But. . . second, if memory serves, prior to her criminal indictment, Ms. Holmes signed a civil settlement with the SEC agreeing not to work in life sciences for ten years (I think). Now, probably that means "for pay" -- and she will say she's an "unpaid" consultant.
Finally, it may turn out that her well-heeled partner has ginned all this up, just to keep her mind busy -- in the dreary, deadly hot and long nights, in dusty rural West Texas federal lockup. She may have ideas -- and this is just a way for her to fill up a bunch of notepads, and transfer them to him, at their twice a month family visiting hours. I dunno.
All that said -- if anyone is actually putting real cash into this (and they aren't Evans' family members). . . I am highly. . . amused. "Blood Flower"?!? Seriously? Here's NPR, on it all:
. . .The partner of Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes has raised millions of dollars for an artificial intelligence startup hoping to introduce a product that can be used in medical testing and other settings, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the endeavor who could not speak publicly because the company has not yet officially launched. The company is called Haemanthus, which is Greek for "blood flower."
Since being imprisoned at a federal facility in Bryan, Texas, Holmes has been providing advice to her partner, Billy Evans, on the startup, according to the sources. The precise nature of Holmes' supporting Evans on the venture is unclear.
About a dozen people are part of the startup. Some of those working on the company formerly worked with Evans at Luminar Technologies, which develops sensors for autonomous vehicles, according to the company's patent and Delaware incorporation paperwork. Evans has raised money mostly among friends, family and other supporters so far, according to one of the sources. . . .
The truth, they say. . . will always be. . . far stranger. Indeed. Grin.
नमस्ते
Subsequent Footnote: Her motion for a rehearing of her appeal, in the Ninth Circuit (on her felony convictions) was denied, as of Thursday past, thus:
ReplyDelete...The panel has unanimously voted to deny Appellant’s petition for panel rehearing, filed April 9, 2025. Judge Nguyen and Judge Nelson have voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Schroeder has so recommended. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 40. The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (Dkt. [106]) is DENIED....
नमस्ते