Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes’ scattershot bid to nix charges goes down hard

Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes threw her criminal indictments and charges against the wall to see if she could get any to fall away, but they all stuck.

The Stanford University dropout, charged with a dozen felony counts of fraud over her defunct Palo Alto blood-testing startup, filed six motions in U.S. District Court in San Jose in late August, seeking to have indictments and charges thrown out.

On Tuesday, Judge Edward Davila denied all of them, paving the way for a trial scheduled to begin in March.

To Holmes’ claim that her right to a speedy trial had been violated because federal prosecutors unreasonably delayed filing two indictments, Davila found the bulk of the delay resulted from her legal team’s request for more time before trial, with the coronavirus pandemic subsequently pushing that date further into the future.

Holmes’ lawyers had argued that holding a trial concerning events going back more than a decade means witnesses could be unavailable or have fading memories, Davila noted, but their argument was “too vague and speculative” to indicate her rights would be harmed, he wrote.

Also, Davila wrote, the matter is complex. “The case involves two fraud conspiracies with multiple victims, two co-defendants, and voluminous discovery,” he wrote. “The Court finds that the length of the delay was ‘not excessive’ in light of this complexity.”

Another Holmes motion argued that a half-dozen charges should be thrown out because two later indictments broadened the charges against her, violating the statute of limitations, which governs the length of time that can pass between an alleged offense and the start of legal action. Because the charges in all three indictments against Holmes are “substantially the same,” however, Davila nixed the motion.

A third motion making similar claims about the statute of limitations failed on similar grounds. And Holmes’ motion to dismiss her two most-recent indictments, on the basis that in expanding the definition of investors they became impermissibly vague, also failed to convince Davila. “The Court is not persuaded that there has been any expansion in the definition of ‘investors,'” he wrote.

Holmes, who founded Theranos in 2003, is charged with allegedly bilking investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars, and defrauding patients with false claims that the company’s machines could conduct a full range of tests using just a few drops of blood. She and her co-accused, former company president Sunny Balwani, have denied the allegations.

Two other motions Davila rejected argued that some of Holmes’ charges duplicated each other and that the recent indictments violated a previous decision by Davila, while the remaining motion repeated previous claims he had ruled against.

Holmes faces a potential 20-year prison sentence, up to $2.75 million in fines, and possible restitution to investors the government alleges lost more than $700 million. The federal government has said that if she’s found guilty, it will go after any ill-gotten money or assets she may have. Plaintiffs in a separate civil case are seeking unspecified damages.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/14/theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes-scattershot-bid-to-nix-charges-goes-down-hard/

Dismemberment Abortion Ban Ruled Unconstitutional by Fifth Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Texas’ law against dismemberment abortions is unconstitutional.

According to documents filed yesterday, the court found that Senate Bill 8, which outlawed abortions by dismemberment, placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions by requiring providers to perform the act while the child is still inside the uterus instead of on the way out.

Dismemberment abortions, also called dilation and evacuation or D&E abortions, sever the fetal tissue as the body leaves the womb. By outlawing such abortions except in cases of emergency, SB 8 essentially required abortion providers to abort the child in the womb before removal. The state proposed three alternatives to dismemberment to achieve “fetal demise in utero”: injecting digoxin into the child or amniotic fluid, injecting potassium chloride directly into the child’s heart, or cutting the umbilical cord. The court ruled these processes to be an “invasive” and “extra, otherwise unnecessary procedure” that placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

“Because fetal tissue separates as a physician removes it from the uterus during the D&E procedure, SB 8 prohibits such abortions unless the physician first ensures fetal demise in utero—an invasive, additional step that is not part of the D&E procedure,” the ruling reads.

“[SB 8] thus requires an abortion provider performing a D&E to carry out an extra, otherwise unnecessary procedure in the woman’s body to bring about fetal demise.”

The majority opinion, issued by Justices James Dennis and Carl Stewart, affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The challenge to the law, defended in court by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as well as the criminal district attorneys for Tarrant and McLennan Counties, came from various abortion providers and physicians including branches of Planned Parenthood and Whole Woman’s Health. As summarized in the ruling, Paxton and the defendants argued that aborting the child within the womb does not constitute an obstacle to abortion.

“[The state] responds that the Act does not impermissibly restrict abortion access because there are procedures that cause fetal death in utero that must be used in addition to D&E to ensure an SB 8-compliant abortion,” the ruling reads.

“The State insists that SB 8 does not constitute an undue burden because several ‘alternative methods’ of causing fetal demise are available and safe.”

In response, the court observed that “fetal-demise procedures are not, by definition, alternative procedures because a patient who endures such a procedure must still undergo the entirety of a standard D&E.”

The majority opinion holds that the language of SB 8, though graphic, fairly describes the process of D&E abortions and notes that they are the most common method of abortion in Texas and the nation after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Justice Don Willett dissented and will file a dissenting opinion.

SB 8 was authored by Senator Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown), an orthopedic surgeon and former member of the Texas House, and Sens. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels), Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham), Jane Nelson (R-Fort Worth), and Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) also co-authored the bill.

https://thetexan.news/dismemberment-abortion-ban-ruled-unconstitutional-by-fifth-circuit/

Denver police, postal officials investigating report of stolen mail as ballots drop

Police and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service are investigating at least one case of reportedly stolen mail in Denver this week, though few details are available, officials said.

At least one apartment complex in Cheesman Park reported that its locked mail box was opened and its contents stolen, confirmed James Boxrud, spokesperson for the Postal Service’s western area.

It’s unclear, however, precisely which apartment or apartments were hit, when the reported crime occurred and what might have been stolen, Boxrud said. Those and other details are under investigation by Denver police and the service’s inspection service.

The report comes as Denverites receive their ballots for the 2020 election in the mail. Locally, those ballots went out Friday. Posts on the social media website Nextdoor indicated several residents were concerned ballots were the target. Those fears pile on to nationwide concern of widespread interference with the presidential election, much of which will be handled more by mail than ever before.

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/10/14/denver-mail-ballots-stolen/

Wall Street is Cooking Up Another “2008-Style Housing Crash” and They Plan on Using Joe Biden’s Presidency to Launch It

In 2008, disastrous policies by America’s political and financial elite caused the worst financial calamity since the Great Depression. Ever since that crash, the American middle and working classes have been in decline. But the plutocrat class came out of the disaster richer and more powerful than ever. So it’s hardly surprising that right now, they’re laying the groundwork for another housing bubble, and another disastrous crash. And Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is egging it on.

On Thursday, banking giant JPMorgan Chase announced a $30 billion plan to “advance racial equity”:

The New York bank said it is committing $30 billion over the next five years toward programs that include earmarking more money for getting Black and Latino families into homeownership and providing additional financing to build affordable rental housing units.

“Systemic racism is a tragic part of America’s history,” said JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in a statement. “We can do more and do better to break down systems that have propagated racism and widespread economic inequality.” [AP]

Specifically, JPMorgan’s plan is to create thousands of new mortgages based not on creditworthiness but on skin color:

As part of our commitment to promote and expand affordable housing and homeownership for underserved communities, we will take actions to increase equity, affordability and access to housing by:

Originating 40,000 new home purchase loans for Black and Latinx households through an additional $8 billion commitment in mortgages

Helping an additional 20,000 Black and Latinx households achieve lower mortgage payments through refinancing loans totaling up to $4 billion

Financing an additional 100,000 affordable rental units through a $14 billion commitment in new loans, equity investments and other efforts [JPMorgan]

JPMorgan’s new loan pledges are based on the idea that its lending practices have been racist, and that it has so far refused to provide profitable home loans to minority communities for no other reason besides prejudice. Its solution is to lower standards to provide loans it previously would not have, in the name of greater equality.

JPMorgan isn’t just pledging its own money to this foolish cause. In the company’s announcement, it vows to lobby Congress for changes to the law it says will generate another $500 billion in mortgages for those whose credit is currently too poor to obtain one.

It is no exaggeration to say that this is the exact recipe for another calamitous housing crash and economic disaster for all Americans. And we know this because it’s the same strategy used prior to the 2008 housing crash.

For decades, both political parties have sought higher home ownership rates in America. This isn’t a bad thing. People who own their own homes are more invested in their communities, have a stake in society, and have something to be proud of. But home ownership can only be effectively increased by keeping houses affordable, and by providing the wages and economic stability people need to make payments on them.

Instead, JPMorgan is pushing more debt and lower standards for favored races and acting like this magically will not result in a cascade of defaults by borrowers.

Two decades ago, George W. Bush embraced the same disastrous thinking.

more https://www.revolver.news/2020/10/wall-street-joe-biden-plan-disastrous-housing-bubble/

FDA approves first Ebola treatment

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Wednesday approved the world’s first successful treatment for the Ebola virus, a major step against one of the world’s deadliest pathogen.

The FDA gave its formal blessing to Inmazeb, a mixture of three monoclonal antibodies produced by the American pharmaceutical company Regeneron, after a trial among 382 adult and pediatric patients in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The new treatment is a breakthrough, but not one that completely eliminates the threat of a virus that can kill as many as nine in ten of those who contract it if they are not treated.

The mortality rates among patients who received the drug was substantially lower than those who were treated for the virus without the drug. About a third of those receiving the drug died, compared to just over half of those who did not.

The drug’s development was funded by a public-private partnership between Regeneron and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. The National Institutes of Health and Congo’s Health Ministry helped administer the study.

“The approval of the first-ever therapeutic for Ebola is a momentous global health achievement that would have never occurred without American leadership,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement Wednesday.

The Ebola virus has infected humans almost a dozen times in Congo in modern history. An outbreak in Equateur Province, along the Congo River, had infected more than 100 people by mid-September, according to the World Health Organization. That conflagration erupted just as Congo’s worst-ever epidemic, in two eastern provinces along the borders with Uganda and Rwanda, came under control.

Global health officials got that outbreak under control in part with the help of an American-developed vaccine, also the first of its kind.

Both the treatment and the vaccine were developed in the wake of the world’s worst-known Ebola outbreak, which struck three West African countries in 2014 and 2015. More than 11,300 people died in that epidemic.

The new drug is meant to treat the most common form of the Ebola virus, the Zaire strain that was first identified in 1976, before the DRC changed its name. Zaire ebolavirus has infected far more people than the other four known strains of Ebola, and it kills a substantially higher percentage of its victims.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/521097-fda-approves-first-ebola-treatment

Ted Cruz Drops a Logic Bomb On Hirono, Booker, and the Sexuality Controversy Around ACB

Texas Senator Ted Cruz is likely trying to keep his eyes from rolling out of his head just like we all are when it comes to the grandstanding Democrats are doing about Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s “mistake” about there being such a thing as “sexual preference.”

The controversy started when Barrett mentioned “sexual preference,” a phrase used for years to describe which sexuality a person prefers to be in a relationship with. Without warning, this phrase was suddenly a horrible thing to say according to the left, which began accusing Barrett of being prejudiced against the LGBT community.

Marriam-Webster even legitimized the Democrat’s outrage by altering the definition of “sexual preference” to make it an offensive term.

(READ: Merriam-Webster Is Changing Definitions to Assist Democrats in Attacking Amy Coney Barrett)

Democrat Senators Mazie Hirono and Corie Booker soon began throwing out that sexual orientation was something you just couldn’t change in an effort to make ACB seem not with the times.

Cruz, however, couldn’t help but see the crack in the left’s logic and sent out a tweet to put them in the position of having to answer for some concepts they’d previously established themselves. Concepts that run contrary to what they’re attempting to push on Barrett now.

“Very odd,” tweeted Cruz. “Both Hirono & Booker asserted sexual orientation is “immutable.” Webster’s defines as “not capable of or susceptible to change.” I wasn’t aware the Left insisted sexuality can never change over the course of one’s life. While insisting gender can change continuously.”

We’ve been told that “gender” is a fluid concept that can change from one day to the next. Is the left now telling us that sexuality can’t? When it comes to who you’re attracted to, you’re locked into that forever?

According to the left’s own wailing and gnashing of teeth, sex and sexuality should be a free-roam kind of thing. Whoever or whatever you do in your sexual preference is up to you. Now, they’re saying that it follows strict rules that can’t be broken.

The left should answer Cruz’s question because at this point it seems that Barrett’s usage of the phrase “sexual preference” was correct according to the rules previously established by the left itself.

https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/10/14/ted-cruz-logic-bomb/