I needed a lawyer for a misdemeanor charge (cop was having a bad day, the other cops that arrived on the scene seemed like they would have let me off with a warning but it was not their call). I was certainly guilty by the letter of the law and had no defense but the lawyer I was referred to from a friend of a friend negotiated with the prosecution and I plead guilty to a civil ordinance violation for disturbing the peace (basically a traffic ticket). He was able to do that because he knew what to bargain for based off of similar cases in my state.

However, if it doesn’t get worked out pre-trial, that negotiation process still happens in the court room. When I met my lawyer, he mentioned a recent case he handled where the defendant had committed murder. There was no question that he did it, but the lawyer was proud that he was able to convince the court that his defendant was not of sound mind, which was the difference between going untreated and spending twenty-to-life in a state prison or spending that time getting treatment in a mental ward. While the latter isn’t exactly a cushy place to be, it is certainly better than being mentally unstable in gen pop.

It's also not entirely easy to get found not fit to stand trial - it's not just you and your lawyer and a friendly psychiatrist - the prosecution has the right to call its own mental health professionals and they are required to have access to the defendant, and more.

Aside from that, the law must take into consideration one’s ability to reason because that is the method in which a jury finds facts.. based on reasonability. You wouldn’t convict someone who suffered from a mental handicap to a punishment that was equal to someone who did the same with full faculties, right?

You probably have "not of sound mind" and "temporary insanity" confused.

Well, this is a pretty big. You don't want to serve more time than what is required, this is why we have lawyers.

> Mr. Greer : I can get a lawyer any time I want. I don't need you for that. We're not sitting here for forty five minutes for a god damned referral.

> Michael Clayton : I don't know what Walter promised you but...

> Mr. Greer : A miracle worker. That's Walter on the phone twenty minutes ago. Direct quote, okay, "Hang tight, I'm sending you a miracle worker."

> Michael Clayton : Well he misspoke.

> Mr. Greer : About what? That you're the firms fixer? Or that you're any good at it?

[explodes in anger]

> Mr. Greer : The guy was RUNNING. In the STREET! You take that, you add the fog, you add the light, you add the... the angle. What the fuck is he doing running in the middle of the street at midnight? You answer me that, huh?

[Mrs. Greer throws a glass across the room, there's a long pause]

> Mr. Greer : What if someone had stolen the car? Huh? Happens all the time.

> Michael Clayton : Cops like hit and runs. They work them hard and they clear them fast. Right now there's a DCI unit pulling paint chips off a guard rail. Tomorrow they're going to be looking for the owner of a custom painted hand rubbed Jaguar XJ12. If the guy you hit, if he got a look at the plates? It won't even take that long.

[the phone rings]

> Michael Clayton : There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple. The smaller the mess the easier it is for me to clean up.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

If you look at Trump [0] he granted 6 pardons his first full year year in 2017 and 116 in 2021. Similarly, Obama granted 0 in 2010 and 142 in 2017. Bush had 0 in 2002 and 32 in 2009 (although his highest year was 44 in 2008).

So Biden is not stingier than Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, First Bush, and Reagan from similar points in their career.

[0] https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-statistics

Super disingenuous framing here. Compared to modern presidents Trump's grants of clemency still remain distinctly low by comparison (only both Bushes went lower). Also the majority were not people convicted of "securities fraud and related crimes". You can see the detailed list over at wikipedia here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_granted_executi...

You can also see the list of presidents use of executive clemency here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_gra...

You're drawing a narrow window around a few key facts that paints the opposite picture from the complete truth.

"however, Trump frequently bypassed the OPA, and the majority of his executive clemency grants were made to well-connected convicts who did not file a petition with the OPA or meet the OPA's requirements. [...] Of the pardons and commutations that Trump did grant, the vast majority were to persons to whom Trump had a personal or political connection, or persons for whom executive clemency served a political goal."

And yeah, that kind of bears out the point that SBF could probably find better places to put his money. But just for fun I went through the OPA lists semi-manually:

Biden hasn't pardoned much of anyone.

Trump pardoned 5 people who are specifically described as having been convicted for securities-related matters, namely Chris Collins, Andrew Worden, Drew Brownstein, Greg Reyes, and Michael Milken to top it off. That's not including the other people (e.g. Paul Erikson) who were involved with related financial crimes, but whose descriptions don't specifically call out securities convictions, as well as others that weren't pardoned through the OPA like Shapiro and Stitsky. Given how rarely these sorts of crimes are convicted, I think that's appropriately described as "many".

Obama pardoned two people for securities issues, Jimmy Mattison and Scoey Morris, but as both were convicted of counterfeiting (a vastly different kind of crime than SBF) I think we can ignore them. Robert Hobbs and Brian Sledz probably count here. I'm unable to find details about Robert Schindler to know for him.

Bush Junior pardoned Richard Miller, plus a couple of embezzlers and counterfeiters.

I might have missed some. Do you mind double-checking?

[1] https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-jos...

[2] https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-don...

[3] https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-bar...

[4] https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardons-granted-president-geo...

And perhaps some for money, if this suit is to be believed. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/giuliani-accu...

But those donations were hidden, he claimed: “Despite Citizens United being literally the highest-profile Supreme Court case of the decade and the thing everyone talks about with campaign finance, for some reason, in practice, no one can possibly fathom the idea that someone actually gave dark. All my Republican donations were dark.”

The reason was cynical, if realistic: “Reporters freak the fuck out if you donate to a Republican,” he told Fong. “They’re all secretly liberal, and I didn’t want to have that fight, so I made all the Republican ones dark.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/sam-bankma...

1. SBF agreed (voluntarily!) to be extradited from the Bahamas to face ~X charges in the US.

2. After being extradited, he was charged with X + Y charges.

3. He claims that international extradition agreements make this illegal.

4. The judge ruled that, <citing precedent>, international extradition agreements allow the Bahamas to raise a complaint about this - but does not allow SBF to do so [1].

5. US prosecutors have expressed that they are willing to drop the Y charges if the Bahamas raises a complaint in a timely fashion.

6. The Bahamas are incredibly unlikely to raise a complaint on this point.

tl;dr - Expensive lawyers can force government prosecutors to dot all their is and cross their ts, but if they have you dead to rights, you're still screwed. SBF seems really, really screwed.

[1] These parts of extradition treaties are generally very explicitly about the rights of countries, not the rights of individuals.

It still astonishes me how deluded he was by his own reality distortion field. He continued to incriminate himself repeatedly after it was clear to everybody else that he needed to stop digging the hole he was in.

Just breathtaking levels of PR and legal naivete.

This idea of "IQ is meaningless, he's good at X doesn't mean is good at Y" is what dumb people tell themselves.

no surer sign that a defensive middlebrow poser is about to hold forth.

edit to add: I think most interesting systems are more complex than what a person can understand immediately.

He got into MIT where he excelled and then a job at Jane Street. Even really smart people get rejected from MIT and Jane Street. he may be a fool and delusional but he's not thick .

As for Jane Street, it is a hard place to get into, but MIT is one of the few places where there's an established interview pipeline, which definitely makes it possible for a non-genius to have some a chance of passing. Before Cracking the Coding Interview, it was much harder to learn how FAANG interviews worked ahead of time - same thing applies.

Saying that SBF is "average", if that means 100 IQ, is ludicrous, but SBF is merely very bright, not a genius.

A first semester law/finance student from a bottom tier university would know to shut your mouth and not document your crimes..

Running his mouth is his way of living in a reality where he still has a measure of control over things.

This is more on the spectrum of delusion and delusion has nothing to do with intelligence. Very intelligent people can be highly delusional.

Oh, they got Epstein too AND his girlfriend. Well, the guy did organize sex parties on a private island with underage girls, coke, and prostitution, and had elites, politicians, academics, even some royalty and a president or two as frequent guests, but who's counting? Why even drag them to testify?

And, of course, since justice prevails you can't and shouldn't point at anyone who got through it and only got a slap on the wrist for some minor stuff, or was summarily found innocent, or had the charges thrown, or was never even charged with anything! What could they be other than innocent?

Since that's the case, who would want to anger people with good PR, great legal advice, and friends in power, by making such baseless accusations? In a public forum of all places!

For the delusion to continue beyond Ground Zero was a given, a fait accompli of self-confirmation bias.

Mens Rea

Would it be more accurate to say that the Bahamas agreed to extradite SBF? If not, then it doesn't make sense why the Bahamas would need to complain about the additional charges instead of SBF if they weren't involved in the agreement.

Although FWIW SBF is the last person who should be complaining about having the rug pulled from under them.

He agreed to be extradited voluntarily.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/19/business/sbf-extradition-baha...

No wonder people don't trust the law/lawyers.

"An extradition treaty between the United States and the Bahamas, where FTX was based, says a country must consent before defendants can be tried on charges brought after their extradition.

Prosecutors said they asked the Bahamas to agree to those charges, which include conspiracy to bribe Chinese officials and commit bank fraud, but did not know when the Caribbean country would grant its consent." via https://www.reuters.com/legal/bankman-fried-loses-bid-toss-c...

If he had contested the extradition, then he'd be at the Bahamas' judgment for the original charges and the new charges. He decided to come back for the original charges and now the Bahamas decides whether they will allow the US to bring the new charges - basically whether they would have extradited him for those new charges.

If they would have extradited him for the new charges as well, then it doesn't matter. If they wouldn't have extradited him for those charges, the prosecution can't bring those charges. There's no legal gotcha. The legal gotcha would be if he returned and then the Bahamas couldn't consent to them bringing additional charges.

In this case, it's a statement from the US to the Bahamas about what they intend to do to SBF once he's in custody. If the US then goes on and punishes SBF even harder than what they originally told the Bahamas, the Bahamas might feel lied to. Think of it as a "we wouldn't have extradited if we knew he was facing the death penalty" kind of scenario. This rule thus exists to give the Bahamas a chance to remedy that.

Also, I BET YOU that behind the scenes the us is telling the Bahamas "you better not complain about this or else we'll get you on that other thing". Because.... you think US prosecutors would leave this possibility to chance? Why would the Bahamas not complain?

That's right, this is why people view lawyers as dishonest.

Because that concept is consistent with all of US law - See third party standing, third party beneficiaries, etc.

In the US, you usually can't raise claims on behalf of others, whether they are constitutional, contractual, etc.

This was not a surprise to anyone involved - the US, SBF, the bahamas, the lawyers, etc.

They are all quite aware of this.

You can argue this mechanism sucks, or is bad, but the answer to your question is because that's what all of US law says everywhere - this is not some unique feature of extradition. It's a core concept common across both civil and criminal law.

Anyway I understood your point, thanks for making the effort.

Non-lawyer elected officials, actually.

Lawyers are just charged with knowing enough of the mess to be able to advise people - but don't shoot the messenger.

The criminal system is also deliberately adversarial, something lawyers didn't make up either.

The civil system is not, at least.

What do you base this on? It depends on the year but Congress is usually 30-50% lawyers.

A lot of legislative drafting is carried out by lawyers in the Legislative Counsel (of the House of Reps, of California, etc.), anyway.

Unless you mean these rules were written before the Bar associations were a thing

Those that aren't are from very close to founding, done in conventions that were mostly not lawyers :)

These are mostly not modern doctrines created by Congress.

If the Bahamas wanted to keep him, they wouldn't have extradited him in the first place. Why would they want to protect SBF?

Because most countries are, in the general sense, not hugely interested in harboring (or even letting in) foreign criminals.

He's not a Bahamian national, they have zero reason to not turn him over.

The only reason they might want to keep him is to get their pound of flesh, given that he's also defrauded Bahamian citizens, but they seem to be quite happy with letting Uncle Sam foot the bill for prosecuting and jailing him.

Third party standing for rights is basically not a thing in the US, except in rare cases (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_standing)

Even in other realms, this is usually the case - it's very rare for a third party beneficiary to be able to raise rights that belong to someone else.

For example, Bob writes some software and releases it under the GPL. Evilco takes it and ships binaries of it. You get a binary. You ask them for source. They say GFY.

You are a third party beneficiary of Bob's contract with Evilco. Bob has the right to sue them in court. However, you probably do not have the right to sue them for breach of contract.

(There is nuance i'm avoiding here about to make the point).

This is not a crazy as you seem to think, and, in fact, if they cannot, this is a fairly recent (last 30-ish years) change in the state of the law. As the Supreme Court noted in U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992), at that time, prosecution in violation of extradition agreement was invalid and the defendant absolutely could raise this issue independently. (A protest from the other government party may or may not, depending on the extradition agreement, be a factor in whether the prosecution is in violationof the agreement, but that’s a different and treaty-specific question, apart from whether or not an individual charged has the right to raise the invalidity of the prosecution under the treaty.)

2. He probably wanted out of the prison he was in.

3. He's out on bail right now, so he's got that going for him.

https://archive.md/BtHKc

That sounds incorrect to me but I am not a lawyer. Is that how losing a motion to dismiss is discussed?

Or is the present tense that's throwing you?

> Only AU$1 for 4 weeks

> Then AU$89 per month

Hoooly crap that's an expensive subscription!

$1 under Miscellaneous in a monthly budget is literally negligible in many businesses or departments.

Edit: 69USD/month. I'd be better off using a VPN and getting the Aussie deal

I have actually owned in the past:

* A real, bi-weekly printed publication.

* A couple of mildly successful blog sites.

Their economics are wildly different.

don't forget that ft is a friend of bankman fried, and they will lie to protect this guy