 87850-053
Age: 34
Race: White
Sex: Male
Located at: Brooklyn MDC
Release Date: UNKNOWN
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
80 29TH STREET
BROOKLYN, NY 11232
Email: BRO/ExecAssistant@bop.gov
Phone: 718-840-4200
Fax: 718-840-5005
Inmate Gender: Male and Female Offenders
Population: 1,876 Total Inmates
Judicial District: Eastern New York
County: KINGS
BOP Region: Northeast Region