Sam Bankman-Fried has just filed a pro se motion for a new trial, via his mother
-
Sam Bankman-Fried has just filed a pro se motion for a new trial, via his mother
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/583/united-states-v-bankman-fried/
@molly0xfff is this going to be as amazing as it sounds or is the court just going to say “no”
-
Sam Bankman-Fried has just filed a pro se motion for a new trial, via his mother
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/583/united-states-v-bankman-fried/
Stanford Law School @ Gmail.. Like lifting the hood to a mustang and seeing a 4 cylinder.
-
Sam Bankman-Fried has just filed a pro se motion for a new trial, via his mother
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/583/united-states-v-bankman-fried/
@molly0xfff Reading the Chapsky declaration, what is the '"special features" that were added to the Alameda "info@" account on FTX'? Google is being useless and I'm imagining some sort of backchannel email-based bot.
-
Sam Bankman-Fried has just filed a pro se motion for a new trial, via his mother
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/583/united-states-v-bankman-fried/
@molly0xfff
his mother is a law professor at Stanfordhis mother
is a law professor
at... god why is this timeline so fucking ridiculous
-
Sam Bankman-Fried has just filed a pro se motion for a new trial, via his mother
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66631292/583/united-states-v-bankman-fried/
His motion mainly argues that two former FTX employees who didn't testify (Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame) would have undercut prosecutors' narrative, but were threatened out of testifying. He also claims Nishad Singh was coerced by prosecutors into changing his testimony.
It also repeats his longstanding argument that the funds were never missing and that FTX was never insolvent. (Judge Kaplan got a bit sick of this argument during trial, pointing out that repayment doesn't negate fraud).
-
His motion mainly argues that two former FTX employees who didn't testify (Daniel Chapsky and Ryan Salame) would have undercut prosecutors' narrative, but were threatened out of testifying. He also claims Nishad Singh was coerced by prosecutors into changing his testimony.
It also repeats his longstanding argument that the funds were never missing and that FTX was never insolvent. (Judge Kaplan got a bit sick of this argument during trial, pointing out that repayment doesn't negate fraud).
And finally he demands Judge Kaplan recuse himself, arguing he showed "extreme prejudice". Both that argument and his "no actual loss" theory are already being litigated in his pending appeal before the Second Circuit, which I wrote about here: https://www.citationneeded.news/issue-96/#sbf
-
@molly0xfff Reading the Chapsky declaration, what is the '"special features" that were added to the Alameda "info@" account on FTX'? Google is being useless and I'm imagining some sort of backchannel email-based bot.
@ryan he's referring to the `allow_negative` flag: https://www.citationneeded.news/the-fraud-was-in-the-code/
-
@molly0xfff
his mother is a law professor at Stanfordhis mother
is a law professor
at... god why is this timeline so fucking ridiculous
@joshg was*
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
@molly0xfff That's a good sign. Means that he can't afford to buy a pardon.
@molly0xfff @riley
Maybe he just tries to lower the price -
And finally he demands Judge Kaplan recuse himself, arguing he showed "extreme prejudice". Both that argument and his "no actual loss" theory are already being litigated in his pending appeal before the Second Circuit, which I wrote about here: https://www.citationneeded.news/issue-96/#sbf
Pardon seeking. Sigh.
