Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Biotech Businesses Crime

Prosecutors Seek 15-Year Prison Sentence for Theranos' Elizabeth Homes, $800M Restitution (theguardian.com) 112

Posted by EditorDavid from the day-in-court dept.
"Federal prosecutors are asking a judge to sentence Elizabeth Holmes to 15 years in prison," reports the Guardian, "and require the Theranos founder to pay $800m in restitution, according to court documents filed on Friday." A jury found Holmes guilty in January of four counts of investor fraud and conspiracy. Her sentencing is scheduled for 18 November, and she faces a maximum 20 years in prison. Prosecutors argued that "considering the extensiveness of Holmes's fraud", their recommended sentencing would "reflect the seriousness of the offenses, provide for just punishment for the offenses, and deter Holmes and others".

Holmes's lawyer argued in documents filed on Thursday that the ex-Theranos boss should not be sentenced to prison at all and, at most, should receive 18 months of house arrest. The court filings argued that Holmes had been made a "caricature to be mocked and vilified" by the media over the years, though she is a caring mother and friend.

"Ms Holmes is no danger to the public," Holmes's lawyer said in the court documents. "She has no criminal history, has a perfect pretrial services compliance record, and is described by the people who know her repeatedly as a gentle and loving person who tries to do the right thing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Prosecutors Seek 15-Year Prison Sentence for Theranos' Elizabeth Homes, $800M Restitution More

Prosecutors Seek 15-Year Prison Sentence for Theranos' Elizabeth Homes, $800M Restitution

Comments Filter:

  • Seems about right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ranton ( 36917 ) on Saturday November 12, 2022 @06:39PM (#63046369)

    With losses in the hundreds of millions, and in the medical field where lives are on the line, the only thing in Elizabeth's favor is a lack of previous criminal record. Getting 15 out of the maximum 20 years as her sentence sounds about right. I have seen articles claiming something like 8 years is more likely though, so this could just be the prosecutors aiming high and hoping they get closer to 10-12.

    • Feather handcuffs for a huge financial crime.

    • With losses in the hundreds of millions, and in the medical field where lives are on the line, the only thing in Elizabeth's favor is a lack of previous criminal record. Getting 15 out of the maximum 20 years as her sentence sounds about right. I have seen articles claiming something like 8 years is more likely though, so this could just be the prosecutors aiming high and hoping they get closer to 10-12.

      She'll sentenced to only 15 years because of her "good behavior" (no previous criminal record). Ironically enough, those articles may be referring to the fact that she will probably be eligible for early release after serving a pathetic 8 years, because (you guessed it)...good behavior. Like Bizarro world double-jeopardy where you get rewarded again for doing the same thing.

      With logic like this, a 14-year old virgin church choir singer who murders her parents deserves little more than probation due to her

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Xenx ( 2211586 )

        She'll sentenced to only 15 years because of her "good behavior" (no previous criminal record). Ironically enough, those articles may be referring to the fact that she will probably be eligible for early release after serving a pathetic 8 years, because (you guessed it)...good behavior. Like Bizarro world double-jeopardy where you get rewarded again for doing the same thing.

        Lets be accurate here. The first would be good behavior prior to the events, providing for a more lenient sentencing. The second would, potentially, be early release for good behavior while in prison.

      • She'll sentenced to only 15 years because of her "good behavior" (no previous criminal record).

        Which is completely ridiculous. Imagine an auto company selling cars that they knew where defective and dangerous, and their defense is "Hey, what about all those millions of cars we made that DIDN'T blow up?"

        • Which is completely ridiculous. Imagine an auto company selling cars that they knew were defective and dangerous, and their defense is "Hey, what about all those millions of cars we made that DIDN'T blow up?"

          No imagination necessary; that's pretty much Ford's modus operandi. Just mix in a dose of: "If it's cheaper to pay off the families when they sue than it is to make the cars NOT explode; let the bastards burn." Yes, that's where that line in Fight Club came from. Ford's done that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ranton ( 36917 )

        No, after finding the article [mercurynews.com] again it was estimated that the sentencing guidelines for her crime would bring an 11-14 year sentence, but that judge Davila has a precedent of offering 30% less time for similarly large fraud cases. So that makes it about 8 years total. I believe the standard for early release for felony fraud cases is 75% of your total sentence, so with good behavior she would be out in 6 years (if I'm right about early release).

        We shall see, but I haven't read any analysts who think she is

      • Not to defend the "justice system" too much but FIFTEEN YEARS is a long time especially for basically defrauding some rich assholes. I think you might need to re-calibrate your expectations.

        A 14 year-old also shouldn't get a life sentence either.

        • Her shitty company put actual lives at risk..
        • She didn't just bilk some rich assholes. Her bullshit tests were used for actual people's bloodwork, resulting in people either getting treatment they didn't need or skipping procedures they did need. If she hadn't actually started "selling" her tests, she could have done the normal silicon valley thing and just shrugged and said "well, we tried and it didn't work out, thanks for all your money."

          • She didn't just bilk some rich assholes. Her bullshit tests were used for actual people's bloodwork, resulting in people either getting treatment they didn't need or skipping procedures they did need.

            I'm not saying she's all peaches and cream, but I'm not finding accounts of actual people getting treatment or skipping procedures because of bad test results. I do see some people got false-scares about cancer markers that were cleared up with a second blood test.

        • A 14 year-old also shouldn't get a life sentence either.

          Would you suggest the parents serve instead, because that would be fucking awesome for responsible parenting to increase about ten-fold overnight...

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • aside from the fact that I'm generally against prison as a form of punishment, is that it's not being given out because she put people's lives at risk with test she knew were fake, it's being given out because of the amount of money involved.

      Our priorities are whacked.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        sometimes you settle for whatever gets these pieces of shit locked away where they can do no harm. Capone went to jail for not paying his taxes, not because he was a vicious murdering piece of shit.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward
        prison is completely about punishment, it is also deterrent, If people see the only punishment for stealing millions of dollars and risking peoples lives is some community service or other soft punishments then crime rates will escalate at an insane rate.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Indeed. She should be up for risking death of customers. I do agree that prison does not solve anything and just provides a form of revenge.

      • And who was scammed. These were not small-time investors with a few hundred dollars each - these were very high profile people (just check out who were the members of the Theranos board) who were both made to look stupid and clueless in public, and who lost many millions in the endeavor. The latter is bad, but the former is unforgivable: they will most likely want their pound of flesh.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jabuzz ( 182671 )

        The problem with that line of argument is that at the trial the prosecution claimed that she knew Theranos machines were not working and were doing the tests on conventional machines.

        So either she didn't know the Theranos machines were working or she did. The prosecution can't have it both ways. Given the conviction was obtained on the basis that she knew the machines were not working and was using conventional machines to do the testing then you cannot claim that she put people's lives at risk for a bigger

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      The US is basically coming apart fiscally because of our desire to lock everyone up. Do a bit of crack, we are paying your room and board for 20 years. It is insane. If she has assets, put her under strict probation for life. If she is as compliant as her lawyers say, she wonâ(TM)t leave here house until she dies.
      • Locking up (black) weed smokers en-masse is not the same as locking up rich people engaged in white-collar crimes.

        We need less of the former, and MUCH MORE of the latter.

        • Locking up (black) weed smokers en-masse is not the same as locking up rich people engaged in white-collar crimes.

          Prison is the wrong punishment for either. Non-violent people don't belong there. There is always a better solution.

          Put an ankle tracker on Liz and assign her to change bedpans in nursing homes for 60 hours per week for the next 20 years.

          Then she can benefit society instead of being a drain.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by ranton ( 36917 )

            Put an ankle tracker on Liz and assign her to change bedpans in nursing homes for 60 hours per week for the next 20 years.

            The US has a bad history [usnews.com] with forced labor. In this case I can certainly understand the desire to have Holmes work off her debt, but forced labor of any kind has led to a long history of abuse.

            • The US has a bad history [usnews.com] with forced labor.

              Forced labor abuse is far worse in prisons than outside prisons, so I'm not sure what your point is.

              • In some prisons you can't even get a job detail. There aren't enough details available for all the prisoners. Too many prisoners, not enough people to keep an eye on them when they're on detail.

          • Non-violent white-collar criminals DEFINITELY belong in prison. They're psychopaths and sociopaths that respond to nothing BUT punishment.

            Non-violent criminals of other kinds (petty theft etc), but even violent criminals, can be rehabilitated without relying on incarceration-only as punishment. Psychopaths and sociopaths can't.

        • Having a bit of weed for personal use isn't likely to lead to incarceration. Murder, assault, and robbery are far more common paths to prison for black people. They're significantly over represented in these crimes, also most of the victims being black.

          It is a myth that prisons are full of black people who were caught with a joint. If it's cannabis then you'll find dealers and/or people convicted due to related crimes (e.g. robbery, assault).

          • Having a bit of weed for personal use isn't likely to lead to incarceration.

            Put that weed in a screen box and shake some keef out of it, and you could literally wind up doing life in Oklahoma. Yes, even for personal use, the law doesn't specify. No, I'm not going to that shithole either.

      • Sure, Jan. That's what's causing the US to come apart. Nothing to do with an oligarchy that is more than happy to leave half the population living in misery. There will be fines involved with this case that likely cover her imprisonment for the 5 years she will actually serve.
      • Did you even watch Wolf of Wall Street? People who smoke a joint get way harsher punishments than people who destroy hundreds of people's lives (by stealing their savings). Even when they do go to jail... It's like living at a resort.

        Ethan Couch (affluenza kid) killed four people. Went to a "facility" with daily horse rides. The punishment should be inversely proportional to the amount of money you have as it is now.

      • 20 years? Even Florida, among the harshest, has a maximum of 15 years for possession. It ramps up when you're caught with enough to be dealing. Meth is similar, the threshold for a first degree felony being lower for meth.

        I'd imagine most of the longer sentences are going to dealers.

    • There's a plausible argument that the sentencing guidelines call for 65 years, not 20. Mitchell Epner went through the sentencing guidelines and laid out all the calculations here [substack.com] that get her to at least 43 points, which is the trigger for life. Since life isn't an option, the guidelines call for consecutive sentencing and maximum sentences.

      That doesn't mean she'll get that, but the possibility is there. Prosecution is asking for 15 years, but she lied on the stand, and judges tend not to go lightly on def

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ranton ( 36917 )

        Well I am glad to read an analysis that put the estimated sentence much higher than other articles I have read. I don't think life in prison is too long for such an egregious offence, especially considering it was in the health care industry.

        But if the prosecutors even thought life was a remote possibility, it seems unlikely they would only ask for 15 years. I didn't see any mention of precedent or of Davila's past sentencing history in your article though, so my guess is the analysis isn't very thorough.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ... she is a caring mother

      Funny how she didn't get married and have children till after her scam blew up and she was in danger of going to prison. I'm 99.999% certain that she views her children as her "get out of jail" card.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cas2000 ( 148703 )

      She robbed rich people so she'll get a harsh sentence. Just like pharmabro Shkreli didn't get a harsh sentence for jacking up prices of essential medicine to obscene levels, he got a harsh sentence for defrauding the rich. THAT's what is unforgivable, THAT is the "true" crime.

      And, of course, the crypto bros behind all the collapsing e-tulip exchanges will mostly get off with slightly-slapped wrists because they mostly rob poor people (anyone who isn't a billionaire, i.e. people who don't matter).

      Unless,

      • Skhreli's price hikes were immoral but not illegal. So a state under the rule of law could not send him to prison for that. If this fully applies to the USA is up for dispute, but in this case they stuck to their official principles.
        Places like China or Russia might get a bit more creative in making up an offense, but do we want to be like them?

        Tha fraud was clearly illegal though, a sentence for that was to be expected.

  • Lizzie may want a family before itâ(TM)s too late.

    • She would be eligible for parole in about five years, so I do not think it would be an issue. Does she have $800M for restitution?

      • Federal parole was done away with for convictions that happen after November 1, 1987. She can earn up to 15% good behavior, so on a 15-year sentence, she'd have to serve at least 153 months, or 12.75 years.

    • Prisons in poor countries have that. I mean, the killer of that girl in Aruba, I forget his name .. he even got married and had kids WHILE in prison.

      • Private life and a having a family is considered a fundamental right in many countries, including the richer ones. Wikipedia lists for example Israel, Canada, and several European countries (Germany, Denmark, France, Spain, Czech Republic, Netherlands). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        US allow them but not in federal prisons, Australia not in all states, New Zealand and Ireland do not allow them. It could be the prohibition of conjugal visits was inherited from English rule and not changed consistently aft

        • Hmm, I did not know that about state prisons. Are conjugal visits allowed for people who do serious crimes like homicide?

          • Not a specialist, but nothing comes up regarding the kind of crime. I would speculate there are security rules excluding inmates that have shown violent behavior in jail (there are explicit references to such limitations in European countries, I would assume similar restrictions exist everywhere), so in practical terms many inmates jailed for violent crime (who often continue to be considered dangerous while in jail) would not be eligible.

            Some facts I could find regarding US: "In the early 1990s, 17 states

      • the killer of that girl in Aruba, I forget his name .. he even got married and had kids WHILE in prison.

        I don't know why you would say it's a poor country thing. It's common to get married in prison in many rich countries. It's part of a clever inmate's strategy to increases the chances to be granted parole (because it's part of social reinsertion, under the assumption that married people will focus more on family and less on crime).

        • I said it because I didn't know that it was common in developed countries too until after I googled it.

          • I just found Britain tried to prevent a prisoner from getting married in 1980 and lost to court on the grounds of article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the "right to get married and to found a family" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            So as far as I understand, a prisoner among the signatory members (entire European continent plus Turkey, South Caucasus countries, and Russia 1953-2022) wishing to get married and have children could in principle coerce their State (such as transferring

    • There are no conjugal visits in Federal prison.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Briareos ( 21163 )

      Eh... she could also be going for a Darwin Award (of the waiting-it-out variety).

    • Psychos like her should not be allowed to have children. They should be taken and given to someone who is willing and can care for them, instead of having their lives ruined as pawns in her continuing fraud scheme.

  • Needs more statistician... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Saturday November 12, 2022 @06:52PM (#63046393) Journal
    Her lawyer's bleating is the usual nonsense you'd expect in absence of any actually compelling reasons to show lenience to their client; but it exposes a common and very unfortunate problem: "Ms Holmes is no danger to the public" isn't something they'd try if this were a blue collar crime case of some sort(even if it were one of the intimidating-but-non-contact ones like burglary and breaking and entering, absolutely not if it were assault or murder in any degree); but at a population level someone running a medical diagnostics scam operation is absolutely a danger to the public; and more of a danger than even most more immediate murderers. She didn't know precisely who was going to get killed; but when you are attempting to scale up use of diagnostic mechanisms you know to be effectively useless as aggressively as possible you are cold-bloodedly dooming a bunch of people who would otherwise survive, with no apparent upper limit to the number you'd be willing to sacrifice, only the practical limits of how many tests you can administer and for what purposes.

    Compare to a garden variety murderer who is typically either the dumb and impulsive sort(most commonly some 3rd or 2nd degree); or who has a very specific target or set of targets but limited general-purpose interest in murder(more or less all the 1st degree ones who aren't serial killers or hitmen). She's more dangerous, at at least as morally problematic, as any of those. It's really unfortunate that neither the depravity nor the magnitude of risk posed by people willing to kill, injure, or defraud large numbers of people at arms length is more or less never properly evaluated in comparison to the people who are, to be sure, scary up close but inefficient and unambitious.

    • She's no danger to the public? Does that bozo even know what she did? If that's no danger to the public, then what is?

      She endangered more people than Charles Manson for fuck's sake!

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Oh please. She's small peanuts compared to the likes of Pfizer, Moderna, etc.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        He's probably correct: nobody is going to let her make any serious decisions again. Unless of course she goes into crypto.

        • Crypto would be a good place for her; there's no serious decisions in crypto. Too bad that by the time she's out crypto will be dead as a doorknob.
      • A lawyer's job is to fight as hard as possible for their client, regardless of their personal feelings on the matter. In fact, if a lawyer does not, it can be argued that the defendant did not receive adequate defense and thus declare a mistrial, letting the person go free. They must try every thing they can think of, every filing, every request, every attack, every attempt to get the minimum sentence possible, and the prosecution must try to get the maximum sentence possible. It is the weight of each of

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      Her lawyer's bleating is the usual nonsense you'd expect in absence of any actually compelling reasons to show lenience to their client; but it exposes a common and very unfortunate problem: "Ms Holmes is no danger to the public" isn't something they'd try if this were a blue collar crime case of some sort

      Well "no danger" Should be a compelling reason. The Purpose of sentencing and prisons in the first place is to remove dangers to the public. If the crime is non-violent and the danger to the public c

      • So what perception of justice would this send? The penalty for white collar crime is to go hone to your nice house and find some way to entertain yourself?

        For a justice system to work, it must be viewed as being equitable and effective. Simply denying her the means of committing crime is not an adequate penalty for what she did. If it worked that way then we'd release a hijacker because he managed to lose both of his arms in the process, making him no longer a threat to aeroplanes.

    • Christ you're a moron. "My client is no danger to the public" is something that almost every lawyer, even some representing murderers and rapists, will try to pull out of their ass at the sentencing hearing.

  • Balwani is the master-mind (Score:3, Informative)

    by b33fch0w ( 10184537 ) on Saturday November 12, 2022 @06:55PM (#63046401)

    "It has been far safer to steal large sums with a pen than small sums with a gun." -- Warren Buffett

    Balwani is the real criminal master-mind here, and as long as he gets the book thrown at him, justice will be served. And considering that he isn't a white wealthy woman, things look especially dire. Yay.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Balwani is the real criminal master-mind here, and as long as he gets the book thrown at him, justice will be served.

      Holmes tried to use the "Balwani did it defense", and the jury did not buy it. She will be sentenced based on the crimes she was convicted on.

    • Balwani is the real criminal master-mind here

      The jury disagreed. This was a fundamental point, Holmes actually tried to throw Balwani under the bus. In business, unfortunately for the CEO the COO reports to them so unless you can prove fraud to the point where Balwani undertook actions that Holmes was completely unaware of, she retains accountability for the actions of her direct reports.

      • Indeed. Holmes tried the "that nasty brown man made this innocent white woman do all those terrible things" defence and it did not work.

  • until she dons that black turtle neck and starts flirting with old men.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      black turtle

      Not in prison. Orange is the new black.

      • Except she's white. Or did you not understand the play on words in the show's title?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          The show's title referred to the fashion statement of the black clothing of hipsters. And once you go to prison, that's now changed to orange. It's not a reference to race AFAIK, since I can't figure out what race orange is (Trump notwithstanding).

  • She lied (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Saturday November 12, 2022 @07:23PM (#63046429)

    The court filings argued that Holmes had been made a "caricature to be mocked and vilified" by the media over the years, though she is a caring mother and friend.

    The only "caricature" is the one she created by repeatedly lying about the product. She also stonewalled investors and the FDA by denying anyone access to the process to verify its claims. She put people's lives at risk through those lies.

    The 15 years in jail will not deter anyone else from doing the same, but she should still be punished for her deliberate, calculated lies.

  • I love when they say she's the kind of person who tries to do the right thing. Well... she really wasn't trying too hard to do the right thing or she wouldn't be going to jail for doing the wrong thing.

  • "Caring mother"??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Saturday November 12, 2022 @08:29PM (#63046517)

    though she is a caring mother and friend.

    Yeah, she is such a great mother that she decided to get pregnant only AFTER she was at risk of going to prison and having to leave her child behind.

    • Also a lying, manipulative "poor little rich girl", with an exaggerated sense of her own importance.

    • To be fair we almost never punish the rich. So she wouldn't have expected prison time. Her mistake was she made other super Rich elite types look like fools. Most notably the CEO of Walgreens bought in completely to her scam. Walgreens is going around telling people they're closing stores because there's just so much crime but the reality is they lost so much money betting on Theranos that they're desperately cutting costs and closing temporarily and profitable stores. In the long run it'll cost them a bunc
    • Thank you. I think this is really a key aspect to Elizabeth Homes' personality faults. She is a reckless human that cares nothing about people and everything about her public perception. She will quite as happily create a life to make a point as she will impact lives to make a buck. I'm sorry, its not the media thats painted this lady as one of the worlds greatest monsters, its her own actions.

  • Id like to see (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Saturday November 12, 2022 @08:54PM (#63046543)
    An “either-or” proposition. 15 years of physical prison OR her husband’s family cuts a massive check to save her bacon. That would be amusing. The one thing that rich people hate more than anything is seeing their wealth go down. The Evans family might opt to throw her under the bus. Honestly, that would be amusing to watch.

    Though, I’m honestly not sure how much time she should spend in a cage. Is she an unrepentant lying manipulative egotistical fraud? Yes. Did she kill anyone? While she definitely could have. From what Ive read the answer is, surprisingly, no. Generally, I feel that physical prison should be reserved for physically dangerous people. She’s harmless now. Absolutely nobody is going to trust her with a business, ever again. Her reputation is (rightly) in the sewers and it’s never going to recover.

    But there should be a massive financial penalty for what she did. A person shouldnt be able to pull off a crime like that and then dodge the consequences by running straight into the arms of an heir to a billion dollar empire. Hit them where it REALLY hurts - in the bank account.

  • What's the point if she doesn't have that kind of money and nobody in their right mind will ever hire her for any job?

  • Elizabeth Holmes [brzt]
    Attractiveness bias exception [brzt] [dingding]
    Movealong nothingtoseehere [warningbeep]

  • Becoming, and remaining, pregnant after criminal proceedings began is a choice for someone like Holmes. She chose to be a parent after she tanked Theranos and criminal proceedings began. It should not mitigate any punishment for her Theranos-related crimes.

  • So ... (Score:3)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Sunday November 13, 2022 @08:57AM (#63047417) Journal

    ... more than twice as long [ojp.gov] as for rape?

    By offense type, the median time served was 17.5 years for murder, 7.2 years for rape, 17 months for drug trafficking, and 9 months for drug possession.

    • Not quite since time served is not the same as time convicted. It's all part of a negotiation dance. The prosecutors recommend 15, the judge will probably give her 8 to 10, and she'll probably serve around 5 to 7. Given how wreckless her behavior was for the health of so many people, I'd say it's quite justified.

  • Unless she's shown some contrition since the start of the trial I'd say she's pretty dangerous and likely to try another scam as soon as she can. Not sure if she's delusional or just a psychopath, but the whole defense of trying to blame it on the other company leadership and pretend like she was a patsy is just common criminal behavior. She's a con artist with a better resume and unless there's some indication that she realizes what she did was wrong I'm all in favor of throwing the book at her and keepi

  • Max (Score:1)

    by ebvwfbw ( 864834 )

    She needs 20 years. Like a leopard that doesn't change its spots, she'll be back to a new scam in no time and it's clear she doesn't care who she hurts.

  • It's at sentences like this that I think that bringing back the public stocks for white collar crime, would be useful. https://www.onslowcountync.gov... [onslowcountync.gov]
  • She is more crooked than everyone is giving her credit for. People like her don't deserve freedom.

  • She'll appeal her sentence to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They'll then (again) try to involve the Theranos lab director's ability and mental capacity whiich they've tried to do previously. That'll stretch out the case. Also, she'll try a sympathy move for getting knocked up a second time, this one after she was convicted.
    She's a game player and has secured another rich man to pay her way (and her attorney's way).

  • I'm glad she is going to prison. Hopefully to solitary because she is high profile and where she will be in full shackles every time they let her out of that cell for that one hour a day. I hope she gets the absolute maximum amount of shackling possible by law too. That include a full face mask to prevent spitting and biting and a soft helmet.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close