Legal Random, Random

[Owendonovan]

The idea of any kind of sexual anything with Rudy is repulsive.

[ponchi101]

He is repulsive as a person. The lack of morality is truly off the scale.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Laffy
@GottaLaff@mastodon.social
Womp womp

Via Wendy Siegelman:

Erik Prince indicted in Austria

Per Austrian media Kurier and ORF the public prosecutor's office in Wiener Neustadt filed a criminal complaint against Airborne Technologies GmbH and 5 people including Erik Prince for arming and exporting planes to Libya

[ti-amie]

Convicted entrepreneur Elizabeth Holmes must report to prison by May 30
A federal appeals court denied the Theranos founder’s request to remain free as she appeals her conviction on wire fraud charges
By Rachel Lerman and Julian Mark
May 17, 2023 at 4:36 p.m. EDT

Elizabeth Holmes has been ordered to report to prison before the end of the month to begin serving her more than 11-year sentence after being convicted of wire fraud charges tied to her defunct blood-testing start-up, Theranos.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Edward J. Davila ordered Holmes to report to prison no later than 2 p.m. on May 30. The order comes a day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied Holmes’s request to remain out of prison as she appeals her conviction.

The once-vaunted CEO’s reputation began to disintegrate more than six years ago when a media investigation revealed that Theranos — which purported to be able to run a multitude of tests from just a couple drops of blood — was using traditional lab machines from other companies to complete many of its tests. Former employees said the technology was inconsistent and not working nearly as well as Theranos advertised to doctors and investors.

Holmes went from being regarded as a young leader in Silicon Valley to the disgraced subject of a best-selling book, multiple podcasts, an HBO documentary and a Hulu TV series.

Holmes, who started Theranos while she was still a student at Stanford, is appealing her fraud convictions, a process that could stretch for several months or years. She petitioned a judge to allow her to remain free while the appeal winds its way through the court system, but Davila, who heard her original case and sentenced her, denied the motion. In April, Holmes appealed Davila’s decision in a last-ditch attempt to stay out of prison, but Tuesday’s decision by the appeals court meant Holmes only delayed her reporting date by roughly a month.

Holmes’s former business partner, Sunny Balwani, was convicted in a separate but similar trial of 12 counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. He was sentenced to nearly 13 years in prison and started his incarceration on April 20 at a federal correctional institute in San Pedro, Calif.

After Theranos eventually shuttered in 2018, amid multiple regulatory and media investigations, Holmes kept a low profile until her months-long trial attracted widespread media and public attention in late 2021. The former CEO was convicted of misleading investors about the capabilities of the company. Theranos raised about $900 million from investors, including prominent technology leaders and U.S. political figures.

Its investors included Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, media executives Rupert Murdoch and the Cox family, and the family of former education secretary Betsy DeVos. Holmes also attracted prominent statesmen such as Henry Kissinger and Jim Mattis to her board of directors.

Mattis later testified at her trial, saying he would have had a different view of the company if he had known some limitations of the Theranos blood-testing device.

“It would have tempered my enthusiasm significantly,” he said in response to a prosecutor’s questions about the use of third-party devices.

Her story has become emblematic in some circles of apparent greed and a “growth at all costs” mind-set inside Silicon Valley. But members of the tech community have sought to distance themselves from Holmes and Theranos, which they often regard as an outlier.

Holmes has two young children, including one who was born before her trial and another born after her sentencing. Davila has previously recommended she serve her time at a federal prison camp in Bryan, Tex., about 100 miles outside of Houston.

In an April court document for her appeal, Holmes’s lawyers argue that her 135-month sentence is “excessive” and the result of errors in calculation during the federal sentencing.

“This Court should reverse the conviction or at a minimum remand for resentencing,” the document states.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... os-prison/

The headline should read "Convicted Conartist Elizabeth Holmes must report to prison by May 30"

[ponchi101]

Txs for your last comment.

[skatingfan]

The headline should read "Convicted Conartist Elizabeth Holmes must report to prison by May 30"

or 'Convicted Conartist Elizabeth Holmes allowed to report to prison by May 30'.

[Owendonovan]

They often forget that their ruling are for everyone, even the Avenetti's who they don't like and their rulings were never intended for.

[Owendonovan]

"Holmes has two young children, including one who was born before her trial and another born after her sentencing. Davila has previously recommended she serve her time at a federal prison camp in Bryan, Tex., about 100 miles outside of Houston."

I believe she had those children because she thought she had a better chance of not being convicted or serving actual jail time if she was pregnant during trial with a small child already there.
I'm a little cynical this cold May evening in the city.

[ponchi101]

A little cynical? It was obvious she did that as you say.

[ti-amie]

U.S. Politics in Real Time
@uspolitics@mastodon.sdf.org
D.C. police lieutenant indicted for tipping off Proud Boy Enrique Tarrio about arrest

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... -rcna85247

#NBCNews #DCPoliceLieutenant #ProudBoyEnriqueTarrio #ArrestTipOff #JusticeDepartment #Indictment #Politics #News


https://mastodon.sdf.org/@uspolitics/110396674000683016

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

It's already started. This was filed in, of all places, the Southern District of NY.

I had to delete a lot of the links but she provides them for every instance.

This circus was first flagged on Reddit. I can't add any more links here so that will be in the next post.

Kendra Albert
@kendraserra@dair-community.social
Are you just catching up on the bonkers story about the lawyer using ChatGPT for federal court filings? This is a thread for you.


Our dramatis personae - some lawyers in federal court, in a lawsuit over a personal injury on an airplane.
Bartholomew Banino (BB) represents the airline.

Peter LoDuca (PL) and Steven Schwartz (SS) represent the injured person.

Here's the docket (via @questauthority) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107

The case is in federal court, and they're arguing over whether it should be there or in state court. The airline has filed its motion to dismiss on Jan. 13. On Jan. 18, the plaintiff asks for more time to reply (#19). The judge gives it to them. (#20).

On March 1st, PL files that reply/opposition to the motion to dismiss.

It cites a bunch of cases in support of its argument! They seem quite convincing - there's some state courts holding that state courts can decide international airline accidents. (See pages 4 and 5). https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca

The defendants file their response. In it, there's a footnote where they flag that they can't find the cases that PL cited to, or they don't say what PL said they said. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107

On April 11, the court orders PL to produce copies of the cases. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63 ... ianca-inc/ Likewise, on April 12, the judge asks for another case.

(This is not necessarily so unusual - some judges have local rules requiring litigants to attach unpublished cases to filings to save the court from having to go find them.)

PL asks for an extension. He's on vacation.

Now...this seems a little odd to me. People should be able to take breaks, but really, you need more than a week to produce a copy of cases and an affidavit?

The judge gives PL more time (and apparently rope to hang himself). We're now up to April and docket number 28.

On April 25, PL files a response. It's amazing.

First, he says, he's attached the copies of the cases that he previously cited. (We'll come back to that.)

Second, that he couldn't find one of the cases that was cited by the court in one of those opinions.

Third, that the opinions are excerpts - that the attachments "may not be inclusive of the entire opinions but only what is made available by online database."

It's notarized by Stephen Schwartz.

PL then attaches the "opinions."

First of all, this doesn't really look like a court opinion, formatting wise. There's no date.

And it's supposedly an 11th Circuit opinion. On page 2, it says "Before Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Higginbotham, *Circuit Judges."

One issue. Higginbotham isn't an 11th Circuit judge. There is a Patrick Higginbotham who is a federal judge. He served on the 5th Circuit, and took senior status before either of the two other judges (who are real) took office.

Now, weird stuff happens in the federal courts, so it's not totally out of the question that someone might sit by designation or something else funky is happening. But still, that's very strange!

(Call back to when I went on @alex and @emilymbender's Mystery AI Hype Theater and talked about how the types of errors that generative AI makes are different in kind from the type that humans make.)

But also, this case is basically perfect. Like tailor made for the fact pattern of PL's case! Amazing that there's circuit level precedent that lines up with the lawyer's argument so cleanly.

The other ones are also pretty weird. There's parts that are in quotes (page 7)? There's a Texas state court referring to an 11th Circuit ruling as if they had made it (page 5)?

So there's some stuff that should make a lawyer curious, in short.

On April 26, the day after the affidavit with he cases is filed, BB, the lawyer for the defendant, files a letter with questions. They literally can't find the cases anywhere else. The docket numbers don't line up. And the federal reporters (sort of like a DOI, for my non-lawyer readers) turn up a different case.

[NB: I did not intend this to be this long but whatever, we're all nerds here.]

On May 4th, the (expletive) really hits the fan. The judge issues an order to show cause why he shouldn't issue sanctions on PL for citing cases that don't exist and then swearing that the copies attached on April 25 are real. (Dkt #31)

This is one pissed off federal judge.

"Six of the submitted cases appear to be bogus judicial decisions with bogus quotes and bogus internal citations."

The judge called (or probably had his clerks call) the 11th Circuit and confirmed that the decision wasn't real. He also points out that the internal citations are also to "bogus" cases...

On May 4th, SS admits what happened (which you probably already figured out, even if you missed the header toot). It was ChatGPT. The declaration here is just too amazing not to provide you with it directly. https://storage.courtlistener.com/reca

It turns out it was SS, not PL, who prepared the filings. PL just filed them, and in his own declaration, pleads ignorance.

Editor's note: My dude, you did have reason to doubt the authenticity of the case law. These were weirdass print outs that don't look like real cases and if you had literally plugged any of them into Westlaw or Lexis, you wouldn't have found them.

The federal judge...is not mollified. (Nor should he be.) On May 26 (yesterday), he still orders the two lawyers to show cause why they, and their law firm, should not be sanctioned.

I suspect that a significant part of the ire is about the doubling down on the cases in the April 25 filing. If they had come clean then, I feel like the judge might be more lenient.

Oh, and remember how Steven Schwartz notarized the documents back at the end of April? Judge wants him to show cause as to why that wasn't fraudulent.

So first of all, PL basically lied in his affidavit, since SS was the one who produced the cases.

Also I'm no NY notary expert, but I bet you're not supposed to change the date on your stamp by hand.

Edited to add: that may not be
huge issue...

Anyway, hearing is set for June 8th. Popcorn will be a must. Thanks for reading!

[ti-amie]

Here's the original r/redditlaw post

Fake AI-Generated Citations in Federal Court (i.redd.it)

submitted 20 hours ago by Ectophylla_alba