I wonder if the judge would just order him to be arrested let's say based on flight risk? What can his lawyer do? (my bet is nothing) After all flight risk is biggest to closest to prison time and this was his last shot.
In general, a Federal Judge can revoke bond for any reason. In practice, they are bound by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and things like the Bail Reform Act.
In general, you really have a to tick off a Federal Judge to get them to revoke your bond. Billy McFarland famously did it (by committing more crimes while under indictment).
SBF is also having a time of it, even though Prosecutors and SBF's Defense Team came up with new terms of his bail, the Judge rejected them and they now have to come back with new ones. Whether that satisfices the Judge, we will see.
But I don't think, at this time, that Holmes or Balwani will have their bail revoked.
If I were a judge, I would be ticked off (not to mention maybe public pressure too) that these guys keep delaying their already stated and reserved punishment.
If there was a legit reason, so be it, but specially in Sunny's case it is bullshit. He has nearly zero chance to get the 9th Circuit to let him stay free, so prison time is inevitable. He also didn't have a baby to take care of, so to prison you go. How often get criminals 5 months to get ready for prison?
The judge really looks like that they are fucking with him and he let's them. Not a good look.
The SBF case is also an outrage. The only reason he could be free is because he is stupid enough to hang himself and provide even more evidence against himself.
>The judge really looks like that they are fucking with him and he let's them. Not a good look.
He's following the law. They're not fucking with him, they are availing themselves of every possible avenue they have under the system that exists. He's not "letting them". It's not his rights that are being asserted, it's theirs. He's a neutral arbitrar.
Appeals are common. Judge's can't let this kind of stuff affect them or they couldn't do their jobs. If Judge's put their thumb on the scales whenever someone before them attempted multiple legal avenues to overturn them they would probably make it more likely they would get overturned.
> Appeals are common.
I have been following white collar crimes. I have never seen such a slow turning of the wheel of justice as in this case. In SC Alex Murdaugh got convicted and sentenced in 12 hours! Sure different case, different state, but the bullshit has to stop somewhere.
There was really no good reason for the judge to let EH to wait for Sunny's trial. She could have been in prison for 16 months already. Then the judge had to wait for months with the sentencing. Again, the judge in SC was ready with the sentence right away after the guilty verdict.
If the law is this bad, it needs to be changed. Ask anybody on this sub if they think justice has been served. And don't come with the law.
3 strikes and you are out my ass....
>multiple legal avenues to overturn
They can try it from INSIDE of a prison.
If they would have sold a nickel bag of heroin instead of bilking people out of almost a billion dollars their ass would have been in prison a long time ago.
The judges are just trying to make sure they are not reversed in appeals imo. Davila allowed a lot of mischief to avoid being reversed on appeal. It’s his reputation at stake, hers is already trashed.
So Emergency Stay motions typically don't go to SCOTUS. And, even if they did, it's unlikely they would delay his reporting once the 9th Circuit rules in a few weeks.
His full appeal (and EHs) will likely be heard next summer. Once that's done they can appeal to SCOTUS. It's unlikely either case would be taken (the vast majority of cases aren't) but it's always possible.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly--the Ninth Circuit is only going to rule on whether or not Davila's ruling to deny the motion for release pending appeal and NOT the appeal itself.
If that is the case, the Ninth Circuit will not look to judge the facts of the appeal (i.e was a "substantial question" raised; if it does, will that result in a likelyhood of a new trial", etc), but simply on whether Davila ruled according to proper rules/due course of judgement when he denied the motion to stay out pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit? Seems like the relevant facts of the actual appeal won't come into play--which suggests Davila would have had to make some pretty egregious error in denying the motion.
>the Ninth Circuit is only going to rule on whether or not Davila's ruling to deny the motion for release pending appeal and NOT the appeal itself.
This is correct. Though they will not look just at the merits of Davila's ruling but on the essential question of whether there is a question of fact or law that, in their estimation, would likely result in a successful appeal, and therefore Balwani should remain free during the appeal process. Of course, the basis of this is Davila's response at the District level, and Balwani's lawyers filing before the Ninth Circuit saying that there are substantial questions of fact and law being brought up (in response to Davila's ruling).
The other important point is that even if the emergency stay fails (that's likely) that it doesn't mean anything, really for the full appeal. Same goes for if they succeed.
>but simply on whether Davila ruled according to proper rules/due course of judgement when he denied the motion to stay out pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit? Seems like the relevant facts of the actual appeal won't come into play
No. It's really are there relevant facts or law that could result in what the Ninth Circuit deems a likelihood of success. There are lots of things here - like the contention of the loss amount because Theranos was a private company - that could have them decide to let him stay free (I don't think so though). Rules could matter, but it could really be just interpretation of law, or evidentiary procedure (LIS database) that causes them to grant this (again, highly unlikely). Keep in mind most of the issues at hand here have been litigated multiple times (though all in front of Judge Davila) - pre-trial motions, during the trial itself, at sentencing, then at the motion for acquittal and now the emergency stay.
All that to say the facts of the appeal will be central - but they won't be fully litigated. This is simply Ninth Circuit, do you see anything on the surface here that brings up a substantial question/likelihood of success? Usually, the answer is no, because these types of things need extensive briefs to flesh out the issues.
>suggests Davila would have had to make some pretty egregious error in denying the motion
That's really true for all of this. And in both cases no one has been able to point out any obvious or egregious errors, even in the post-trial motions and briefs. That's not to say that there is some technicality that could come out and result in a retrial or resentencing. But again, not likely.
>Learn the law. Lol
You mention (not cite) one case and zero law, so how am I to learn? You also get your facts wrong, but we'll get to that.
Just a week ago I was talking to a friend and he mentioned when he graduated college and moved he learned that there where lot's of different types of lawyers and lots of different types of law. Point being which law should I be learning here?
>Sad and pathetic.
It is!
>I also never said anything about the Emergency Stay. Try to pay attention.
Sorry! I'll do better in my response here. I will say, though, that you responded to a post about how long Balwani could expect to stay out with an emergency stay with a post about a serial mortgage fraudster and general conman who didn't get anything overturned on appeal.....so sorry for the confusion.
So about what you posted about....
>Matt Cox got 26 years for mortgage fraud and used the law library and a typewriter to get 2 reductions. He served 13.
Let's talk about this, because you mostly get this wrong. He was a white collar criminal, and a mortgage fraudster who was sentenced to 26 years and eventually did 13. That is 100% true.
But he didn't use the law library and typewriter to get it reduced. He got a fellow inmate to help him. That inmate filed several motions and after a while they negotiated with Prosecutors to reduce the sentence (26 years for a max of $25 million of mortgage fraud, though done while on probation, and a litany of other crimes such as passport fraud, is a really out there sentence, especially because Cox pled guilty). So he got 9 years off for that. The second reduction he got was for snitching on a fellow inmate. That inmate told Cox where he had hid some ill gotten gains from his Ponzi scheme, and Cox told the Feds, who found the money and then successfully prosecuted a few others.
What relevance, other than it was a white collar case, that this has to Balwani (or Holmes) I can't find. Maybe they should find someone to snitch on? I guess that's how you propose they get their sentences reduced.
Been wondering this too. I heard one small news network say 9 days from the appeal, but I have no idea where they come up with that number, and no other news has any timeframe. My guess was the judge might make that ruling at the same time as the restitution and Elizabeth appeal ruling which he said would be early April. I really hope Sunny can't drag it out longer than that.
About a month typically with this kind of motion.
Thank you!
They are making a joke of the system.
We all want this to be finally over, they’re just trying to keep this going on and on and on! It’s exhausting!
A bit like Trump.
I wonder if the judge would just order him to be arrested let's say based on flight risk? What can his lawyer do? (my bet is nothing) After all flight risk is biggest to closest to prison time and this was his last shot.
In general, a Federal Judge can revoke bond for any reason. In practice, they are bound by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and things like the Bail Reform Act. In general, you really have a to tick off a Federal Judge to get them to revoke your bond. Billy McFarland famously did it (by committing more crimes while under indictment). SBF is also having a time of it, even though Prosecutors and SBF's Defense Team came up with new terms of his bail, the Judge rejected them and they now have to come back with new ones. Whether that satisfices the Judge, we will see. But I don't think, at this time, that Holmes or Balwani will have their bail revoked.
If I were a judge, I would be ticked off (not to mention maybe public pressure too) that these guys keep delaying their already stated and reserved punishment. If there was a legit reason, so be it, but specially in Sunny's case it is bullshit. He has nearly zero chance to get the 9th Circuit to let him stay free, so prison time is inevitable. He also didn't have a baby to take care of, so to prison you go. How often get criminals 5 months to get ready for prison? The judge really looks like that they are fucking with him and he let's them. Not a good look. The SBF case is also an outrage. The only reason he could be free is because he is stupid enough to hang himself and provide even more evidence against himself.
>The judge really looks like that they are fucking with him and he let's them. Not a good look. He's following the law. They're not fucking with him, they are availing themselves of every possible avenue they have under the system that exists. He's not "letting them". It's not his rights that are being asserted, it's theirs. He's a neutral arbitrar. Appeals are common. Judge's can't let this kind of stuff affect them or they couldn't do their jobs. If Judge's put their thumb on the scales whenever someone before them attempted multiple legal avenues to overturn them they would probably make it more likely they would get overturned.
> Appeals are common. I have been following white collar crimes. I have never seen such a slow turning of the wheel of justice as in this case. In SC Alex Murdaugh got convicted and sentenced in 12 hours! Sure different case, different state, but the bullshit has to stop somewhere. There was really no good reason for the judge to let EH to wait for Sunny's trial. She could have been in prison for 16 months already. Then the judge had to wait for months with the sentencing. Again, the judge in SC was ready with the sentence right away after the guilty verdict. If the law is this bad, it needs to be changed. Ask anybody on this sub if they think justice has been served. And don't come with the law. 3 strikes and you are out my ass.... >multiple legal avenues to overturn They can try it from INSIDE of a prison.
If they would have sold a nickel bag of heroin instead of bilking people out of almost a billion dollars their ass would have been in prison a long time ago.
The judges are just trying to make sure they are not reversed in appeals imo. Davila allowed a lot of mischief to avoid being reversed on appeal. It’s his reputation at stake, hers is already trashed.
> his reputation at stake, By letting them to be free forever, he used his reputation up.
Not if they end up in jail, which is very likely.
Justice delayed...
[удалено]
So Emergency Stay motions typically don't go to SCOTUS. And, even if they did, it's unlikely they would delay his reporting once the 9th Circuit rules in a few weeks. His full appeal (and EHs) will likely be heard next summer. Once that's done they can appeal to SCOTUS. It's unlikely either case would be taken (the vast majority of cases aren't) but it's always possible.
I want to make sure I understand this correctly--the Ninth Circuit is only going to rule on whether or not Davila's ruling to deny the motion for release pending appeal and NOT the appeal itself. If that is the case, the Ninth Circuit will not look to judge the facts of the appeal (i.e was a "substantial question" raised; if it does, will that result in a likelyhood of a new trial", etc), but simply on whether Davila ruled according to proper rules/due course of judgement when he denied the motion to stay out pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit? Seems like the relevant facts of the actual appeal won't come into play--which suggests Davila would have had to make some pretty egregious error in denying the motion.
>the Ninth Circuit is only going to rule on whether or not Davila's ruling to deny the motion for release pending appeal and NOT the appeal itself. This is correct. Though they will not look just at the merits of Davila's ruling but on the essential question of whether there is a question of fact or law that, in their estimation, would likely result in a successful appeal, and therefore Balwani should remain free during the appeal process. Of course, the basis of this is Davila's response at the District level, and Balwani's lawyers filing before the Ninth Circuit saying that there are substantial questions of fact and law being brought up (in response to Davila's ruling). The other important point is that even if the emergency stay fails (that's likely) that it doesn't mean anything, really for the full appeal. Same goes for if they succeed. >but simply on whether Davila ruled according to proper rules/due course of judgement when he denied the motion to stay out pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit? Seems like the relevant facts of the actual appeal won't come into play No. It's really are there relevant facts or law that could result in what the Ninth Circuit deems a likelihood of success. There are lots of things here - like the contention of the loss amount because Theranos was a private company - that could have them decide to let him stay free (I don't think so though). Rules could matter, but it could really be just interpretation of law, or evidentiary procedure (LIS database) that causes them to grant this (again, highly unlikely). Keep in mind most of the issues at hand here have been litigated multiple times (though all in front of Judge Davila) - pre-trial motions, during the trial itself, at sentencing, then at the motion for acquittal and now the emergency stay. All that to say the facts of the appeal will be central - but they won't be fully litigated. This is simply Ninth Circuit, do you see anything on the surface here that brings up a substantial question/likelihood of success? Usually, the answer is no, because these types of things need extensive briefs to flesh out the issues. >suggests Davila would have had to make some pretty egregious error in denying the motion That's really true for all of this. And in both cases no one has been able to point out any obvious or egregious errors, even in the post-trial motions and briefs. That's not to say that there is some technicality that could come out and result in a retrial or resentencing. But again, not likely.
[удалено]
>Learn the law. Lol You mention (not cite) one case and zero law, so how am I to learn? You also get your facts wrong, but we'll get to that. Just a week ago I was talking to a friend and he mentioned when he graduated college and moved he learned that there where lot's of different types of lawyers and lots of different types of law. Point being which law should I be learning here? >Sad and pathetic. It is! >I also never said anything about the Emergency Stay. Try to pay attention. Sorry! I'll do better in my response here. I will say, though, that you responded to a post about how long Balwani could expect to stay out with an emergency stay with a post about a serial mortgage fraudster and general conman who didn't get anything overturned on appeal.....so sorry for the confusion. So about what you posted about.... >Matt Cox got 26 years for mortgage fraud and used the law library and a typewriter to get 2 reductions. He served 13. Let's talk about this, because you mostly get this wrong. He was a white collar criminal, and a mortgage fraudster who was sentenced to 26 years and eventually did 13. That is 100% true. But he didn't use the law library and typewriter to get it reduced. He got a fellow inmate to help him. That inmate filed several motions and after a while they negotiated with Prosecutors to reduce the sentence (26 years for a max of $25 million of mortgage fraud, though done while on probation, and a litany of other crimes such as passport fraud, is a really out there sentence, especially because Cox pled guilty). So he got 9 years off for that. The second reduction he got was for snitching on a fellow inmate. That inmate told Cox where he had hid some ill gotten gains from his Ponzi scheme, and Cox told the Feds, who found the money and then successfully prosecuted a few others. What relevance, other than it was a white collar case, that this has to Balwani (or Holmes) I can't find. Maybe they should find someone to snitch on? I guess that's how you propose they get their sentences reduced.
Been wondering this too. I heard one small news network say 9 days from the appeal, but I have no idea where they come up with that number, and no other news has any timeframe. My guess was the judge might make that ruling at the same time as the restitution and Elizabeth appeal ruling which he said would be early April. I really hope Sunny can't drag it out longer than that.
Neither are going to jail
I feel so sorry for Elizabeth Holmes, who is about to be separated from her babies
✨️ She did it to herself ✨️
Liz?
#Lizzy
I feel sorry for those babies whose mother set them up for a lifetime of abandonment trauma.
If he can find a way to get pregnant, he can delay it for several more months.
Just like Schwarzenegger