Prosecution to use Caroline Ellison notes as evidence against SBF

[2stout]

The two-party system monopoly in the US isn't explicitly enshrined in law but perhaps implicitly.  What is seen is the result of unlimited money in political elections, giving the oligarch class outsized rule and influence.  They are the true winners in the 2 party systems; the people not so much.

If you interpret the law literally, you're right.
In Russian legal studies, the law isn't just interpreted as words on paper. There's also the culture and traditions of each region, so the law seems to be one, but it's interpreted differently in each region across a large country.
The regime in the United States is called electoral democracy, and this regime has become entrenched because it is effective.

Yeah, there's also something here called the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law, which ties into what you mention.  The regime in the US may be called an "electoral democracy", but that's becoming more and more in name only.  That's because leaders are more and more picking their voters and less and less that voters are picking their leaders, esp taking into account ever increasing gerrymandering.

One could use a lot of fancy terms, but to put it briefly: it is the power of money. Whoever has the most money hires the necessary number of activists to champion their sponsors' interests. Meanwhile, any laws regarding fair elections remain under the control of lobbyists from the two parties.

It's more than just money as planning, organization, and implementation/execution is what make said money efficient and effective, thus powerful.  It's why there are enough examples of where you can see less money beat bigger money.

 

[zasad@]

The two-party system monopoly in the US isn't explicitly enshrined in law but perhaps implicitly.  What is seen is the result of unlimited money in political elections, giving the oligarch class outsized rule and influence.  They are the true winners in the 2 party systems; the people not so much.

If you interpret the law literally, you're right.
In Russian legal studies, the law isn't just interpreted as words on paper. There's also the culture and traditions of each region, so the law seems to be one, but it's interpreted differently in each region across a large country.
The regime in the United States is called electoral democracy, and this regime has become entrenched because it is effective.

Yeah, there's also something here called the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law, which ties into what you mention.  The regime in the US may be called an "electoral democracy", but that's becoming more and more in name only.  That's because leaders are more and more picking their voters and less and less that voters are picking their leaders, esp taking into account ever increasing gerrymandering.

One could use a lot of fancy terms, but to put it briefly: it is the power of money. Whoever has the most money hires the necessary number of activists to champion their sponsors' interests. Meanwhile, any laws regarding fair elections remain under the control of lobbyists from the two parties.

It's more than just money as planning, organization, and implementation/execution is what make said money efficient and effective, thus powerful.  It's why there are enough examples of where you can see less money beat bigger money.

I would call this a social contract, when the ruling elites maintain their status and the people are satisfied with the policies taking place in the country. When the social sphere is functioning well, business is developing, and government institutions are functioning well, the people don't pay attention to politics. But when this social contract is violated and public discontent grows, money won't help.

[2stout]

The two-party system monopoly in the US isn't explicitly enshrined in law but perhaps implicitly.  What is seen is the result of unlimited money in political elections, giving the oligarch class outsized rule and influence.  They are the true winners in the 2 party systems; the people not so much.

If you interpret the law literally, you're right.
In Russian legal studies, the law isn't just interpreted as words on paper. There's also the culture and traditions of each region, so the law seems to be one, but it's interpreted differently in each region across a large country.
The regime in the United States is called electoral democracy, and this regime has become entrenched because it is effective.

Yeah, there's also something here called the Letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law, which ties into what you mention.  The regime in the US may be called an "electoral democracy", but that's becoming more and more in name only.  That's because leaders are more and more picking their voters and less and less that voters are picking their leaders, esp taking into account ever increasing gerrymandering.

One could use a lot of fancy terms, but to put it briefly: it is the power of money. Whoever has the most money hires the necessary number of activists to champion their sponsors' interests. Meanwhile, any laws regarding fair elections remain under the control of lobbyists from the two parties.

It's more than just money as planning, organization, and implementation/execution is what make said money efficient and effective, thus powerful.  It's why there are enough examples of where you can see less money beat bigger money.

I would call this a social contract, when the ruling elites maintain their status and the people are satisfied with the policies taking place in the country. When the social sphere is functioning well, business is developing, and government institutions are functioning well, the people don't pay attention to politics. But when this social contract is violated and public discontent grows, money won't help.

It's more like being strong armed as opposed to a social contract, because the people are not satisfied and politicians have chosen their voters with the gerrymander.  The race with the most choice is Senator as there are no districts or electoral college, but money still does talk as in flooding the airwave with misinformation and lies.

[zasad@]

It's more like being strong armed as opposed to a social contract, because the people are not satisfied and politicians have chosen their voters with the gerrymander.  The race with the most choice is Senator as there are no districts or electoral college, but money still does talk as in flooding the airwave with misinformation and lies.

People are often dissatisfied, but if they are dissatisfied, no one is stopping them from organizing their own party or running for other political office in their state. In the US, state laws sometimes vary greatly.
If the government starts initiating criminal and administrative cases against undesirable politicians and activists and jailing the most prominent representatives, then in my opinion, this could be coercion, but so far we haven't seen that.

[2stout]

It's more like being strong armed as opposed to a social contract, because the people are not satisfied and politicians have chosen their voters with the gerrymander.  The race with the most choice is Senator as there are no districts or electoral college, but money still does talk as in flooding the airwave with misinformation and lies.

People are often dissatisfied, but if they are dissatisfied, no one is stopping them from organizing their own party or running for other political office in their state. In the US, state laws sometimes vary greatly.
If the government starts initiating criminal and administrative cases against undesirable politicians and activists and jailing the most prominent representatives, then in my opinion, this could be coercion, but so far we haven't seen that.

Actually, there have been plenty instances of this already with the current administration- see James Comey, Ras Baraka, Letitia James, etc:  "If the government starts initiating criminal and administrative cases against undesirable politicians and activists and jailing the most prominent representatives, then in my opinion, this could be coercion, but so far we haven't seen that."

"People are often dissatisfied, but if they are dissatisfied, no one is stopping them from organizing their own party or running for other political office in their state. In the US, state laws sometimes vary greatly."  People have run for office due to dissatisfaction with the status quo and yes, even though small and usually doesn't make the news, a lot of states have upwards of 3 parties but the big 2 still dominate.

[zasad@]

It's more like being strong armed as opposed to a social contract, because the people are not satisfied and politicians have chosen their voters with the gerrymander.  The race with the most choice is Senator as there are no districts or electoral college, but money still does talk as in flooding the airwave with misinformation and lies.

People are often dissatisfied, but if they are dissatisfied, no one is stopping them from organizing their own party or running for other political office in their state. In the US, state laws sometimes vary greatly.
If the government starts initiating criminal and administrative cases against undesirable politicians and activists and jailing the most prominent representatives, then in my opinion, this could be coercion, but so far we haven't seen that.

Actually, there have been plenty instances of this already with the current administration- see James Comey, Ras Baraka, Letitia James, etc:  "If the government starts initiating criminal and administrative cases against undesirable politicians and activists and jailing the most prominent representatives, then in my opinion, this could be coercion, but so far we haven't seen that."

"People are often dissatisfied, but if they are dissatisfied, no one is stopping them from organizing their own party or running for other political office in their state. In the US, state laws sometimes vary greatly."  People have run for office due to dissatisfaction with the status quo and yes, even though small and usually doesn't make the news, a lot of states have upwards of 3 parties but the big 2 still dominate.

If you take the law literally, it's difficult to change this system. But if you think of the law more broadly, encompassing the entirety of those who enforce it, then you, as citizens who enforce it, can change it.
A simple example from Russia: the law prohibits street vending, but no one complies. The police tell citizens there will be an inspection tomorrow and ask them not to trade. The inspection comes, they report that the law is being observed, and the next day everything is back to normal. The police accept that it's better for people to earn money through minor administrative violations than to engage in criminal activity.
Simple parties may have no chance of winning, but they are not obligated to comply with stupid laws.

[2stout]

It's more like being strong armed as opposed to a social contract, because the people are not satisfied and politicians have chosen their voters with the gerrymander.  The race with the most choice is Senator as there are no districts or electoral college, but money still does talk as in flooding the airwave with misinformation and lies.

People are often dissatisfied, but if they are dissatisfied, no one is stopping them from organizing their own party or running for other political office in their state. In the US, state laws sometimes vary greatly.
If the government starts initiating criminal and administrative cases against undesirable politicians and activists and jailing the most prominent representatives, then in my opinion, this could be coercion, but so far we haven't seen that.

Actually, there have been plenty instances of this already with the current administration- see James Comey, Ras Baraka, Letitia James, etc:  "If the government starts initiating criminal and administrative cases against undesirable politicians and activists and jailing the most prominent representatives, then in my opinion, this could be coercion, but so far we haven't seen that."

"People are often dissatisfied, but if they are dissatisfied, no one is stopping them from organizing their own party or running for other political office in their state. In the US, state laws sometimes vary greatly."  People have run for office due to dissatisfaction with the status quo and yes, even though small and usually doesn't make the news, a lot of states have upwards of 3 parties but the big 2 still dominate.

If you take the law literally, it's difficult to change this system. But if you think of the law more broadly, encompassing the entirety of those who enforce it, then you, as citizens who enforce it, can change it.
A simple example from Russia: the law prohibits street vending, but no one complies. The police tell citizens there will be an inspection tomorrow and ask them not to trade. The inspection comes, they report that the law is being observed, and the next day everything is back to normal. The police accept that it's better for people to earn money through minor administrative violations than to engage in criminal activity.
Simple parties may have no chance of winning, but they are not obligated to comply with stupid laws.

The 2 party system isn't enshrined in law but because it's been so entrenched for so long, it seems to be de facto law.  The example you mention about the street vendors is what is referred to as the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.

I wouldn't call the parties outside of the major 2 simple.  It's just that it simply take time and lots of $$$ to establish a real foothold and then after that establish a true presence.  

[zasad@]

The 2 party system isn't enshrined in law but because it's been so entrenched for so long, it seems to be de facto law.  The example you mention about the street vendors is what is referred to as the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.

I wouldn't call the parties outside of the major 2 simple.  It's just that it simply take time and lots of $$$ to establish a real foothold and then after that establish a true presence.  

Why waste time and money if you don't have to comply with stupid laws?
Recently, on September 1st, a law came into force in Russia that regulates cryptocurrency exchange and adds many restrictions.
I was at a cryptocurrency exchange. They removed their billboards and signs from the business center and now operate behind closed doors.
"It's an old saying that it's impossible to enforce too many laws."

[2stout]

The 2 party system isn't enshrined in law but because it's been so entrenched for so long, it seems to be de facto law.  The example you mention about the street vendors is what is referred to as the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.

I wouldn't call the parties outside of the major 2 simple.  It's just that it simply take time and lots of $$$ to establish a real foothold and then after that establish a true presence.  

Why waste time and money if you don't have to comply with stupid laws?
Recently, on September 1st, a law came into force in Russia that regulates cryptocurrency exchange and adds many restrictions.
I was at a cryptocurrency exchange. They removed their billboards and signs from the business center and now operate behind closed doors.
"It's an old saying that it's impossible to enforce too many laws."

Depends on what the laws are, are they being enforced, and the potential consequences and legal costs if those laws are enforced.  In your example about the cryptocurrency exchange, it seems that exchange took the strategy of out of sight, out of mind.  And, perhaps the authorities will look the other way.  But, would one risk their funds potentially being frozen and/or confiscated by gambling that enforcement won't happen?

[zasad@]

The 2 party system isn't enshrined in law but because it's been so entrenched for so long, it seems to be de facto law.  The example you mention about the street vendors is what is referred to as the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.

I wouldn't call the parties outside of the major 2 simple.  It's just that it simply take time and lots of $$$ to establish a real foothold and then after that establish a true presence.  

Why waste time and money if you don't have to comply with stupid laws?
Recently, on September 1st, a law came into force in Russia that regulates cryptocurrency exchange and adds many restrictions.
I was at a cryptocurrency exchange. They removed their billboards and signs from the business center and now operate behind closed doors.
"It's an old saying that it's impossible to enforce too many laws."

Depends on what the laws are, are they being enforced, and the potential consequences and legal costs if those laws are enforced.  In your example about the cryptocurrency exchange, it seems that exchange took the strategy of out of sight, out of mind.  And, perhaps the authorities will look the other way.  But, would one risk their funds potentially being frozen and/or confiscated by gambling that enforcement won't happen?

The law requires people to declare their assets, but people aren't stupid. Just imagine the consequences if that data fell into the hands of criminals.
People take a small amount of money—a few thousand dollars—and go to one of these exchange offices. Even if the police catch them, the worst that happens is an administrative fine.
Criminal liability kicks in only when exchanging roughly $30,000 or more.

[2stout]

The 2 party system isn't enshrined in law but because it's been so entrenched for so long, it seems to be de facto law.  The example you mention about the street vendors is what is referred to as the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.

I wouldn't call the parties outside of the major 2 simple.  It's just that it simply take time and lots of $$$ to establish a real foothold and then after that establish a true presence.  

Why waste time and money if you don't have to comply with stupid laws?
Recently, on September 1st, a law came into force in Russia that regulates cryptocurrency exchange and adds many restrictions.
I was at a cryptocurrency exchange. They removed their billboards and signs from the business center and now operate behind closed doors.
"It's an old saying that it's impossible to enforce too many laws."

Depends on what the laws are, are they being enforced, and the potential consequences and legal costs if those laws are enforced.  In your example about the cryptocurrency exchange, it seems that exchange took the strategy of out of sight, out of mind.  And, perhaps the authorities will look the other way.  But, would one risk their funds potentially being frozen and/or confiscated by gambling that enforcement won't happen?

The law requires people to declare their assets, but people aren't stupid. Just imagine the consequences if that data fell into the hands of criminals.
People take a small amount of money—a few thousand dollars—and go to one of these exchange offices. Even if the police catch them, the worst that happens is an administrative fine.
Criminal liability kicks in only when exchanging roughly $30,000 or more.

Yeah, no one but a fool would declare all their assets if only for data concerns alone.  I guess the monetary value of assets that could be confiscated/forfeited depends on what country you are a resident of.  Also, in some countries, the administrative fines may be hefty and act as a deterrent.

[zasad@]

The 2 party system isn't enshrined in law but because it's been so entrenched for so long, it seems to be de facto law.  The example you mention about the street vendors is what is referred to as the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.

I wouldn't call the parties outside of the major 2 simple.  It's just that it simply take time and lots of $$$ to establish a real foothold and then after that establish a true presence.  

Why waste time and money if you don't have to comply with stupid laws?
Recently, on September 1st, a law came into force in Russia that regulates cryptocurrency exchange and adds many restrictions.
I was at a cryptocurrency exchange. They removed their billboards and signs from the business center and now operate behind closed doors.
"It's an old saying that it's impossible to enforce too many laws."

Depends on what the laws are, are they being enforced, and the potential consequences and legal costs if those laws are enforced.  In your example about the cryptocurrency exchange, it seems that exchange took the strategy of out of sight, out of mind.  And, perhaps the authorities will look the other way.  But, would one risk their funds potentially being frozen and/or confiscated by gambling that enforcement won't happen?

The law requires people to declare their assets, but people aren't stupid. Just imagine the consequences if that data fell into the hands of criminals.
People take a small amount of money—a few thousand dollars—and go to one of these exchange offices. Even if the police catch them, the worst that happens is an administrative fine.
Criminal liability kicks in only when exchanging roughly $30,000 or more.

Yeah, no one but a fool would declare all their assets if only for data concerns alone.  I guess the monetary value of assets that could be confiscated/forfeited depends on what country you are a resident of.  Also, in some countries, the administrative fines may be hefty and act as a deterrent.

You are right that the situation in each country needs to be considered. Fines can be steep, but if the police don't actively target illegal exchange services, those fines don't really matter. In the past, exchanges were handled via couriers, and a similar practice will likely emerge in Russia. Offices will close, and the shadow sector will operate by its own rules.

[2stout]

The 2 party system isn't enshrined in law but because it's been so entrenched for so long, it seems to be de facto law.  The example you mention about the street vendors is what is referred to as the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.

I wouldn't call the parties outside of the major 2 simple.  It's just that it simply take time and lots of $$$ to establish a real foothold and then after that establish a true presence.  

Why waste time and money if you don't have to comply with stupid laws?
Recently, on September 1st, a law came into force in Russia that regulates cryptocurrency exchange and adds many restrictions.
I was at a cryptocurrency exchange. They removed their billboards and signs from the business center and now operate behind closed doors.
"It's an old saying that it's impossible to enforce too many laws."

Depends on what the laws are, are they being enforced, and the potential consequences and legal costs if those laws are enforced.  In your example about the cryptocurrency exchange, it seems that exchange took the strategy of out of sight, out of mind.  And, perhaps the authorities will look the other way.  But, would one risk their funds potentially being frozen and/or confiscated by gambling that enforcement won't happen?

The law requires people to declare their assets, but people aren't stupid. Just imagine the consequences if that data fell into the hands of criminals.
People take a small amount of money—a few thousand dollars—and go to one of these exchange offices. Even if the police catch them, the worst that happens is an administrative fine.
Criminal liability kicks in only when exchanging roughly $30,000 or more.

Yeah, no one but a fool would declare all their assets if only for data concerns alone.  I guess the monetary value of assets that could be confiscated/forfeited depends on what country you are a resident of.  Also, in some countries, the administrative fines may be hefty and act as a deterrent.

You are right that the situation in each country needs to be considered. Fines can be steep, but if the police don't actively target illegal exchange services, those fines don't really matter. In the past, exchanges were handled via couriers, and a similar practice will likely emerge in Russia. Offices will close, and the shadow sector will operate by its own rules.

The fines don't matter until they do, and then the law is executed.  Not actively targeting is at worst selectively targeting in which the random manner of the execution make for unpredictable enforcement.  Perhaps the police give a heads up if a crackdown is coming; otherwise, if not, then yes the shadow sector will fill in the void.

[zasad@]

The fines don't matter until they do, and then the law is executed.  Not actively targeting is at worst selectively targeting in which the random manner of the execution make for unpredictable enforcement.  Perhaps the police give a heads up if a crackdown is coming; otherwise, if not, then yes the shadow sector will fill in the void.

According to Interfax, financial losses caused by telephone scammers in Russia amount to approximately $300 million annually. It is impossible to estimate the true extent of the losses, as not everyone files a police report. In most cases, the money is never recovered because the scammers' couriers convert the funds into cryptocurrency and then disappear without a trace.

Since the scammers operate from abroad, the state cracks down on illegal currency exchange services—measures that end up affecting legitimate exchanges and cryptocurrency users alike.

[2stout]

The fines don't matter until they do, and then the law is executed.  Not actively targeting is at worst selectively targeting in which the random manner of the execution make for unpredictable enforcement.  Perhaps the police give a heads up if a crackdown is coming; otherwise, if not, then yes the shadow sector will fill in the void.

According to Interfax, financial losses caused by telephone scammers in Russia amount to approximately $300 million annually. It is impossible to estimate the true extent of the losses, as not everyone files a police report. In most cases, the money is never recovered because the scammers' couriers convert the funds into cryptocurrency and then disappear without a trace.

Since the scammers operate from abroad, the state cracks down on illegal currency exchange services—measures that end up affecting legitimate exchanges and cryptocurrency users alike.

Agree, the monetary cost is significantly higher than that and that's not factoring in the time cost that has to be spent "fixing" things or putting things back into order.  Scammers are definitely operating internationally, subjecting themselves to not just only local, state, or national prosecution.  We all feel the effects of it.  Like the old saying- a bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

[zasad@]

The fines don't matter until they do, and then the law is executed.  Not actively targeting is at worst selectively targeting in which the random manner of the execution make for unpredictable enforcement.  Perhaps the police give a heads up if a crackdown is coming; otherwise, if not, then yes the shadow sector will fill in the void.

According to Interfax, financial losses caused by telephone scammers in Russia amount to approximately $300 million annually. It is impossible to estimate the true extent of the losses, as not everyone files a police report. In most cases, the money is never recovered because the scammers' couriers convert the funds into cryptocurrency and then disappear without a trace.

Since the scammers operate from abroad, the state cracks down on illegal currency exchange services—measures that end up affecting legitimate exchanges and cryptocurrency users alike.

Agree, the monetary cost is significantly higher than that and that's not factoring in the time cost that has to be spent "fixing" things or putting things back into order.  Scammers are definitely operating internationally, subjecting themselves to not just only local, state, or national prosecution.  We all feel the effects of it.  Like the old saying- a bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

This approach is like trying to combat diarrhea by closing down the toilets.
It won't put a stop to the fraud, instead, transfer operations will simply become more expensive. Fraudsters in Russia are already paying couriers 10–15% of the transfer value to convert funds into cryptocurrency, and this cost is set to rise further. For many people, these are massive sums amounts they wouldn't earn even after years of working.

[Dave1]

On the other hand, Caroline Ellison's New Charity Job Comes With an Awkward FTX Link.

So she was given a chance, started working on July 13, although others see this as sort of redemption. There could be some that might not like what Manifund did here.

Do you guys think that she could be given a second chance as she felt remorse and sorry on what she did before of being part of one of the biggest fraud in history?

[Z-tight]

Do you guys think that she could be given a second chance as she felt remorse and sorry on what she did before of being part of one of the biggest fraud in history?

She has served her time in prison. During her trial, she pleaded guilty and also aided the prosecution in the eventual conviction of Sam Bankman-fried. Now that she is out, if an institution decides to give her a job, then i think people should live with it. I understand that a lot of people may feel that her involvement in ftx's collapse may give her current employer a bad image, but i like to believe that most people have moved on from ftx's collapse, so people don't really care anymore.

[zasad@]

A person cannot be tried twice for the same offense.

If the court hasn't barred her from holding specific positions in companies, why shouldn't she be hired?

On the one hand, she is an ideal employee who needs no extra motivation and will devote all her energy to honest work and restoring her reputation. On the other hand, she has seen a different standard of living and might engage in financial schemes again.

[Majestic-milf]

A person cannot be tried twice for the same offense.

If the court hasn't barred her from holding specific positions in companies, why shouldn't she be hired?

On the one hand, she is an ideal employee who needs no extra motivation and will devote all her energy to honest work and restoring her reputation. On the other hand, she has seen a different standard of living and might engage in financial schemes again.

Is she really ideal though? Imagine the dirt she'd be smearing on the company just by her past reputation. Except Manifund CEO knows something he's not telling people, I call foul on this. I understand that people change but this is someone who does things that will benefit her and who's to say she's not just biding her time till the opportune moment?