SBF Is Cooked — By His Own Cross Ex; While He & Theranos Get Roasted On Simpsons, As Well…

Sure — it’s a lil’ stale by now. But when the would-be Theranos logo on the ball park is tossed into the abyss… of never-was — and FTX appears, along with MoviePass, Quibi as other misfit toys — I couldn’t stifle my laughter.

The bit about her up and marrying Burns was classic, as well.

See it if you’d like — and I suspect we are reaching the end of the 15 minutes for her… and SBF, in truth. He’ll see the same outcome in about a week or so.

Here’s a bit of a nice review of the episode in SFGate though — do go read it all:

…While the focus on Holmes might seem a bit dated considering her trial ended last year and the tech industry is currently dealing with a surge in layoffs, there are a few strikingly timely scenes.

When “Lifeboat” [the faux-Theranos logo] is removed from a sports stadium, a logo for the bankrupt crypto company “FTX” is shown underneath, then iconography for similarly failed startups “Moviepass” and “Quibi.”

Elon Musk gets a harsher treatment than in his early “Simpsons” appearances: Burns buys Twitter for Persephone [a/k/a Holmes] as a gift, and at a bargain price after the billionaire’s “self-driving Mars rocket crashed into the International Space Station….”

Hilarious. Yes — SBF has fallen right onto his own sword (testifying disastrously, under able cross-examination, yesterday and today), and yes, the wound is… fatal.

Onward — enjoying a snowy, spooky Halloween ’23 now — kids a go go, at the door!

Mr. Balwani Says A Typo In A Statutory Reference In His Conviction Means He Only Owes $25 Per Quarter. Poppycock.

At the moment, Mr. Balwani owes a judgment of more than $450 million, unpaid — and on appeal (to be fair). But since he hasn’t posted a bond for it, the government is well within its statutory rights to move to start collecting on it, anywhere it might find non-exempt assets or income of Mr. Balwani. That it has done.

Balwani claims that while incarcerated, a $25 per calendar quarter statutory floor… is a ceiling. Silly. Just ask Martin Shkreli (similar fact pattern). He saw $7 million seized while he was incarcerated. More, after release.

In any event, the government found Balwani’s Fidelity account — but a typo in the judgment transposes a pair of 4s for the required “64” reference in the last digits of the cited forfeiture statute. No court has ever let a felony defendant off the hook solely because one section of one of the citied statutes contains a numerical typo — the other 15 pages or so are clear that forfeiture is authorized. And he plainly has the means.

Here is the AUSA on the latest reply to Balwani’s specious arguments. Yes, Sunny will lose:

…The Amended Judgment tracks the Amended PSR in all other material respects with respect to restitution, so it is obvious that Amended Judgment’s reference to “3644(m)” is merely a typographical error. Second, this Court has issued other orders and judgments that, like the Amended PSR, contain the language “Notwithstanding any payment schedule set by the court, the United States Attorney’s Office may pursue collection through all available means in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3613 and 3664(m)” (emphasis added). See, e.g., United States v. Hoang, Stipulation and Order Re: Restitution, Aug. 30, 2023, Case No. 5:22-CR-00149 EJD, Dkt. No. 60 at ¶ 6; United States v. Faizi, Judgment in a Criminal Case, Aug. 2, 2022, Case No. 5:18-CR-00455-EJD, Dkt. No. 65 at 6. This is standard language in criminal judgments in this district.

Scrivener’s errors like the one in the Amended Judgment are clearly “clerical errors” that a court may correct anytime under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. See, e.g., United States v. Jacques, 6 F.4th 337, 341 (2d Cir. 2021) (“Clerical errors include such mistakes as listing the wrong statutory citation”); United States v. Banol–Ramos, 516 F. App’x 43, 48 (2d Cir.2013) (instructing district court on remand to correct judgments pursuant to Rule 36 to identify the violated section of Title 18 U.S.C. as “2339B” rather than “2239B”); United States v. Pugh, 790 F. App’x 197, 198 (11th Cir. 2020 (deeming it a “clerical error” when a “district court judgment stated the incorrect statute of conviction”)….

We await any finding of assets — in Ms. Holmes’ own name — and similar motions. But it may turn out that (cleverly) she… has long ago moved all her assets/income to her parents.

And it is clear now that Mr. Evans funds her lifestyle [primarily phone minutes and commissary at the moment] out of his own pocket — which is exempt, as to Ms. Holmes’ liabilities.

Now you know — and my Buffs have a buy week to recoup. Thank goodness for that. More PAC-12 action in a week. Grin.