Theranos' Death Rattle

[Nueces River Rat 5539]

21 hours ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

That was one of the weak spots of the doc, imo. It was obviously cgi, because they didn't have another way to show what was supposed to be happening inside of a machine that never worked, but surely somewhere there's actual footage of Edison doing Jack shit.

The fact they got federal approval for lab service by DHS without them even looking at the device inside and out should give everyone the shits about how really safe conventional blood testing labs are operating.    

It would have been nice to see how much money they contributed to politicians  and exactly how much each got in key congressional committees, etc.   

[TwiceHorn 31533]

11 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:

The fact they got federal approval for lab service by DHS without them even looking at the device inside and out should give everyone the shits about how really safe conventional blood testing labs are operating.    

It would have been nice to see how much money they contributed to politicians  and exactly how much each got in key congressional committees, etc.   

That's a great point.  They weren't initially certified or regulated at all under the Laboratory Developed Test "loophole." https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/18/fda-lab-test-loophole/  But, were subject to inspection, leading to the downfall.

So not applicable to testing labs more generically.

Edited March 22, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[shakahorn 1645]

On 3/20/2019 at 3:07 PM, HiggyBaby said:

 

I get more of a Romy White vibe.

 

I gotta admit, I didn't follow this story that closely - didn't even hit this thread until a couple days ago.  The preview came on HBO, I wasn't really paying that close attention so I thought it was a dramatization with actors playing the roles and I thought they had gotten Mira Sorvino to play Holmes.

[Nivek 16982]

21 hours ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

The gif of the goth kids actually became a dance move.  Kids do it all the time these days.  

saw kids dancing like that without irony in the 90s.

[Nivek 16982]

any relation to H. H. Holmes?

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 hour ago, ajax said:

 Andshe walks like she just had a stroke too.

she reminds me of me, driving, after I'd been drinking

(intense concentration)I can do this I can do this I can do this(/intense concentration)

[SpiralOut 1818]

6 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

It's not that you don't have the stones.  It's that you have a conscience.  Sociopaths literally don't have a conscious.  It didn't take guts for her to do all of that shit because she didn't have to overcome anything inside that might stop the rest of us.   The only thing she was "concerned" with was getting exposed, which is why all of her efforts were aimed at that, not trying to get the tech to work. 

Yeah, that's true.

It just makes me scratch my head because sociopaths are usually fairly smart.  This gal seems at least somewhat smart.  Hell, you have to have at least something going on to snow under all those people, even if they're giving you an edge through their greed.  So don't these smart sociopaths think to themselves at some point, "Hey, there's absolutely no way I can keep all these plates spinning indefinitely.  I've been flat out lying from the jump.  I'm only a few years into this deal and my company is making no money, I'm having to spy on my employees, threaten reporters, and I'm putting lives at risk to keep this fraud going.  Shouldn't I fucking bail?"

I think that's where I see the confidence part.  They just don't seem to have the capability to process consequences like a normal human being. 

Edited March 23, 2019 by SpiralOut

[XYZ 2154]

2 hours ago, SpiralOut said:

So don't these smart sociopaths think to themselves at some point, "Hey, there's absolutely no way I can keep all these plates spinning indefinitely.  I've been flat out lying from the jump.  I'm only a few years into this deal and my company is making no money, I'm having to spy on my employees, threaten reporters, and I'm putting lives at risk to keep this fraud going.  Shouldn't I fucking bail?"

I think these people have zero capability of asking those questions. Zero.

[blacklab 11946]

My favorite part of the doc was David Boies and the other lawyer being so defensive and lawyerly in their answers at the interview. 

Between doing the dirty work for Wienstien and the blatant intimidation on the whistle blowers at theranos it's quite the last couple of years he's had. I know as a lawyer you kinda do what your client tells you, but at some point you have to tell your client this is fucked up. Curious to hear some of our lawyers opinion on him.

 

[XYZ 2154]

Yeah, if that piece of shit Boies was terrorizing ex-employees, why isn’t he under indictment also?

[TwiceHorn 31533]

27 minutes ago, blacklab said:

My favorite part of the doc was David Boies and the other lawyer being so defensive and lawyerly in their answers at the interview. 

Between doing the dirty work for Wienstien and the blatant intimidation on the whistle blowers at theranos it's quite the last couple of years he's had. I know as a lawyer you kinda do what your client tells you, but at some point you have to tell your client this is fucked up. Curious to hear some of our lawyers opinion on him.

 

One of my favorite quotes comes from Elihu Root, secretary of state and war under Teddy: "half the business of any decent lawyer is telling his client that he's a damned fool and should just stop." 

I forget where I came across it, but it's sage advice that gets ignored all too frequently. Boies is a great lawyer for complex civil cases, but that skill set apparently doesn't translate too well to picking clients in glamor world, as opposed to serious legal work. He sure as hell doesn't need the work or the money. 

I am  sure he kept well on the good side of legal ethics and criminal law.  A lot of mischief can be perpetrated in the name of protecting trade secrets. I would guess that half or more of the trade secrets cases filed are utter bullshit as far as valuable and legitimate trade secrets are concerned, but are filed to harass former employees and terrorize current ones. 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

12 hours ago, SpiralOut said:

It just makes me scratch my head because sociopaths are usually fairly smart.  This gal seems at least somewhat smart.

I think we have reached a point where what people interpret as high-level intelligence is well-understood by the average-to-moderately intelligent. It's not hard to feign, although I don't mean to contradict your amazement at Holmes' particular case. It's one thing for a middle-management schlub at Dell to play at being a Transformational Leader and Disruptive Thinker, it's another to pull it off for as long as Holmes did at the level she managed.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4977]

Maybe it was a tactleneck and not a turtle neck like everyone assumes.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

It's interesting  She's not really hot, but she's not ugly either.  A step or two above "nerd chick."  The deep voice thing is really off-putting, as is the black turtleneck, both too monotonous and just odd.

However, in her Ted talk or whatever the speech was where she pulled the "nanotainer" out of her coat pocket, she seemed like a really pretty talented or at least magnetic public speaker that transcended her age, inexperience, voice and wardrobe.  Pretty much true of her corporate speeches, also.  Even Tyler Schulz, who presumably would not be attracted to her because of age and his own eligibility, admitted to being hip-no-tized by her, even after he knew the jig was up.

 

It's almost a little to facile to say she's a semi-hot chick that mesmerized a bunch of old farts.  There's some truth to that, but it's more complex.

[blacklab 11946]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am  sure he kept well on the good side of legal ethics and criminal law.

The law part I'm sure he stayed on the good side. 

I'm not going to go look up the Texas bar rules but I'm pretty sure after my run in with Beatrice there was some wording in there about threatening a lawsuit to intimidate was wrong and he defiantly did that.

For Weinstien he hired a private eye group to get dirt on accusers to blackmail them into dropping charges. Probably didn't rise to criminal, but it was 100% completely ethically wrong.

 

[Nueces River Rat 5539]

9 hours ago, XYZ said:

Yeah, if that piece of shit Boies was terrorizing ex-employees, why isn’t he under indictment also?

Or at least up to his nuts in paper so deep from one of these ex employees filing a  civil lawsuit against him.  There has to be at least one attorney out there with the nut sack and ego to go along with it who absolutely hates Boies and would see this as a chance to solidify his/her credentials as a giant killer.  Boies crossed the line, IMO from the typical attorney/client advocate stuff, to being a fricken mob boss like guy with threats and all that stuff.  

 

[Nueces River Rat 5539]

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a great point.  They weren't initially certified or regulated at all under the Laboratory Developed Test "loophole." https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/18/fda-lab-test-loophole/  But, were subject to inspection, leading to the downfall.

So not applicable to testing labs more generically.

That's correct and I forgot about that point that was made in the documentary.     I wonder if that loophole has been closed or if it's still pending?  

[PilotsError 2318]

Also in the doc it made it seem like that Asian girl filed the complaint with the regulatory body and they immediately sprung into action and heroically saved the day.  But in the book, she filed it and nothing happened.  They never saw it.  For a period of months, or a year, until it was brought to their attention, then they went looking for it.

[closetojumping 62791]

17 hours ago, ajax said:

She seems like she has some kind of mild, or maybe not so mild, autism. There's just something off about her. Andshe walks like she just had a stroke too.

No, man. She is a garden variety sociopath who happened to be highly intelligent and well connected. Her motivator was power and control. Reading the book and seeing the docs, there’s just not much there except the packaging. You can give her credit for a personality disorder if you need to do so, but spare the premise that autism made her do what she did. 

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of my favorite quotes comes from Elihu Root, secretary of state and war under Teddy: "half the business of any decent lawyer is telling his client that he's a damned fool and should just stop." 

I forget where I came across it, but it's sage advice that gets ignored all too frequently. Boies is a great lawyer for complex civil cases, but that skill set apparently doesn't translate too well to picking clients in glamor world, as opposed to serious legal work. He sure as hell doesn't need the work or the money. 

I am  sure he kept well on the good side of legal ethics and criminal law.  A lot of mischief can be perpetrated in the name of protecting trade secrets. I would guess that half or more of the trade secrets cases filed are utter bullshit as far as valuable and legitimate trade secrets are concerned, but are filed to harass former employees and terrorize current ones. 

Did you read the book, dude? I realize by default you’ve got to defend the “good lawyer” premise, but Boies was a piece of shit during his run at Theranos and he’s had other incidents highlighting his lack of good character as well. The idea that he was well within the bounds of good ethics is fucking laughable. Fuck that bullshit take. 

[Incredulity 11683]

1 hour ago, PilotsError said:

Also in the doc it made it seem like that Asian girl filed the complaint with the regulatory body and they immediately sprung into action and heroically saved the day.  But in the book, she filed it and nothing happened.  They never saw it.  For a period of months, or a year, until it was brought to their attention, then they went looking for it.

Regulatory orgs are as fucked up, actually probably worse, than the most bureaucratic private organizations.  They twist in the political breeze, and most employees are in such CYA mode.  The HBO doc made a point of the regulatory cover she got from having Schultz, Kissinger, and practically ever politican fawning over her.

I have dealt with one fed regulatory agency who in the last few years restricted hiring to purely a review of resume and references.  Interviews were forbidden, for fear of discrimination accusation. Also there was known practice to unload crap employees on the newest regional managers with glowing references for employees with significant capability issues.  I have had mid-managers brag they fucked over the new guy with employee x and how happy they were to be rid of them.

 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

12 hours ago, blacklab said:

The law part I'm sure he stayed on the good side. 

I'm not going to go look up the Texas bar rules but I'm pretty sure after my run in with Beatrice there was some wording in there about threatening a lawsuit to intimidate was wrong and he defiantly did that.

For Weinstien he hired a private eye group to get dirt on accusers to blackmail them into dropping charges. Probably didn't rise to criminal, but it was 100% completely ethically wrong.

 

Well, remember, legal ethics aren't quite the same as moral ethics.  Lawyers have to be unleashed to "zealously represent" their clients, which often pushes the bounds of decency.  So what would seem to be morally unethical gets a pass in the name of zealous representation, which is thought to represent a greater morality than just being decent to people.

And yes, threatening litigation can be an ethics violation, but if you back it up by actually commencing litigation that isn't facially frivolous (legal definition), then it can't be an ethical violation.  So, threatening Schulz followed by suing him takes that out of the realm of an ethics violation. And that demonstrated tendency basically insulates their other threats, too.

When he said they'd let litigation against him die after spending half a million in fees (Cali, man), my first thought was he should have gone after his attorneys fees.  But I guess he was glad to be out of it.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

10 hours ago, closetojumping said:

No, man. She is a garden variety sociopath who happened to be highly intelligent and well connected. Her motivator was power and control. Reading the book and seeing the docs, there’s just not much there except the packaging. You can give her credit for a personality disorder if you need to do so, but spare the premise that autism made her do what she did. 

Did you read the book, dude? I realize by default you’ve got to defend the “good lawyer” premise, but Boies was a piece of shit during his run at Theranos and he’s had other incidents highlighting his lack of good character as well. The idea that he was well within the bounds of good ethics is fucking laughable. Fuck that bullshit take. 

I said he behaved like a piece of shit repeatedly in this thread, if I didn't say "shit" exactly.  See post 236.

Also, see my previous post.  "Legal ethics," meaning what can get you in trouble with the bar, or a court, or subject to a civil suit, is a different thing from "ethics" more generally.  I never said he was "ethical" without qualification.

Edited March 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[MAUFRAIS 6633]

I choose business ... ethics.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Here's the problem with a trade secret cause of action.  Did Tyler Schulz sign an NDA forbidding him from talking about trade secrets and confidential information? Yes.  Did he have access to some trade secrets and confidential information of Theranos while employed there?  Yes.  Was he speaking to a third-party (WSJ) about internal things at Theranos that might include trade secrets and confidential information?  Yes.

Right there, you have a facially legitimate case for misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of an NDA.  Theranos' improper motives, bullshit trade secrets, Schulz' justification in talking to WSJ and everything else are matters of defense to be raised by Schulz, and for a judge and jury to sort out, just like any other lawsuit.

It's legally ethical to threaten that lawsuit,  and ethical to file that lawsuit.  It may be a fucking loser and the real motivations of Theranos may make it morally reprehensible, but it's a non-frivolous lawsuit and it's therefore legally ethical.  In some cases, lawyers aren't privy to the unsavory motives of their clients, although Boies probably was to some degree or another.  But it's hard to hang up a lawyer ethically for doing what lawyers do, in the normal course of doing what lawyers do.

Some lawyers are going to defer to their clients on doing stuff like this; others are going to heed Root's advice and say "just stop."  And probably get fired.  And never acquire the reputation of a "bulldog."  Boies' greatness comes from his defense of IBM in the antitrust case, his representation of the US against Microsoft, and some other things that only lawyers know about.  He was never a "bulldog" until recently.  He seems to have lost his way.

[Bama Chick 28596]

But Theranos never actually sued Schultz, did they?

They huffed and puffed and threatened but once the Carreyrou published his article, they dropped everything.

And Boise - in the recording heard in the documentary - was threatening the WSJ and Carreyrou with legal action, not Schultz.

And they never sued them either.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

19 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

But Theranos never actually sued Schultz,  did they?

They huffed and puffed and threatened but once the Carreyrou published his article, they dropped everything.

And Boise - in the recording heard in the documentary - was threatening the WSJ and Carreyrou with legal action, not Schultz.

And they never sued them either.

According to Tyler Schulz in the documentary, he spent 400-500k defending himself in a suit they filed and just let die.  I don't think they sued Erika Cheung, just rattled their sword at her, but substitute her name for Schulz' above and it's just as applicable.  An article on Ars Technica indicates that they never filed suit, in which case the ethics of Shultz (misspelled elsewhere) probably need to be questioned.

I don't really give a shit about one big corporation threatening suit against another big corporation, no matter how deranged the threats.  That's happening right this second somewhere in the world.  Big media probably listens to that shit for hours every single day of the year.  Par for the course.

I do get irritated with corporations essentially bringing their money to bear against little people for improper reasons.  But often the improper reasons are apparent only in hindsight.

Edited March 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31533]

*that should say "Shultz' attorneys" rather than Shultz.

[blacklab 11946]

thanks for the explanation twice, that makes sense.

I couldn't live with myself doing that kind of shit, but I guess there are people that can.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

Glad it made some sense.

And, you don't have to file a suit to make threats "ok."  The fact that you could file a legit suit, as outlined above, is good enough.

I have been on the wrong end, representation-wise, of several of these things, motivated mostly by pettiness and vengefulness of management or CEO of the plaintiff/former employer.  Plaintiff's counsel in two of these cases were Susman Godfrey and Fulbright.  I won't impugn either of those firms' ethics over those cases.  I take solace in the fact that they lost (or didn't get what their clients wanted) and were billed 3-5x what my clients were billed, which was still a miserable beating and calculated to drive them out of business.  In both cases, my clients went on to thrive and in one of them, they actually acquired the plaintiff.  Lmao.

I've never been put in the position of doing something really gross by a client and having to refuse to do it.  But, I have been party to threatening and suing over legitimate claims in hopes that some "extra judicial" result obtains (like going out of business, or being unable to get a contract or something like that relating to possibly crippling the business, at least in the "offending" category).

Edited March 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Parliament 14287]

Bois was paid with company stock. Is that common?

[TwiceHorn 31533]

1 minute ago, Parliament said:

Bois was paid with company stock. Is that common?

I'm not sure he/his firm were paid entirely in company stock.  His firm might have an objection to that.  It was common as hell in the dot com era and made a few firms a shitpile of money if/when the company went public.

[Not a cat 5693]

2 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Bois was paid with company stock. Is that common?

In silicon valley it's not uncommon, especially with startups.  Twenty years ago I think several large firms like Cooley and Wilson Sonsini did it a good bit and made a shitload of money before the bubble burst.

[Pato del Muerto 52572]

Doesn’t the whistleblower act indemnify employees from NDAs?

[Buzzrock 14937]

The documentary was pretty good but damn, they could have scaled back on the constant creepy close ups.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9350]

8 hours ago, Parliament said:

Bois was paid with company stock. Is that common?

I'm curious how theranos paid their employees in general. Does the book explain how they were making payroll? Were the employees accepting lower salaries in exchange for stock options? I get that they raised close to a half billion from investors, but at one point they had over 800 employees & seemed to be burning through cash due to following the Silicon Valley playbook (build fancy new building, host extravagant parties, hire celebrity marketing pros, private jets all over the world, etc).  Throw in the very expensive lab & manufacturing equipment in the R&D wing of the facility & I'm trying to figure out how their books balanced. What did they ever sell other than some blood tests and gift cards at select Walgreens in Arizona?

[XYZ 2154]

9 hours ago, Parliament said:

Bois was paid with company stock. Is that common?

No, preferred.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

9 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Doesn’t the whistleblower act indemnify employees from NDAs?

There could be any number of state laws in place that might protect whistleblowers in private employment. But the main "Whistleblower Protection Act" is federal and applies only to federal employees.  NDAs are rare in government service.

California appears to have one that might relieve a former employee of liability for breach of an NDA.

 

[Parliament 14287]

1 hour ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

I'm curious how theranos paid their employees in general. Does the book explain how they were making payroll? Were the employees accepting lower salaries in exchange for stock options? I get that they raised close to a half billion from investors, but at one point they had over 800 employees & seemed to be burning through cash due to following the Silicon Valley playbook (build fancy new building, host extravagant parties, hire celebrity marketing pros, private jets all over the world, etc).  Throw in the very expensive lab & manufacturing equipment in the R&D wing of the facility & I'm trying to figure out how their books balanced. What did they ever sell other than some blood tests and gift cards at select Walgreens in Arizona?

I assumed it was massive amounts of VC money.  Isn't that how Silicon Valley works?

[Nueces River Rat 5539]

22 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Regulatory orgs are as fucked up, actually probably worse, than the most bureaucratic private organizations.  They twist in the political breeze, and most employees are in such CYA mode.  The HBO doc made a point of the regulatory cover she got from having Schultz, Kissinger, and practically ever politican fawning over her.

I have dealt with one fed regulatory agency who in the last few years restricted hiring to purely a review of resume and references.  Interviews were forbidden, for fear of discrimination accusation. Also there was known practice to unload crap employees on the newest regional managers with glowing references for employees with significant capability issues.  I have had mid-managers brag they fucked over the new guy with employee x and how happy they were to be rid of them.

 

I dealt with Fed regulatory agencies in my role in my former company, mainly in the health care area with it being CMS and their private contractors.    It's a dysfunctional pile of poop for a lack of a better word and been like that for decades.  DHS and Congress will  give these private contractors broad instructions and then they will implement non sense that anyone with an ounce of common sense will be driven insane. You then approach your local Congress person with your complaints and concerns and show them 99% evidence what they implied in the law is being manipulated or misunderstood  by DHS, CMS and their contractors and they show outrage, but then do absolutely nothing to fix it.   Or if they do pass a fix, the reg agencies and/or contractors drag their feet or implement some other BS.  

They look like they are saving taxpayers  money and putting bad guys in jail and love to grab those headlines.  Funny thing is often their tactics end up costing more money than saved and do absolutely nothing substantial to curb fraud and abuse. But as long as it looks good and the  REAL concrete results of their efforts come out AFTER they get their contracts extended, then the same ol shit rinses and repeats.    

I'm glad I don't have to deal with that BS anymore.  

[Nueces River Rat 5539]

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There could be any number of state laws in place that might protect whistleblowers in private employment. But the main "Whistleblower Protection Act" is federal and applies only to federal employees.  NDAs are rare in government service.

California appears to have one that might relieve a former employee of liability for breach of an NDA.

 

If a private entity receives any revenue from a Fed Gov source, I do believe Fed Whistleblower status extends to an employee who reports fraud, abuse or other potential violations of the law.   Example a hospital or Doc receiving Medicare payments.  The Feds incentivize fraud and abuse reporting in the health care area by offering the employee reporting it  a portion of the recovered monies if the fraudster(s) are convicted. 

[HenryJames 66164]

2 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

The documentary was pretty good but damn, they could have scaled back on the constant creepy close ups.

[TwiceHorn 31533]

5 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:

If a private entity receives any revenue from a Fed Gov source, I do believe Fed Whistleblower status extends to an employee who reports fraud, abuse or other potential violations of the law.   Example a hospital or Doc receiving Medicare payments.  The Feds incentivize fraud and abuse reporting in the health care area by offering the employee reporting it  a portion of the recovered monies if the fraudster(s) are convicted. 

We may need to distinguish eligibility for a portion of damages recovered by the government in a "qui tam" action from protections extended by various whistleblower acts.  The False Claims Act provides for 15-30% of the recovery when false claims made to the federal government are reported by a whistle blower.

The federal acts, by and large only impose requirements and offer protection for federal employees.

And most state laws (and now federal/rolling my eyes) protecting trade secrets would disqualify information concerning fraud or criminal activity from being trade secrets. 

The problem with the whole trade secrets thing is that they are, by their nature, somewhat vague.  The plaintiff doesn't know exactly what the defendant "stole," the defendant may not know exactly what the plaintiff claims is a trade secret, and so on and so forth.  The plaintiff can't be forced to immediately reveal what trade secrets it has, etc. etc.

[Neonmoon 38130]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's the problem with a trade secret cause of action.  Did Tyler Schulz sign an NDA forbidding him from talking about trade secrets and confidential information? Yes.  Did he have access to some trade secrets and confidential information of Theranos while employed there?  Yes.  Was he speaking to a third-party (WSJ) about internal things at Theranos that might include trade secrets and confidential information?  Yes.

Right there, you have a facially legitimate case for misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of an NDA.  Theranos' improper motives, bullshit trade secrets, Schulz' justification in talking to WSJ and everything else are matters of defense to be raised by Schulz, and for a judge and jury to sort out, just like any other lawsuit.

It's legally ethical to threaten that lawsuit,  and ethical to file that lawsuit.  It may be a fucking loser and the real motivations of Theranos may make it morally reprehensible, but it's a non-frivolous lawsuit and it's therefore legally ethical.  In some cases, lawyers aren't privy to the unsavory motives of their clients, although Boies probably was to some degree or another.  But it's hard to hang up a lawyer ethically for doing what lawyers do, in the normal course of doing what lawyers do.

Some lawyers are going to defer to their clients on doing stuff like this; others are going to heed Root's advice and say "just stop."  And probably get fired.  And never acquire the reputation of a "bulldog."  Boies' greatness comes from his defense of IBM in the antitrust case, his representation of the US against Microsoft, and some other things that only lawyers know about.  He was never a "bulldog" until recently.  He seems to have lost his way.

Agree with all this. He was defending the NDA. 

Curious, do you think his actions to the whistleblower employee were legit? She stated someone was waiting for her when she left work, to threaten her with litigation if she talked. She hadn’t even thought about being a whistleblower yet. She just resigned. I guess there is some kind of grey area legally, and you can chalk it up to an aggressive laweyer protecting possible NDA breaches, but seems a little over the top. I don’t know. 

[Buzzrock 14937]

33 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

[closetojumping 62791]

12 hours ago, blacklab said:

thanks for the explanation twice, that makes sense.

I couldn't live with myself doing that kind of shit, but I guess there are people that can.

It was a great explanation of a false premise in this situation, given that the numerous fucking people Boies went after weren’t actually being sued, outside of Richard Fruiesz (sic) and family. So Twice went to great lengths to defend the legal ethics of a guy violating legal ethics. Because , I guess, TwiceHorn is the only person that understands the law here, and he needs to make damned sure we don’t doubt the greater good of lawyers when they’re doing their lawyering. 

I’m dealing with like 5 lawyers daily right now on a case akin to Theranos albeit much smaller and listening to these dithering, equivocating, over-educated, under-businesss savvy rubes is just fucking exhausting. Seeing it, predictably, on this thread is the cherry, I guess. The reality is that there is no justification for Holmes getting as far as she did and her lawyers were just a huge part of enabling her pure fraud. The only reason Boies isn’t facing jail time is that he’s an old man who isn’t worth the effort. He absolutely broke the law in order to help Elizabeth Holmes break the law, and I hope they both burn in hell for it. 

[TwiceHorn 31533]

27 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

It was a great explanation of a false premise in this situation, given that the numerous fucking people Boies went after weren’t actually being sued, outside of Richard Fruiesz (sic) and family. So Twice went to great lengths to defend the legal ethics of a guy violating legal ethics. Because , I guess, TwiceHorn is the only person that understands the law here, and he needs to make damned sure we don’t doubt the greater good of lawyers when they’re doing their lawyering. 

I’m dealing with like 5 lawyers daily right now on a case akin to Theranos albeit much smaller and listening to these dithering, equivocating, over-educated, under-businesss savvy rubes is just fucking exhausting. Seeing it, predictably, on this thread is the cherry, I guess. The reality is that there is no justification for Holmes getting as far as she did and her lawyers were just a huge part of enabling her pure fraud. The only reason Boies isn’t facing jail time is that he’s an old man who isn’t worth the effort. He absolutely broke the law in order to help Elizabeth Holmes break the law, and I hope they both burn in hell for it. 

Tell us, wise one, exactly what law he broke?

The line between defense and explanation is fine.  I have condemned Boies' behavior from the outset on this thread.  I will als0 contend that it was most likely entirely legal and within the bounds of legal ethics.  "Zealous advocacy" is a concept that gets abused often.  But it's also a necessary component of legal representation.

https://www.ndtexblog.com/?p=68

I get that lawyers interfere with your glorious business objectives.  But they probably advance them on occasion, too.  A person whose ox is getting gored might have an unduly jaundiced view of legal ethics.  The person doing the goring might have a different view.

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[closetojumping 62791]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Tell us, wise one, exactly what law he broke?

The line between defense and explanation is fine.  I have condemned Boies behavior from the outset on this thread.  I will contend that it was most likely entirely legal and within the bounds of legal ethics.  "Zealous advocacy" is a concept that gets abused often.  But it's also a necessary component of legal representation.

https://www.ndtexblog.com/?p=68

 

So you still haven’t read the book, then. I understand the concept you’re belaboring, but maybe if you pontificate on it for another 10-15 posts we’ll all really, really understand it. 

Harrassment and blackmail are legal issues, last I checked. The guy was actively harassing and threatening people he never had any intention of pursuing legally. He worked to force people to turn over information he had no proof they had or he’d ensure they were going to jail and or broke defending themselves. It’s not “rigorous defense”, you willfully obtuse contrarian, it’s breaking the law. 

When you post next that if I’m making these claims, I therefore need to prove them, let me help you out. I don’t. This isn’t court. Read the material. If you can then draw a distinction between breaking the law and what Boies was doing, the good news is that the rest of us don’t need to hear the equivocation, and the bad news is that you’re probably riding shotgun with Boies as you both eventually plummet to Tartarus while telling each other you were perfectly justified in doing all the things you were doing. 

[closetojumping 62791]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

I get that lawyers interfere with your glorious business objectives.  But they probably advance them on occasion, too.  A person whose ox is getting gored might have an unduly jaundiced view of legal ethics.  The person doing the goring might have a different view.

 

Yeah, I never said lawyers weren’t helpful. I also made no claims about the value of my business endeavors. It’s a trashy legal and rhetorical tactic to steer the points you wish to argue away from the original topic when the original purpose doesn’t suit your interests any longer.

Some of us chose to be lawyers, some of us labor underneath the lawyer’s needs to address risk or listen to their bullshit, and some of us just want the lawyers to do their fucking jobs every now and then and shut the fuck up otherwise while the grown men and women get things done. I’m sorry I touched a nerve by failing to understand and acknowledge how everything only happens once the fucking lawyers confirm to us that ink is dry on the paper. 

[DigDug 1672]

On 3/21/2019 at 6:47 PM, Deej said:

Reminds me of the crazy Kitchen Nightmares bitch.

Exactly who I thought of

[TwiceHorn 31533]

34 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

So you still haven’t read the book, then. I understand the concept you’re belaboring, but maybe if you pontificate on it for another 10-15 posts we’ll all really, really understand it. 

Harrassment and blackmail are legal issues, last I checked. The guy was actively harassing and threatening people he never had any intention of pursuing legally. He worked to force people to turn over information he had no proof they had or he’d ensure they were going to jail and or broke defending themselves. It’s not “rigorous defense”, you willfully obtuse contrarian, it’s breaking the law. 

When you post next that if I’m making these claims, I therefore need to prove them, let me help you out. I don’t. This isn’t court. Read the material. If you can then draw a distinction between breaking the law and what Boies was doing, the good news is that the rest of us don’t need to hear the equivocation, and the bad news is that you’re probably riding shotgun with Boies as you both eventually plummet to Tartarus while telling each other you were perfectly justified in doing all the things you were doing. 

You can say he should, in some cosmic sense, be in jail and I might actually agree.  But to think that he could actually be prosecuted or disbarred for what he did reveals ignorance.

It's not practical to make a lawyer liable for the subjective state of mind of their client.  If the client has a plausible cause of action, the lawyer is free, under law and legal ethics, to pursue it.  That's not to say the lawyer should, but there won't be legal ramifications in most cases if s/he does.

That's like saying a lawyer should only take and file winning cases.

It's pretty clear to me from the audio clips of Boies arguing with Carreyrou or the WSJ lawyers, that he believed in his client's position. He shouldn't have, but he did and in any event isn't required to do a deep dive on his client's subjective state of mind as long as they have a plausible claim.

And yes I did read the book.  I've been following this closely for a long time.