[HN Gopher] Sam Bankman-Fried Sent Back to Jail After Leaking Di...
___________________________________________________________________
Sam Bankman-Fried Sent Back to Jail After Leaking Diary of Ex-Lover
Author : nova22033
Score : 236 points
Date : 2023-08-11 19:50 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (themessenger.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (themessenger.com)
| choppaface wrote:
| He had also been using a VPN to "watch sports" but the VPN was
| registered and located in the Bahamas. And had tried to offer a
| witness a "bag of cash."
| cma wrote:
| All perfectly ethical if it can reduce shrimp suffering on a
| population basis by getting him free and able to buy a tank and
| as many sea monkies as possible to provide positive micro
| utility to each and every one.
| choppaface wrote:
| I never thought of it that way, but SBF is certainly mission-
| driven in some way. He even remembered to remove his shoe
| laces before the cops took him into custody.
| verteu wrote:
| I don't think SBF ever offered a witness a "bag of cash".
|
| The only reference to the phrase I can find is [1], where SBF's
| lawyer appears to be contrasting the case with another that has
| been submitted for reference/comparison:
|
| [SBF's lawyer Mark] Cohen: In one of the cases, the defendant
| offered a bag of cash to the witness. We don't have that here.
|
| [1] https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/extra-bankman-
| fr...
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Wait, doesn't using a VPN to watch sports imply that you are
| violating the terms of agreement for some website? Is that a
| reasonable argument you could make in a court?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Wait, doesn't using a VPN to watch sports imply that you
| are violating the terms of agreement for some website?
|
| No, unless the terms prohibit VPN use.
|
| > Is that a reasonable argument you could make in a court?
|
| Even if it were a civil offense against the website owner in
| question, yes, it would be a reasonable argument to make in
| court in a hearing over adherence to your bail conditions if
| it wasn't a violation of your bail conditions (which
| generally include "don't commit any crimes" as well as any
| special conditions, but generally don't include "don't commit
| any torts".)
| danso wrote:
| The judge cites this as a compelling reason to throw SBF in
| jail:
|
| > Judge Kaplan: This defendant tries to go right up to the
| line - his use of the VPN to watch a football game over an
| account he wasn't authorized, there it is..
|
| > Judge Kaplan: He subscribed from the Bahamas and used a VPN
| as if he were in the Bahamas when he was in Palo Alto and
| could have watched it on public TV. It shows the mindset. All
| things considered I am going to revoke bail.
|
| https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/169008001856562790.
| ..
| jamiek88 wrote:
| >it shows the mindset...
|
| Ex-fucking-xactly.
|
| The law is not code and judges ain't linters. Playing the
| legal equivalent of 'not touching you, can't get mad' and
| pushing the line when you are already being given a
| privilege of bail is a bad idea.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Perhaps I shouldn't expect rational behavior from someone who ran
| a cryptocurrency exchange, but this decision is utterly
| bewildering: judges tends to take even the _perception_ of
| witness intimidation seriously, and there 's no light in which
| releasing someone's diary (versus than attempting to have it
| admitted as ordinary evidence) _isn 't_ meant to be intimidation.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| No judge is or has taken Trump's witness tampering seriously.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Chutkan seems to be taking his potential witness tampering
| within the scope of the case assigned to her seriously.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| _checks_ he is still not in jail after that "IF YOU COME
| AFTER ME I COME AFTER YOU" tweet.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Because it's vague and no protective order had been
| entered at the time it was composed. It could be
| interpreted to mean anything about anyone anytime. I
| agree that it was a veiled threat, but consider the
| court's prompt and decisive response to the protective
| order request before going into snark mode.
|
| To be sure, Trump's own counsel adheres to an entirely
| different standard than that which they seek for their
| client, arguing in one brief that a meme tweet of a smug
| Joe Biden sipping coffee and saying he likes his dark was
| evidence that the current administration is out to get
| the defendant.
| jackmott42 wrote:
| [flagged]
| ecshafer wrote:
| Because this isn't a Reddit /r/politics thread.
| [deleted]
| loeg wrote:
| This is the guy who has been running his mouth to anyone who
| would listen ever since FTX imploded. He's the classic
| irrational actor.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > This is the guy who has been running his mouth to anyone
| who would listen ever since FTX imploded.
|
| And one of whose first acts as things broke was to publicly
| fire his lawyers for telling him to shut up about it instead
| of digging his own grave with social media posts.
| tiahura wrote:
| _rational behavior_
|
| He's looking at the rest of his life in prison. Rational for
| him may be much different than you or I can comprehend?
| jjoonathan wrote:
| He just borrowed from depositors until he was sufficiently
| leveraged for his personal risk tolerance.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| He has publicly stated that his philosophy was ignoring
| risk completely in pursuit of the best expected value.
| (Whether becauae its true, or because it was a forn of
| attention-seeking edgy rationalism, or what...)
| CrazyStat wrote:
| This is the man who said he was willing to bet the
| destruction of the world against a 51% chance of the world
| being duplicated, leading to a (under certain questionable
| population ethics calculations) doubling of total utility.
|
| His risk tolerance is either infinite or, more likely, he
| doesn't have a clue what it is so he treats it as infinite.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| It's a meme. On WallStreetBets, /u/ControlTheNarrative
| found a "trick" to borrow $50k from Robinhood and lost it
| all on a dumb bet while making a big display of being
| rational ("I repeat this until I am sufficiently
| leveraged for my Personal Risk Tolerance.") I am making a
| comparison to SBF, who found a "trick" to borrow almost a
| million times as much from investors and depositors and
| lost it all on a dumb bet while making a big display of
| being rational.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| But that was the whole logic of crypto.
|
| "The USD is going to go to zero someday so I might as well
| steal everyone's USD today"
| arcticbull wrote:
| For real though. Give me all your soon-to-be-worthless real
| dollars in exchange for magic beans. But uh, if the beans are
| so good, why do you want my dollars?
| themodelplumber wrote:
| He is an interesting person in that way. I've been casually
| analyzing the situation and his actions from a personality
| theory point of view.
|
| It's clear that SBF doesn't look at business/legal logic as an
| objective "thing" with special givens and nomenclature to which
| one must adhere, as many of us do. He sees it more as a unique
| series of isolated situations with their own unfolding logic.
| He is taking the puzzler's approach. (Is this related to his
| being raised by people with legal experience? The most
| experienced in a given field are often the least likely to give
| the most definite/standard answers...things "tend to depend")
|
| But, for that same reason, he'll also tend to entrap himself
| for lack of look-ahead knowledge relating to precedent and
| legal practice. Broad precedent and ethics are essentially off
| one's radar, if one really leans into the "I can solve it
| myself" logician style.
|
| That's a huge risk for someone like him: He's going to look
| like he's trying to reinvent the wheel, so to speak, of what it
| means to be a defendant in a risky position. People with basic
| knowledge will be left utterly confused as to why he keeps
| messing up, this person who is apparently kind of a genius in a
| way?
|
| Yet it's still clear that his executive logic is extremely
| resilient and active. This is not the type of personality to go
| "based on legal history, I'm a jerk and I'm screwed, might as
| well give up." In fact I'd guess that his natural openness to
| various ideas would prevent him from making definite moral
| conclusions about his choices.
|
| He is probably going to keep grinding at this position of his
| until some chain of things starts to work out.
|
| Some might make the _moral_ or _predictive_ conclusion that he
| should do otherwise, but this is a _rational_ person in the
| sense of attention to the typical social bell curve. In that
| particular bell curve, it's _irrational_ to not defend yourself
| and fight for yourself, especially if you think the public
| record is completely off, wrong, etc.
|
| His answer to "why don't you head over to Google for even
| better legal assistance" might just be, "I'm learning and
| analyzing my way through this from first principles, and for
| that I need my own brain, some logic, and a bit of luck."
|
| In the end, you don't necessarily need the look-ahead
| knowledge, especially with the right people on your side...even
| though it can _really_ help to not make these kind of obvious
| blunders in that direction.
|
| (This is looking at personality and his actions in that
| context, not so much a good/bad moral analysis)
| woodruffw wrote:
| > It's clear that SBF doesn't look at business/legal logic as
| an objective "thing" with special givens and nomenclature to
| which one must adhere. He sees it more as a unique series of
| situations with their own unfolding logic. He is taking the
| puzzler's approach.
|
| This is a _remarkably_ generous framing. Is there some reason
| the SBFs of the world are "puzzlers" and the hundreds of
| thousands of other people in prison are just criminals?
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Remarkable generosity? Eh...to me that would imply giving
| to him this or that.
|
| If literally describing how SBF's mind seems to work is
| "giving", then I have to say...
|
| ...damn you must judge people so hard. :D
| woodruffw wrote:
| "Generosity" in the context of arguments refers to
| excessive obeisance, not literally giving someone this or
| that.
|
| > ...damn you must judge people so hard. :D
|
| I'm advocating for _not_ judging hundreds of thousands of
| people more harshly than you appear to judge SBF. Again:
| what makes him _different_?
| themodelplumber wrote:
| > excessive obeisance
|
| Eh, it's not excessive or obeisant. It's simply a
| straightforward commentary on how the guy seems to think.
|
| Written in earnest, mind, for other community members,
| some of whom are awkwardly attempting to Judge-Judy their
| way through the situation.
|
| What does that really contribute, all the commentary on
| how evil this person is?
|
| Is it supposed to _not_ look like projecting? Eh...I
| don't think that's working too well. And the news
| headlines do a way better job anyway.
|
| > I'm advocating for not judging hundreds of thousands of
| people more harshly than you appear to judge SBF. Again:
| what makes him different?
|
| This doesn't make sense.
|
| Also, give me someone to compare him to if you are
| looking for comparative logic. Otherwise do the
| comparison yourself, it's clearly not that kind of
| comment.
|
| If you think he's not different because you think just
| like he does, then you may have an everybody-thinks-like-
| me problem.
| [deleted]
| deciplex wrote:
| > Is there some reason the SBFs of the world are "puzzlers"
| and the hundreds of thousands of other people in prison are
| just criminals?
|
| There _were_ about 26 billion reasons for that, at one
| point.
|
| e: to be clear, I am pointing out a fact of how the world
| works here, not condoning it
| greiskul wrote:
| So was Ponzi an unrecognized genius instead of a
| fraudster? Money is not a high score in life, and money
| fraudulently stolen from others even less. This American
| logic of "guy stole so much money he is rich, lets treat
| him as better than others" is completely insane, and if
| you believe it, you deserve to get your money stolen by
| the SBFs of the world.
| deciplex wrote:
| I didn't lose any money to SBF, or any other crypto
| schemes, for what it's worth.
| danielmarkbruce wrote:
| Practically every fraudster or white collar criminal has
| gotten away with a pretty large sum of money right up
| until they haven't.
|
| Every single one that caught is an idiot - they
| misunderstood the system they were trying to rip off,
| they misunderstood and/or didn't think through what
| checks and balances exist in the system to catch things
| _after they happen_. They are idiots.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| > e: to be clear, I am pointing out a fact of how the
| world works here, not condoning it
|
| I mentioned the same thing, it doesn't seem to make any
| difference in situations involving extreme consumer-
| advocacy flex, I mean who are we to attempt to get two
| completely separate lines of thought to coexist ;-)
| CPLX wrote:
| Latin American cartel leaders have notched similar
| amounts of wealth, how do we evaluate them?
| deciplex wrote:
| Well, we evaluate them rather differently than the
| Sackler family, that's for certain.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| You have to be careful going down this path because there
| are people in USG carefully constructing and maintaining
| bridges (so to speak) with those people every day.
|
| If you are looking for a stereotypical "bad person"
| example, IMO it's at least a good idea to have an
| accompanying "bad context" or "bad environment"
| condition, or your own assessment will tend to be full of
| ethical blind spots.
| whatshisface wrote:
| I don't think you need eight move look-ahead to know you
| should obey the law or else you will go to jail.
| spicymapotofu wrote:
| Legal scholars aren't in agreement about everything... but
| knowing the state of the field deeply does protect them
| from making more obvious legal mistakes, or whatever he's
| been doing.
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| You are being overly generous here, he's the son of law
| professors, ignorance is not a defence for him.
| zaphar wrote:
| Alternatively, his ego is too big for his own good.
| Intelligence without experience combined with a large ego can
| present as stupidity to onlookers. A little bit of wisdom
| would have done him a lot of good.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Or he's just a narcissist and because everyone has told him
| he's the smartest person in the world, he has no appreciation
| of the limits of his knowledge and at this point he simply
| can't see it.
| nocoiner wrote:
| Too bad that impeccable puzzler's logic led him to defraud
| people out of billions and to confess to doing so repeatedly
| and in real time after he had been apprehended for doing so.
|
| Oh well, hate the puzzle, not the puzzler.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| My guess vis-a-vis the morality is that he naturally
| ignores it. Try being hardcore logical (not just rational,
| but like A + B = B + A stepwise logical) and hardcore moral
| at the same time, you'll be torn forever. And if you don't
| naturally learn a sort of turn-taking approach for those
| modes via your upbringing, good luck learning it later.
|
| Unfortunately, ignoring moral perspectives & decision
| points is effectively the same as "being without morals".
| And I really mean unfortunately--this is a problem for all
| of humanity and we keep looking for individual evil
| scapegoats, but eventually we need to reconcile this.
|
| In practice there's also this extra innovator's dilemma:
| Yield to known industry practice and reap ethical rewards
| as a natural part of the process, or lean into the novelty
| & growth curve and possibly reinvent huge swaths of custom,
| ethic, and morality which were previously vague.
|
| I don't think people appreciate how close we've come to
| that happening at various points in history, and to what
| degree.
|
| If you do take that second path, almost by definition you
| immediately blind yourself to huge swaths of moral
| decisionmaking. This is more especially true if you are
| forced to look at your customers as "audiences" or similar
| groups.
|
| These groups are effectively perceived at higher levels as
| cohesive organisms. Groups are known to demonstrate a more
| primitive subjective morality than most any individual
| (i.e. individiuals may be smart, humans in large groups not
| so much), and this can greatly restrict a founder's own
| willingness to address morality-related issues by more than
| a couple inches, so to speak, here or there.
|
| I think most any business owner probably understands this
| view, though in the context of this huge story I'm sure it
| wouldn't be easy to admit.
|
| But you are right that in terms of individual human
| perception, the puzzle _must_ be solved, and often in a
| very subjective manner no matter what resources may be
| available. That's a huge issue.
| maxerickson wrote:
| What are the first principles here?
|
| Your post seems like a pretty long winded way of saying he is
| a fool. It's not hard to understand that when you are facing
| a federal criminal trial, you shouldn't make the judge mad.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| > What are the first principles here?
|
| One of his first principles might have been (example):
|
| "Leaks really work well. I leaked some stuff, it got me
| good results, and so logically this path is open to me for
| problem-solving."
|
| This is how subjective logic works for millions of people
| every day.
|
| Obviously to you and others, if you don't combine that with
| some wisdom and foresight derived from broader knowledge on
| the context in question, it might backfire.
|
| But what happens next is probably this: He'll stay in the
| game and adjust his subjective logical foundations.
|
| "Leaks can also be very risky AND therefore..."
|
| That's a huge difference between him and other people, he
| is a speculative theorist by nature. Even now he probably
| won't discard leaking out of hand.
|
| It's not a life lesson about leaking for someone like that,
| it's a lesson with specific parameters in a specific
| context.
|
| Is he reinventing the "leaking" wheel in a dumb way?
| Possibly. But, he's also making the logic his own, which is
| extremely powerful as experience accrues.
|
| Especially if it turns out that leaking is basically an art
| one can master, he could probably find a way to master it,
| because there's no big-picture roadblock in his mind that
| says "leaking private info to help your case is bad, the
| end". This is not nuanced enough, i.e. smart enough, for
| the way his logic operates.
|
| Since he is amenable to working with details, his thinking
| style has strong long-term flexibility and leverage
| advantages. Even if it fails hard sometimes.
|
| Just for illustration purposes though. And, once again, I'm
| not here to talk about his moral character. I also do not
| believe that he's consciously choosing how to use his
| personality characteristics. He's working naturally with
| what he's got, these comfortable, reinforced patterns of
| good, bad, and everything in between.
| xapata wrote:
| Have you watched _Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery_ ? Is it
| possible SBF is actually quite stupid, except perhaps for
| some cleverness with math?
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Stupid is generally part of every personality. :-)
|
| It's the issue of "which sets of perspectives have you
| basically ignored all your life, which are also relevant
| right here, now" that tends to make a person appear stupid
| in a given context.
| [deleted]
| knowsuchagency wrote:
| SBF: needlessly gets himself thrown in jail
|
| Galaxy Brains: Masterful gambit, sir
| jamiek88 wrote:
| It's the same energy that sees an obvious Musk adderall no
| sleep for days ridden emotional decisional fuck up and
| strokes their chin mumbling something about 4D chess.
| mminer237 wrote:
| As a lawyer, I feel like the slightest bit of legal knowledge
| makes this even more baffling. The answer to most questions
| is "it depends", but the answer about doing anything
| concerning a witness against you in a trial is "heck no".
|
| There's no logical reason to do this. I think the answer is
| that no matter how smart he may be in some areas, he has
| emotions like anyone else which sometimes lead him to do
| stupid things. I think many of his decisions are also rooted
| in a copious amount of pride which leads him to think he will
| get away with anything.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| (As a guy who has fired legal counsel for huge and obvious
| ethical breaches, IDK if that first line does what you
| think it does :-))
|
| > There's no logical reason to do this.
|
| Given your experience IOW. Given his lack of it, there
| absolutely can be. Again, it's contextual, subjective logic
| he's working with. Not broad experience or broad knowledge
| of legal affairs. The comparative strengths are there in
| both cases, but completely different.
| [deleted]
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| It's simpler than that. He's a trust fund kid with wealthy,
| well-connected parents who assumes nothing bad will happen to
| him so does whatever he wants. He's also of above average
| intelligence enough and enjoys "flexing" that intelligence in
| the avenues he thinks will benefit him most.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This, except that I haven't seen any serious reason to
| believe that he's unusually intelligent. _He_ certainly
| thinks he is, though.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| IDK if simplicity is really the go-to judgment process for
| learning from people like this. I mean if you really want
| to chase that argument--it's simpler than even that. He's
| human! Therefore he does stupid human things. He's only
| human after all! (ad infinitum)
|
| Imagine though, if SBF had a reasonable, nuanced
| opportunity to understand his blind spots long before he
| got into business.
|
| I've coached people who think just like SBF, discussed the
| same blind spots, and most of those people were grateful to
| reach a new understanding. But you'd never get that far if
| you said, "you have the mindset of a trust fund kid, end of
| story."
|
| So, that's definitely a thing, to be able to un-simplify a
| broad generalization, and turn that into problem-solving
| leverage where others may fear to wade into details.
| jacknews wrote:
| Wow quite a character.
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| The hardest part for him is going to be the dopamine withdrawals.
| He's supposed to be in a drug treatment program but with his
| behavior during house arrest, who knows if his parents have any
| disciplinary skills to make sure he was clean before his bail was
| revoked.
| bobmaxup wrote:
| Not trying to lend to your theory, but I found a interesting
| document:
|
| https://www.bop.gov/resources/pdfs/detoxification.pdf
|
| > Inmates with a dependency on cocaine or other stimulants
| generally do not require treatment in an inpatient setting. The
| cessation of this substance does not always cause specific
| withdrawal symptoms. However, symptoms may be severe enough to
| require clinical intervention. For most inmates who use cocaine
| or other stimulants, medications are not ordinarily indicated
| as an initial treatment for withdrawal or dependence, as none
| have shown efficacy. Inmates are treated symptomatically.
|
| > SAMHSA recommends that patients withdrawing from stimulants
| should be monitored closely for depression/suicidality, as well
| as prolonged QTc intervals and seizures, which may be
| additional complications of stimulant withdrawal. An EKG is
| recommended during cocaine withdrawal to monitor for cardiac
| complications.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Source? Spent about 15 minutes looking into it and I can't find
| anything other than the general "these people did
| amphetamines!" stuff from December 2022
| benzible wrote:
| You mean, like, SBF's own tweets?
| https://twitter.com/SBF_FTX/status/1173351344159117312
| klausa wrote:
| That's not how medically-prescribed stimulant works.
| efficax wrote:
| i know it's been said before but why did anyone ever think this
| guy was responsible enough to handle all that fucking "money"
| rqtwteye wrote:
| I remember seeing an interview and I thought how creepy he came
| across.
| taberiand wrote:
| I figure the people giving him their money were just betting
| they were in at the relative top of the Ponzi. Everyone knows
| these are scams, they're just hoping to hit the jackpot and
| drop the bag on some other sucker before it all falls apart.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| well-connected and lack of ethics allowed him to build up a
| reputation and take risks that others wouldn't. He basically a
| mix of Madoff and Elizabeth Holmes, everybody loves hyping up a
| young prodigy type
| jamil7 wrote:
| Mix in right place, right time plus a bunch of amphetamines
| and you have your answer.
| krona wrote:
| He stood on stage with all the right people said all the right
| shibboleths!
| BSEdlMMldESB wrote:
| should have been a politician!
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| and critically had the right background.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| The same puzzle-crunching brain looked good on the way up. It's
| like The Luck of Barry Lyndon.
| thatsagreatcomm wrote:
| Well-spoken and connected dude with MIT and Jane Street on his
| resume
| cj wrote:
| Talking to Jim Cramer on CNBC with 8 computer monitors behind
| him. Super articulate kid who got in with the right crowd.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| A high charisma stat can get you far until someone calls
| your bluff and you actually have to fight and know stuff.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Appropriate, given the recent release of Baldurs Gate 3!
| Bravo for the comment.
| KRAKRISMOTT wrote:
| But he knows his stuff, he's unethical and deliberately
| negligent, not incompetent.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Then why's he behaving with such incompetence throughout
| this entire prosecution?
| cdchn wrote:
| Same reason he sucks at League, he isn't good at
| everything.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| He's technically competent. But he also seems to think
| the entire world works like computers do.
| nabla9 wrote:
| > Talking to Jim Cramer
|
| Talking to TV-personality and confidence man who made up
| his successful trading record should not result more
| credibility, but less.
| hluska wrote:
| The rise of Jim Cramer absolutely baffles me. His RoR is
| freakishly low - I have a savings account (with
| government backed deposit insurance) that performs
| roughly as well as his choices. The rational play is to
| ignore him. But for some reason, dude has become
| something of a shitty king maker.
|
| I'm trying to make a joke about putting cats like SBF on
| the throne in an outhouse but can't pull anything
| together.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| There's a fund that does the exact opposite of what he
| shills and it does pretty well iirc.
| cj wrote:
| Inverse Cramer
|
| https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/sjim
| caminante wrote:
| Except there are thousands (at least) of people in that set.
|
| You're not doing his cult of personality operation justice.
| jeron wrote:
| Cult of personality and appetite for risk, legal or not
| imiric wrote:
| For the same reason morally bankrupt people are elected in
| politics, or in any leadership role. Connections, charisma,
| money, power, lies, and the willingness of people to believe
| and follow them blindly, or the desire to join them on the
| ride.
| lavezzi wrote:
| Never should have been allowed out. Absolutely braindead move
| from the judge.
| joshmn wrote:
| Federal system presumes all individuals charged with a crime be
| out of custody.
| nova22033 wrote:
| Sam Bankman-Fried Sent Back to Jail After Leaking Diary of Ex-
| Lover, Who Is Now Star Witness Against Him
| pseingatl wrote:
| For those with questions about federal bonds, return of money
| etc. check this out:
|
| https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2...
| monero-xmr wrote:
| This guy is going to jail for at least 20 years. He knows it too,
| and is doing crazy stuff because that's all he has left. He is
| going to sell his life story to the highest bidder and set up a
| Twitter handle where he can post via snail mail like Ross
| Ulbricht. SBF is a total piece of shit and deserves whatever he
| gets.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I have this (unresearched) hypothesis that people who enjoy
| having a lot of control will do anything they can to continue
| to behave that way. Even if you've taken away all the levers
| except the one labelled "kick self in the groin" they will pull
| it.
|
| I anticipate the former president doing this a lot in the next
| year. Any time the right move is to do nothing, he will find a
| way to do literally anything.
| nullc wrote:
| I don't know that you need the condition "people who enjoy
| having a lot of control" -- having other people or forces
| take control of your life is a hard situation for almost
| anyone. People respond as you say-- if hurting themselves is
| the lever they have left, they'll often pull it. And
| sometimes that means "hurting" in a very literal sense, like
| cutting themselves.
| drfuchs wrote:
| Defendants don't have an absolute First Amendment right to free
| speech? Who'd have thought?
| drewmol wrote:
| They do. But courts can set bail conditions and actions that
| explicitly 'shall not be infringed' can seemingly be infringed
| upon by those conditions. Judge ruled his actions violated
| those conditions and changed the terms of his pre-trial
| detention to be in a public correctional facility instead of at
| home.
|
| He will appeal and the courts can decide if his rights are
| being infringed. If he was already locked up and had someone
| release this info, I doubt the judge would have charged him
| with witness tampering or intimidation over this, maybe would
| have warned him. Judge here just revoked his pre-trial
| bond/changed those conditions, which is within the judges power
| to do.
| vic-traill wrote:
| > Defendants don't have an absolute First Amendment right to
| free speech? Who'd have thought?
|
| I believe you're in on that joke, but nonetheless (in case
| someone isn't): no, they don't. When one is on bail then one
| has to abide by the restrictions that the bail conditions
| impose.
| drfuchs wrote:
| Indeed. Who'd have thought I was being too subtle?
| drewmol wrote:
| It was clear and not subtle, but my pedantry provoked a
| more substantial response. This is a topic that will likely
| be in our discussions going forward considering the former
| US president has so many outstanding charges against him.
| But that's a much stickier situation than just a defendants
| rights to free speech, considering he's also the leading
| Republican candidate for 2024 and the situation is largely
| unprecedented.
| bdcravens wrote:
| The right to free speech never means freedom from consequences
| of that speech.
| [deleted]
| function_seven wrote:
| Never? What then does the word "right" mean in this sentence?
| I thought by definition, if you have the right to do
| something, the authorities cannot punish you for exercising
| that right.
|
| No, what's happening here is that SBF is in pretrial custody,
| and when a defendant is in that situation, they lose many of
| their constitutional rights. Courts assume the level of
| control that they need to ensure a fair trial.
|
| Outside of certain circumstances, the 1st Amendment _does_
| mean that you are free from official consequences for your
| speech, such that it is protected. This is why the NYT will
| never see government sanction for their publishing Caroline's
| diary. SBF obviously has, though.
|
| (FWIW, your comment is usually used to defend consequences
| imposed by other members of society, not the government)
| [deleted]
| pessimizer wrote:
| You're free to speak but I'm free to jail and execute you for
| it?
|
| edit: this is literally no one's idea of free speech.
| bdcravens wrote:
| You, no. The state according to the established laws? Yes.
| Terroristic threat, for example.
|
| In this case, SBF had voluntarily limited his speech in
| order to be out of jail for a crime he was already arrested
| for.
| drewmol wrote:
| >Yes. Terroristic threat, for example.
|
| This is such an important point. The PATRIOT Act threw
| protections for citizens out the window in cases of
| _terrorism_ (no evidence required). DOD requires no
| trials, no warrants, only notifying judges with an
| accompanying gag-order and no input or oversight from
| them (making it illegal for them to divulge suspected
| abuses) to wiretap or kill anyone. President Obama used a
| drone strike to explode a 16 y /o boy (a US citizen) in
| Yemen[0]. This is only one of the cases we know about,
| and it's impossible to know the extent it's been used. I
| know that's not the case here, but it is such a huge
| problem that needs to be fixed legislatively - I felt it
| necessary to comment.
|
| [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman
| _al-Aw...
| puzzledobserver wrote:
| I have always found this refrain about freedom of speech vs
| freedom from consequences to be grating. I can think of only
| three categories of things a government can do:
|
| 1. Prevent the words from being spoken in the first place.
| This includes things like gag orders, confiscating computers
| and internet connections, literally gagging someone, or
| locking them in jail.
|
| 2. Delete the words, once spoken, from the public record.
|
| 3. Punish the person for having spoken the words. I.e., the
| consequences. This includes things like deleting their
| accounts, placing them in jail, confiscating newspapers,
| burning books, etc.
|
| When the constitution guarantees freedom of speech, which of
| these categories of actions do you think it restricts?
|
| IANAL, but my understanding is that the government retains
| the right to restrict speech through all three categories
| (for national security, prurient interest, integrity of court
| trials, etc.), but is broadly restricted from having
| unabridged power in all of them.
| astrange wrote:
| Yes it does. Consequences are the only thing you can be free
| from.
| Zetice wrote:
| No it doesn't, you can easily be prevented from speaking in
| the first place.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Are you talking about cutting people's tongues out, or
| prior restraint? Because you don't know who to restrain
| if they haven't already said something. As a consequence
| of things you've said in the past, or things that you
| have just said and have not yet been distributed, you can
| have that distribution limited or prevented.
|
| All of them are consequences.
| astrange wrote:
| And in this case he is being prevented from future speech
| acts, demonstrating another category of things it doesn't
| protect you from.
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| I'm a naturalized American citizen who figured out what
| free speech actually means when studying for the civics
| test. I suggest everyone try it out if only to dispel the
| popular myth of 'free speech means everyone can say
| whatever whenever'.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Why don't you explain it here, instead of pretending like
| you know a secret?
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| > Why don't you explain it
|
| Why should I? Just reading the wikipedia page on the
| first amendment would clarify most if not all popular
| culture myths about freedom of speech in America.
| predictabl3 wrote:
| It would undermine the single implicit response and
| rallying crying used by a bunch of (certain people) right
| now, so, there's a bit of fingers-in-ears going in.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The right to free speech never means freedom from
| consequences of that speech.
|
| To the extent that there is a freedom of speech it is exactly
| a freedom from _government imposed_ consequences for that
| speech.
|
| (The statement is true in the context of _private social
| consequences_ , not government punishment.)
|
| OTOH, being arrested for a crime pending trial, even when
| released on bail, involves a loss of liberty (with due
| process of law), and that can include, insofar as is
| necessary for the administration of justice, limits on free
| speech.
| bandyaboot wrote:
| <img src="jerry_seinfeld_shame.gif" alt="that's a shame" />
| bourgoin wrote:
| *inspects image*
|
| > that's a shame
|
| that's a shame ;)
| bandyaboot wrote:
| *hangs head in shame*
| layer8 wrote:
| Parse error: unexpected character '"' (U+201C)
| metadat wrote:
| Dupe of existing front page post:
|
| _Judge to revoke bail for FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried over
| witness tampering_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37092861 (79 comments)
| yankput wrote:
| [flagged]
| timeon wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| electriclove wrote:
| [flagged]
| yankput wrote:
| Eh HN karma is not what I live for :)
| pessimizer wrote:
| It's worth infinitely less than skee-ball tickets.
| rvz wrote:
| > because you criticized NYT or because you mentioned
| conspiracy theories?
|
| Both.
|
| Most HNers don't question or are at all skeptical when it
| comes from a so-called _' trusted source'_ like the NYT who
| constantly gave SBF lots of praise and positive coverage.
|
| > The positive spin in the traditional media on this criminal
| is absurd
|
| The media is just as bad for giving him such glowing coverage
| rather than actually questioning it until it collapsed. It is
| no different to how they failed to investigate the claims
| made by the Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes.
| [deleted]
| popilewiz wrote:
| [dead]
| gentle wrote:
| I'm fascinated by how so many comments here seem to assume that
| Bankman-Fried is playing some long strategy, when the simplest
| answer is that he's mentally ill and can't stop himself from
| engaging in compulsive behaviors, even when he's been appraised
| of the consequences, repeatedly.
| H8crilA wrote:
| Elon Musk vibes. For example when he was shilling dogecoin, or
| bragging about not caring at all about the $420 SEC settlement.
| It's oddly fun to watch such exceptional narcissists, both when
| they rise and when they fall. They're so invested in their
| image.
| jfghi wrote:
| I wonder if the series of events will have any precedence or
| influence for other notable trials going on at the moment.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| It is astounding how SBF's parents, who arguably both should know
| better, are incapable of controlling their children, even when in
| home detention for federal crimes.
|
| Is any degree of fault atrributable to SBF's parenting. His sense
| of right and wrong seems seriously warped.
|
| His mother was laughing out loud in court in the Bahamas when SBF
| was being denied bail.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/13/sam-bankman-fried-denied-bai...
|
| Here is SBF's father describing the Elizabeth Holmes trial as
| entertainment, comparing it to a football game.
|
| Stanford Legal: Fake it Until You Make It? The Fall of Theranos
| and the Trial of Elizabeth Holmes
|
| https://cdn.simplecast.com/audio/8180cc81-9ba2-4cda-b0b4-9ea...
|
| Here is what bullshit sounds like: Holmes talking to investors.
| Including the sound of some poor fool furiously taking "notes" on
| a computer.
|
| https://26023.mc.tritondigital.com/OMNY_ACLOSERLOOK_P/media-...
|
| "Absolutely"
| primitivesuave wrote:
| They're going to study SBF in law school some day. In the same
| way a computer science professor would emphasize automated
| testing to catch edge cases, a legal professor will emphasize
| that no matter how intelligent and well-connected your client
| seems, they may still be suffering from "edge case" delusional
| behavior that destroys their case.
|
| This is the same guy who dialed into tech conferences and made
| provably false statements _after_ the public collapse of FTX and
| _after_ his parents (both law professors) had retained counsel.
| And yet, nobody thought to explain to him how easily he might get
| caught up on witness tampering and obstruction of justice charges
| if he continued making public statements.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I'm not seeing intelligence. Bankman-Fried leaked to the
| _Times_ and then told prosecutors he did it. Like, did he
| misunderstand the point of leaking? Did he forget he has a
| right against self incrimination?
| akira2501 wrote:
| There are plenty of better examples. Sam is essentially just a
| common crook. He put his hand in his own companies cookie jar.
| This idea that he's going to "be studied" just plays into his
| own paid for media created mythos.
|
| This is the same guy who tried to make "effective altruism"
| part of his image. That was a pretty strong signal that the
| outcome we all witnessed was highly likely.
| spoonjim wrote:
| No, a common crook shuts his mouth and says "talk to my
| lawyer." This is a guy with a God complex
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > No, a common crook shuts his mouth and says "talk to my
| lawyer. "
|
| ... and then the lawyer wakes up and has to deal with his
| real client, who has done no such thing.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > This idea that he's going to "be studied" just plays into
| his own paid for media created mythos.
|
| It's not as if people are saying he's going to be studied
| because he's fascinating. I don't think he ever tried to
| cultivate the image that he's idiotic bordering on the
| pathological, because that discrepancy seems to be study-
| worth.
|
| It's like on one side, there are Musk actions, some call them
| insane and idiotic, but they can be explained away,
| theoretically, and then there's SBF where even the most
| adamant supporter would just stand there, open-mouthed.
| maclockard wrote:
| > This is the same guy who tried to make "effective altruism"
| part of his image. That was a pretty strong signal that the
| outcome we all witnessed was highly likely.
|
| Why do you think that was such a strong signal?
| madeofpalk wrote:
| > Judge Kaplan: _This defendant tries to go right up to the
| line - his use of the VPN to watch a football game over an
| account he wasn 't authorized, there it is.. _
|
| > Judge Kaplan: _He subscribed from the Bahamas and used a
| VPN as if he were in the Bahamas when he was in Palo Alto and
| could have watched it on public TV. It shows the mindset. All
| things considered I am going to revoke bail._
| soneca wrote:
| I don't think the intriguing part of SBF is the crime he
| committed, which is a pretty common one. For me, it is how
| he, after getting caught, hurts his own case being proactive
| in doing and saying stuff publicly.
|
| The common type of white collar criminal remains in silence
| and follow orientations from their very well paid lawyers.
| And it is a pretty proven strategy that leads to minimal or
| no relevant punishment. If SBF was a common criminal in this
| sense, he possibly could leave all of this judged not guilty
| by the justice.
| landoftheice wrote:
| [dead]
| pydry wrote:
| He reminds me of a few people Ive known who have a kind of
| "it'll all work out in the end" syndrome.
|
| All very privileged and sheltered.
| crtified wrote:
| Even in jail, he'll be 'a rich guy in jail', able to buy
| all the favours and protection that can be bought in such
| a place.
|
| I probably won't attract many friends by separately
| pointing out that "it'll all work out in the end" was
| also the primary investment strategy of virtually every
| crypto "investor" who lost money, but that's another
| matter...
| civilitty wrote:
| IANAL but it seems all this stupidity may cost him what
| really matters: he may lose any chance of minimum
| security prison. That's the real prize if prison time is
| all but guaranteed.
|
| He could still get a decade in ClubFed with work release
| which... while obviously not great, is a hell of a lot
| better than living under guard in a low or medium
| security prison.
| dmix wrote:
| It's probably only appealing to the tech set because he came
| from a upper middle family with law professor parents and
| fooled some silicon valley money... So basically he existed
| in the social circle of the academics and Palo alto tech
| elite.
|
| It's a status thing as much as the crime. Who he had access
| to and what knowledge everyone involved could have had to
| detect it earlier. If that is real idk but that's the pitch
|
| Crypto is a bit unique though. Not many markets would have
| tolerated this behaviour.
| rmason wrote:
| I think he was warned about the consequences of making public
| statements. I think he thought he knew more than anyone else. I
| am guessing that he will have an extremely hard adjustment to
| prison. But who knows? He could end up being the shot caller.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Dialing into tech conferences and lying his ass off wasn't
| necessary the wrong strategy. SBF's goal at the time wasn't
| "avoid jail;" it was "bail out company and course correct." He
| wanted to acquire a lot of large investors to save his company,
| and a lie-filled PR campaign was probably the best bet he had
| to do it. The estimated value of (tiny chance) * (stay a
| billionaire) versus the estimated value of (smallish chance) *
| (avoid prison) might have looked like a pretty good call to
| him.
|
| Or, more likely, his life as he knew it was under threat and he
| was panicking by following the same script that always worked
| for him before. But it wasn't NECESSARILY the wrong call.
| renegade-otter wrote:
| He was lying his ass off on conference calls _while playing
| RPG games_.
| rgbrenner wrote:
| _no matter how ... well-connected your client seems_
|
| Is SBF connected at all anymore? At this point, everyone knows
| he's a fraud (at least in the court of public opinion). There's
| no money to be gained by helping him; associations to him are
| toxic; favors are unlikely to ever be repaid. He may have used
| some of the money he scammed for donations to curry favor, but
| that only works up until the scam falls apart. What sort of
| connections are you thinking of?
| jddj wrote:
| The "old money" entrenched nepotism that typically outlasts
| the short attention span of the people watching the circus
| pseingatl wrote:
| "Everyone" is still buying crypto.
| joshbetz wrote:
| He is certainly well connected, but what evidence do we have
| that he's intelligent?
| ivalm wrote:
| passed quant interview at jane street.
| ecshafer wrote:
| MIT grad that worked at Jane Street and made a Billion dollar
| "tech" company are things a lot of people would use as
| evidence of being intelligent.
| brvsft wrote:
| Building a company based on fraud is potentially more of a
| marker of ruthlessness over intelligence, but certainly we
| don't know with certainty, and it is likely a combination
| of the two.
| ecshafer wrote:
| I would agree. He was definitely connected, and
| definitely smart. Anyone would drive in such a position
| could make a successful company. But he was ruthless and
| also has no moral compass, so he became a crypto
| fraudster.
| [deleted]
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Sam and _Liz_ (Yay rebranding!) are both good at one thing:
| Playing the part people want to see played and telling people
| what they want to hear.
|
| In other words: It's not _their_ delusion at all.
|
| You shouldn't expect them to be good at anything else. They
| aren't good at anything else.
| version_five wrote:
| There are some criminals that are genuinely delusional and
| think they are right and just need to explain more - could some
| element of that be present here. I know I've seen good examples
| of that kind of behavior, where people behave ridiculously
| because they're blinded by thinking they're kn the right, but
| I'm struggling a bit to come up with one. Skilling maybe?
| mataug wrote:
| Someone may have explained to him that this was witness
| tampering, but as my mother likes to say "went into one ear
| came out the other" for SBF. He's rarely faced consequences for
| his actions until now.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Yeah. On his PR tour he repeatedly made public statements
| that will negatively impact his defense; there's no way his
| council didn't try to shut that down. SBF isn't listening to
| his lawyers.
| cdchn wrote:
| Much like anybody who tries to 'explain things' to the cops
| he thought he could talk his way out of it, or into a
| better position.
| [deleted]
| harry8 wrote:
| No way.
|
| Playing by the book it's an easy, open and shut case that he
| loses very badly badly. No other conceivable outcome that way.
|
| His only option is to throw the book out and create as much
| chaos as possible so prosecutors are faced with the unusual and
| novel and make mistakes his team can capitalise on.
|
| It's a long shot, sure. He's got nothing else. This lunacy is
| all 100% rational behaviour on his part.
| LordShredda wrote:
| Maybe, but the most probable event here is a kid with too
| much money and fame
| DanHulton wrote:
| ...or he ends up with a bunch of fresh new charges in
| addition to all the existing ones, some being of the very
| exciting felony class.
|
| I don't see how that's very rational at all.
| elicash wrote:
| I think the standard way our justice system treats defending
| yourself publicly as witness intimidation is faulty. In the
| previous instance, his talking to journalists should be protected
| first amendment activities. And then later, with the diary, I
| don't think his intent was to intimidate her or to change her
| testimony, but rather to defend himself to the public. I don't
| think those two things are the same.
|
| On the other hand, I'm very open to the idea that stealing
| someone's diary and publishing it is itself illegal. I'd want to
| know more there. Also, what I personally believe to be an overly-
| expansive definition of witness intimidation is pretty standard
| and he should be held to the same rules as others. So while I
| think the justice system generally needs to change on this, I
| think the judge is correctly applying the normal practice here as
| they would to anybody else.
| pessimizer wrote:
| You don't have the right to defend yourself in public while
| awaiting trial. He doesn't even have the right to leave his
| house; the idea that his speech can't be restrained is fantasy.
| elicash wrote:
| I of course didn't argue that his speech can't be restrained.
| I think there are limits, as you do. We just disagree over
| where the line should be drawn. Certainly you agree he has
| some right to talk about the case, when it's not witness
| intimidation, right?
| maximinus_thrax wrote:
| > I don't think his intent was to intimidate her
|
| It doesn't matter what the intent is. She's a witness and
| trying to pull this shit is a huge no-no, as the judge rightly
| ruled. He should have known better.
| elicash wrote:
| Your response doesn't contradict anything I wrote. I wrote
| that the judge was correct in sending him to jail for witness
| intimidation because they should apply the same standard they
| do in every other case. I just don't like the standard!
|
| Edit: Quick correction. I suppose your first sentence does
| disagree with my view on whether intent matters. But I'm
| pretty sure "intent" shows up in the statute. You also seem
| to disagree with the prosecutor who argued that intent DOES
| matter and that his intent here was to intimidate the
| witness.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Is his brain fully formed? Does he have functioning critical
| thinking skills? Is he just that dumb? Surely his counsel and
| others are advising him to shut his damn mouth ...
| justrealist wrote:
| He's on crazy stimulants.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| Anyone who didn't see from a mile away that this guy is trash was
| intentionally closing their eyes. Pretty cringey how much press
| he got.
| voz_ wrote:
| I'd love to see this clown destroyed
| sublinear wrote:
| Weirdly I think he's trying to protect her from a harsher
| sentence now that they're both fucked.
|
| Just because she fully cooperated and tells a sad story doesn't
| mean she isn't guilty.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Weirdly I think he's trying to protect her from a harsher
| sentence now that they're both fucked.
|
| You do realize that Caroline Ellison has _already_ pled
| guilty[0] and worked out a deal with Federal prosecutors, yes?
|
| Releasing her diary won't change that plea or the deal she made
| with prosecutors.
|
| As such, I'm not clear how SBF doing so will make any
| difference whatever for her. If you'd expand on that, I'd be
| much obliged.
|
| [0] https://abcnews.go.com/US/sam-bankman-frieds-girlfriend-
| ftx-...
| LZ_Khan wrote:
| I'm pretty sure he's trying to ruin her career for good, ala
| "scorched earth strategy." She admits in her diary that she
| feels incompetent for leadership, having a natural tendency to
| defer.. etc. Now no firm will ever think about hiring her in an
| important position.
| jonas21 wrote:
| What hypothetical firm would say, "she pleaded guilty to
| multiple felony fraud charges, but hey, let's give her a
| chance anyway. Wait, what's this? She wrote in her diary that
| she has doubts about her leadership ability? Never mind!"
| Zetice wrote:
| Are you even a leader in fintech if you've done zero
| crimes?
| radicaldreamer wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that part of her plea bargain with the SEC
| charges will be a lifetime ban from the financial industry
| and its unlikely any other major company would hire her
| either.
|
| I think the best path forward is probably memoir and the
| redemption story circuit and maybe some kind of fraudster
| turned consultant gig. I'm sure there are already agents
| trying to get her to auction TV and Film rights to her side
| of the story.
| renegade-otter wrote:
| At some point it becomes fascinating to study what makes a person
| this smart ( _allegedly_ ) so resistant to learning from a simple
| actions -> consequences chain of events. This guy is supposed to
| be good at logic? But then again, they had millions of dollars
| unaccounted for just sloshing around because "it's just how
| business works". So there is that.
| curiousllama wrote:
| There was a 250M bond posted, IIRC - does this mean his
| guarantors lose the money?
| ilc wrote:
| I don't think so. He hasn't fled. The 250M is to make sure his
| butt shows up.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I may be wrong, but I believe that bail forfeiture would be a
| separate order from revocation/remand, with its own hearing.
| The summary of the revocation order (the full document isn't up
| yet on CourtListener) refers to remand to custody but not
| forfeiture.
|
| I think it _can_ occur for both failure to appear and other
| violations of bail conditions, but I don't know, on practice,
| how common forfeiture is for violations of other bail
| conditions.
| pseingatl wrote:
| https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2...
| pseingatl wrote:
| They only guaranteed the personal surety bond. No one put up
| any cash. There was no corporate surety bond imposed as a
| condition of release.
| pseingatl wrote:
| https://twitter.com/al_mu7ami/status/1690124304447344641?s=2.
| ..
| throw03172019 wrote:
| Would they only lose the money if he fled and didn't appear for
| court?
| drexlspivey wrote:
| not if he shows up
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| What a headline, I literally LOL'd.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-11 23:01 UTC)