> The judge should not view Theranos as "a house of cards," but as the "ambitious, inventive, and indisputably valuable enterprise it was," they wrote. "The court's difficult task is to look beyond those surface-level views when it fashions its sentence."
I’m trying to stay level headed and reason about this. I am a layman when it comes to the US justice system, but I find this insulting and making a mockery of the justice system.
It was absolutely a fraudulent, house of cards. The courts task is to actually carry out justice, and keep in mind the fact that Elizabeth Holmes carefully concatenated an imagine of success, even dressing like Steve Jobs.
Forget the investors. This crime defrauded actual patients. An 18 month sentence? Ha! Why not just abolish the entire judicial branch of government? What’s even the point?
I’m trying to stay level headed and reason about this. I am a layman when it comes to the US justice system, but I find this insulting and making a mockery of the justice system.
It was absolutely a fraudulent, house of cards. The courts task is to actually carry out justice, and keep in mind the fact that Elizabeth Holmes carefully concatenated an imagine of success, even dressing like Steve Jobs.
Forget the investors. This crime defrauded actual patients. An 18 month sentence? Ha! Why not just abolish the entire judicial branch of government? What’s even the point?