Of course, SBF is still presumed innocent -- until trial. . . but the documentation in the bankruptcy court. . . well, it is very. . . alarming. I wonder whether these two knew all that -- when they agreed to sign on.
The able USDC Judge Lewis Kaplan (here at lunchtime) just released their names, since there was no stay filed with the appeal, to the Second Circuit. It is curious that the two only signed unsecured IOUs (at $200K and $500K, respectively), and thus only for a total of $700,000 if he rabbits (but the forfeiture would be $250 million, as against SBF personally). Do though consider that the parents' home would be seized (but it sits on land leased from. . . yep, The Leland Stanford University, too):
. . .On January 30, 2023, the Court issued an order granting the motions of several news organizations to unseal the names of defendant's non-parental bail sureties. (Dkt 57) Given the novelty of the question presented and the likelihood of appeal, the Court stayed the order "until 5 p.m. on February 7, 2023 and, if a notice of appeal from th[at] order [was] filed by then, until February 14, 2023 at 5 p.m. in order to permit an application for a further stay to be made to the Court of Appeals should any adversely affected party wish to file one." (Dkt 57, at 12.)
On February 7, 2023, Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the January 30, 2023 Order.
As of today, however, no application for a further stay has been made to the Court of Appeals.
Accordingly, the Clerk shall file on the unrestricted public record complete copies of the redacted bonds previously docketed as Dkt 55 and 56.
SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 2/15/2023). . . .
I am sure the WSJ -- or. . . someone. . . is running down who these guys have donated the most political money to. . . . But this is going to give Stanford a bit of a black eye (just in view of the evidence so far), no matter what -- from here on. Stay tuned.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment