Monday: Shkreli Jury Deliberations — Day One


We have an “office pool” (as of the weekend comment boxing) underway, here:

The “Maverick” R West has bet “mistrial“.

Billy the Kid has bet guilty on all counts except one — (MSMB Healthcare) by Tuesday, at lunch.

I’m at “guilty on all” — by end of day, Tuesday.

PathoPhilia had chimed in already. Guilty on all counts. She “guessed a 2-4-day deliberation. To split the difference, I’ll say mid-day Wednesday….”

You need not make a prediction as to when — but please do make a guess as to… whether.

Adam Feuerstein, a MSM life sciences writer — has a quick poll up, as of Friday on his Twitter feed — and with over 3,000 votes in so far — it is running about 70-30 in favor of conviction (on at least one count).

Anyone else care to jump in here and make their bet? Just add it here, in comments. And feel free to add any other Shkreli related fare, there — as well.

I may design a tee shirt for the winner — and have it made at one hour, and sent to the winner — or to his/her designated charity.

Better yet: the winner can design the tee — and we ship it UPS to Mr. Shkreli’s Murray Hill digs.

Since one hour tees charges almost nothing for two more — we could get one for the AUSA, and for Mr. Brafman — each UPS to their respective offices.

Okay — who else is in on this friendly wager/pool arrangement?



51 thoughts on “Monday: Shkreli Jury Deliberations — Day One

  1. R West says:

    I’ve been called for jury duty twice … once in federal court and once in state. Didn’t get selected for a panel, but even voir dire was fun and a good experience. You kind of bind with your fellow jurors and I kind of missed it when it was over. If the jurors have the same experience – which they probably will – they are going to take awhile deliberating.

    Liked by 1 person

    • FTD says:

      SMH These people are sick, most of them have no idea what digital harassment is.But that right there is a classic text book case. Especially saying that directly to her. I don’t have any sympathy for that. He could’ve just said it on his timeline and not included her twitter link.

      We are getting close to the line where people are should serve community service for abused women & understand the repercussions of that type of language to women on the internet.

      Marty is part of the abusive system, he was banned for Cupid & Plenty of Fish for doing that shit.

      Community Service isnt going to hurt the offenders, maybe it won’t have a result at all to help the offender. But if you violate someone in a direct way like that, I don’t think you should be left off the hook. I think 6 months for an offense of contact someone willfully meant to cause a stressful reaction toward their personal life

      This crap needs to stop. It isn’t a joke, this is the starting point of something more ugly happening. That’s why I say you need stricter rules on social media for this.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. R West says:

    One can learn a lot from Twitter … if your post is more than a couple of lines, no one is going to take the time to read it! Similarly, if I were the prosecution, I would worry … they made everything so long and complicated, jury might say “forget it … you’re wasting our time!” Brafman seems like a cogent kind of guy … that’s got to give him a little edge with a jury!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. aldt440 says:

    I think you’re responding to my other post Condor, I’ll respond here.

    I never said that there was no harm to anyone in this case. I never attempted to advance an argument that questioned the facts in the case either.

    Yes, he probably broke the law and recklessly violated rules designed to preserve market integrity in the process; I think we can all agree on this. He also made a noble attempt to fix most of his mistakes and right the people he defrauded in a way that isn’t exactly immoral. Some of his behavior is also worthy of merit: RE-024.

    I have a problem with the application of the rule of law to this case. To be more precise, I have issues with prosecutorial discretion in this case and what appears to be selective enforcement of policy. The status quo mobilizing almost all of their assets to go after Martin bothers me when there are several other more important things to do. I also have a problem with the folks that benefited from the crimes getting to keep the proceeds. (not sure how disgorgement is going to work out in this case)

    The purpose of law is to improve public welfare, and there are very clear objectives defined in federal securities laws he is accused of violating. This is what I’ve gleaned from the internet:

    “The fundamental purpose of both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act is to substitute a philosophy of full disclosure for the philosophy of caveat emptor and thus to achieve a high standard of business ethics in the securities industry. Thus, both Acts seek to provide investors accurate material information about a security to permit investors to assess a company’s risk exposure, properly value a security and factor in an appropriate rate of return for the risks of the investment. Inaccurate or misleading information precludes such an assessment and potentially violates both Acts.”

    The distinction between unlawful conduct that is subject to private action or civil enforcement by the SEC and unlawful conduct that constitutes a crime largely depends on whether the perpetrator acted willfully.

    On it’s face, this is very sound public policy and the Securites Act worked great for a number of years. Honestly, I can’t even read the above paragraph without laughing now because black letter law is so different from what is actually practiced. My current perspective is that the Securities Act has morphed into a fascist tool. There have been so many grave and unnoticed financial crimes recently that I can’t see things any other way. Anyone that has seriously studied the social precedent set in Starr International Co., Inc. v. United States, No. 15-5103 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2017) will see this case as a complete joke. This case also reminds me of the options backdating scandals of the 2000’s – scandals much larger than Shkreli’s, and I can’t remember anyone that went to prison. Just take a look at some of these links:

    The entire purpose of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is predicated on a greater need to protect citizens form government abuses than to convict all criminals. The government has a very high burden of proof for a reason; it’s because the founding fathers saw governmental abuse as a much bigger and dangerous social problem than rogue criminal elements.

    Selective enforcement and a culture of crime that only benefits a few is not sound social policy. I find this case and the government’s argument of maintaining market integrity extremely repugnant. Therefore, I support jury nullification in protest.

    Liked by 1 person

    • condor says:

      Sorry altd440 — we disagree. I believe advocating for jury nullification is the same as advocating for lawlessness. We will therefore agree to disagree — and sharply so. Every lynching of every innocent black, Jew or Irish in the south (and north) absolutely counted on jury nullification — that’s why no one was ever even charged with the deaths of the innocent.

      We disagree sharply there.

      You used the term “no ultimate harm”. It doesn’t apply here. Full stop. Finally I think federal prosecutors choose their targets… with care, and wisely so. That is all I have to say, on that subject.



      • aldt440 says:

        There are plenty of dark chapters in history’s lessons. Fortunately, slavery and lynchings are far behind us.

        We are already in a state of lawlessness. Privatizing profits, socializing losses, and destroying the middle class is the mantra. Large corporations and captured regulatory agencies are ripping us off every chance they get and destroying all opposition. I’m entrenched in the ultimate struggle of how the costs of the eminent deleveraging will be allocated between the poor, workers, the middle class, and the 1%. Jury nullification is one of the few tools left in the fight against tyranny. It’s also a great weapon to prevent minorities from being imprisoned for minor crimes.

        I could post endless articles to support my lawlessness claim, here are just a few:

        Do you think it’s fair to put away some punk for 20 years that got caught with a few thousand dollars worth a crack while this is going on?

        Do you think this is a sound business decision?
        Jury nullification is one of the few tools left against wrongful imprisonment and government tyranny.

        Amazon is going nuts with P/E multiples and destroying basically everything in its path. Do you think the DOJ is going to bother with an antitrust suit? My guess is no.

        These people are just disgusting..

        Here’s a movie about organic farming and how the USDA / FDA will shut you down if you try and grow your own food:

        The ACA crossed the line with it’s unconstitutional purchase mandate and good ol’ Obama’s “If you like your plan you can keep your plan” BS.

        I respect that you disagree with me and we’ll leave it at that.

        I’m not sure what you’re going to do with this blog once it’s over. If I haven’t said it already, thanks for putting in the time and managing this for all of us. I know PACER charges a lot to access filings, so thanks for that too.

        Liked by 1 person

      • condor says:

        No worries! I have lots of mothballed projects like this one… and disagreements are a healthy part of a free and just society. Onward, to Marty’s incarceration!

        [And at 9 AM, I saw… thee, oh copper goddess. Smile]



    • aldt440 says:

      What on earth are you talking about? Do you have any other adjectives in your vocabulary besides douche?

      What if his conviction is the beginning of a trend of similar prosecutions where no ultimate harm exists? Where do you draw the line? So government should have absolutely no restrictions on their employment of prosecutorial discretion?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. billythekid9919 says:

    Martin Shkreli touts his stock picks on eve of jury deliberations in his fraud trial

    When has following Marty’s advice on shorting health stocks ever been a bad idea? Oh yea…

    “He used Sunday night’s session to tout his success in placing short bets against several health care stocks and criticize disappointing second-quarter earnings reported by social media company Twitter — which has banned him over alleged harassment of a freelance journalist and other reported transgressions.
    “Twitter had a pretty terrible quarter,” said Shkreli. “Happy to see that, as a sort seller and as a jilted user.”
    Even as he touted the financial performance of his stock portfolio, Shkreli cautioned watching fans that the steady upward trend almost certainly wouldn’t last.”


  5. billythekid9919 says:

    Keeping score of Marty’s interactions with the media during trial:
    1- wandering into the overflow room
    2- buying female journalist names URL
    1- threatening to force himself on a female journalist if acquitted
    1- female “journalist”/author visited his lair
    2- posting his relationship status as dating a female journalist complete with picture
    Let me know if I missed anything…

    Liked by 1 person

  6. bmartinmd says:

    I think I chimed in already. Guilty on all counts. I guessed a 2-4-day deliberation. To split the difference, I’ll say mid-day Wednesday. What do we win?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.