Thread: Facebook's Saverin...'American Hero' or Scumbag?

Originally Posted by tsquare

O'Sullivan: I worry of you my friend. I think the everyday stress of high power lawyering is getting to you... sucking the live from your breast... let it out my friend, let it out...



Good... that's it... now breathe... breathe...

Lawyering does let you see the darker sides of human nature...all day actually. It also informs a person in my profession where changes in the law are advisable to shape conduct. He's certainly a case and point of it regarding harmful results given the state of current law. There's a time and place to blow the whistle on the kinds of social rot that exist that harms our nation's core fabric. This kind of conduct--especially seeing it celebrated by segments of our nation--is one of them IMO. If we've got to the point where a noticeable percent of the public and 'respectable' US magazines call what he did under those facts and circumstances an act of an "American hero" and/or cheering what he did against their own country for the shallowest and harmful of reasons, that's a huge problem and not one to be blase about.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Lawyering does let you see the darker sides of human nature...all day actually. It also informs a person in my profession where changes in the law are advisable to shape conduct. He's certainly a case and point of it regarding harmful results given the state of current law. There's a time and place to blow the whistle on the kinds of social rot that exist that harms our nation's core fabric. This kind of conduct--especially seeing it celebrated by segments of our nation--is one of them IMO. If we've got to the point where a noticeable percent of the public and 'respectable' US magazines call what he did under those facts and circumstances an act of an "American hero" and/or cheering what he did against their own country for the shallowest and harmful of reasons, that's a huge problem and not one to be blase about.

An attorney with scruples?
NO WAY!

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Lawyering does let you see the darker sides of human nature...all day actually. It also informs a person in my profession where changes in the law are advisable to shape conduct. He's certainly a case and point of it regarding harmful results given the state of current law. There's a time and place to blow the whistle on the kinds of social rot that exist that harms our nation's core fabric. This kind of conduct--especially seeing it celebrated by segments of our nation--is one of them IMO. If we've got to the point where a noticeable percent of the public and 'respectable' US magazines call what he did under those facts and circumstances an act of an "American hero" and/or cheering what he did against their own country for the shallowest and harmful of reasons, that's a huge problem and not one to be blase about.

So the answer is to beat the public into submission rather than to make the changes necessary to encourage willing participation in what this nation has to offer? I can't even begin to express how deeply and passionately I disagree with that position

Originally Posted by USCitizen

An attorney with scruples?
NO WAY!

Yeah. It's one reason for example that I don't solicit for sex offence cases and if one happened into my office, I refuse to represent any sex offenders unless they can convince me they have a case for actual innocence. I just don't want to help put guilty maggots like that back into circulation. Quite frankly, sometimes I'd just rather sit down with legislators and just show them where all the really bad holes and rots are in an appeal to change them. Then, again, many of them are rotted themselves and know damn well why the holes exist.

Originally Posted by lutherf

So the answer is to beat the public into submission rather than to make the changes necessary to encourage willing participation in what this nation has to offer? I can't even begin to express how deeply and passionately I disagree with that position

Beat them into it? No. But shame them into it where it's truly shameful? Absolutely. We're not talking about peccadillo stuff here. That's serious stuff and poses a greater harms of a fundamental breakdown in civil obligations and value of citizenship and civic participation here if treated as acceptable or even laudatory.

Given he's a naturalised citizen whose arse we saved from gangs by him seeking the US not the other way around, we're expecting people who wish to become permanent residents and become citizens to do things like learn English, register for selective service, vote, appear for jury duty, participate and perform community services, obey the laws, etc, and then signal that an 'American hero' is one who throws us into the trash to avoid paying taxes here? C'mon. And our laws certainly when it comes to cases and situations like this should address it very seriously. You just don't look at the US as a place to exploit and dispose as would a locust. That includes concerning our people, our institutions, our obligations, etc.

And there's certain things where it's not just about 'encouragement'. There are bottom cellars of minimum conduct that must be expected or face consequences. That's why we have penal codes and other codes sanctioning certain kinds of misconduct. The fact is that some people on some or most aspects won't observe minimum standards of conduct that cause unacceptable harms and therefore we use the law to inflict punishment for deterrence and retribution as well as seek restitution for the harms done.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Lawyering does let you see the darker sides of human nature...all day actually.

You work with land developers and city code officials too? Cool...

Back to Facebook...

Question: are you alleging that Saverin, in any way, broke the law?

If so, then I am in complete agreement... he should be brought to account.

(Let us pause for a moment and ponder the legal advice Saverin received concerning this, and the billable hours thereof)

Moving on once again...

The real question I have, and have been thinking of a thread on this very subject is this: How much of all this is 'ours'?

Saverin's 1 billion is not worth the trouble... it's the other 99 billion.

100 billion dollars taken from the American people, mostly from our impressionable youth, and for what?

Why not take it all O'Sullivan?

Originally Posted by tsquare

You work with land developers and city code officials too? Cool...

Yep. Hence why I enjoy talking zoning law with you.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Back to Facebook...

Question: are you alleging that Saverin, in any way, broke the law?

If so, then I am in complete agreement... he should be brought to account.

(Let us pause for a moment and ponder the legal advice Saverin received concerning this, and the billable hours thereof)

Moving on once again...

The real question I have, and have been thinking of a thread on this very subject is this: How much of all this is 'ours'?

Saverin's 1 billion is not worth the trouble... it's the other 99 billion.

100 billion dollars taken from the American people, mostly from our impressionable youth, and for what?

Why not take it all O'Sullivan?

Taking it all is obviously bad policy. Hell, that's downright un-American. But IMO it's also just as un-American to not recognise and appreciate what it is to be a US citizen and resident and all it offers. That includes the Big Picture of how one can make money here. My family has no regrets whatsoever about coming here and love and appreciate what this country has done for us. Part of that value and appreciation is giving back to the nation. Some of that comes in taxes. Some of that comes with investment. Some of that comes with treating the people who helped you obtain your wealth--namely the employees--with due respect and dignity including fair wages and terms and opportunities and being loyal to those loyal to you. It means voting, giving your time and dime in reasonable amounts to charities and and community service such as things like being a coach and sponsor of youth teams, etc. It means being willing to serve if the country needs you to defend it. Nobody gets rich all by themselves here. It takes a people, a system, an infrastructure, an educated population, a military willing to defend it, employees showing up working to make your dreams come true and all the suppliers doing so, etc. In short, it's not just all about you. It's how the setup here can make dreams come true for anyone or at a minimum see to it that you aren't plagued by violent and oppressive barbarians and tyrants in filthy and oppressive conditions as so commonly the case in other countries where the people there would often love to trade spots with those here who 'prey upon and disrespect the joint', so to speak.

He's totally worth it. Not only is he walking away from his tax obligations, he's walking away from all his obligations by renouncing citizenship after getting what he wanted off us. And tolerating this sets a precedent for others to do it. That's a huge drain at the public's expense that helped him (and others who would do likewise) get to be rich beyond dreams and never threatened to take that status away from him. We punish the small fish all the time. Yet, we don't go after the big MoFo thieves and locusts who screw us to tunes and damages that city sized pools of small fish couldn't do in total sum. It's time we do.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Yep. Hence why I enjoy talking zoning law with you.

Taking it all is obviously bad policy. Hell, that's downright un-American. But IMO it's also just as un-American to not recognise and appreciate what it is to be a US citizen and resident and all it offers. That includes the Big Picture of how one can make money here. My family has no regrets whatsoever about it and love what this country has done. Part of that value is giving back to the nation. Some of that comes in taxes. Some of that comes with investment. Some of that comes with treating the people who helped you obtain your wealth--namely the employers--with due respect and dignity including fair wages and terms and opportunities. It means voting, giving your time to charities and things like being a coach and sponsor of youth teams, etc. It means being willing to serve if the country needs you to defend it. Nobody gets rich all by themselves here. It takes a people, a system, an infrastructure, an educated population, a military willing to defend it, employers showing up working to make your dreams come true, etc. In short, it's not just all about you. It's how the setup here makes can make dreams come true for anyone or at a minimum see to it that you aren't plagued by violent and oppressive barbarians and tyrants in filthy and oppressive conditions as so commonly the case in other countries who would love to trade spots with those here who 'prey upon and disrespect the joint', so to speak.

He's totally worth it. Not only is he walking away with his tax obligations, he sets a precedent for others to do it. That's a huge drain on our exchequer and precedent to do more at the public's expense that helped him get to be rich beyond dreams and never threatened to take that away from him. We punish the small fish all the time. Yet, we don't go after the big MoFO thieves and locusts who screw us to tunes and damages that city sized full of small fish couldn't do in total sum. It's time we do.

You're a Communist!

Originally Posted by USCitizen

You're a Communist!

ROFLMAO. Hey, Stalin wasn't all bad...he shot guys like that.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Beat them into it? No. But shame them into it where it's truly shameful? Absolutely. We're not talking about peccadillo stuff here. That's serious stuff if a basic breakdown in civil obligations and value of citizenship and civic participation here gets that low. On the one hand, we're expecting people who wish to become permanent residents and become citizens to do things like learn English, register for selective service, vote, appear for jury duty, participate and perform community services, obey the laws, etc, and then signal that an 'American hero' is one who throws us into the trash to avoid paying taxes here? C'mon. And our laws certainly when it comes to cases and situations like this should address it very seriously. You just don't look at the US as a place to exploit...it's a place you value and seek positive changes and positive productions, etc. That includes concerning our people, our institutions, our obligations, etc.

And there's certain things where it's not just about 'encouragement'. There are bottom cellars of minimum conduct that must be expected or face consequences. That's why we have penal codes and other codes sanctioning certain kinds of misconduct. The fact is that some people on some or most aspects won't observe minimum standards of conduct that causes harms and therefore we use the law to inflict punishment for deterrence and retribution as well as seek restitution for the harms done.

...that's where I'd like the government to focus upon to tar and feather the POS and set examples for egregious situations such as him.

Sound like a good bit more than "shaming them into it" to me.

You have one thing I agree with. At some point you will run into a person that will fuck you over no matter how much you do for them but if we gear our laws in such a way that everyone will be subject to penalty for the failings of a few outliers then we are surely fucking ourselves over.

This guy, to the best of my knowledge, has complied with the laws of this nation and functioned as a proper citizen for the time he has spent here. His work has benefited him but it has also benefited others who have worked with him and invested their time and ability in common endeavors. It is now his choice to move on. So be it.

I would hope that you have some level of agreement that ex post facto laws are not desirable in this country and should be prohibited. To level some kind of penalty against this guy would be a direct violation of this principle, right? Now, if we were to introduce some kind of reactionary legislation that didn't effect Saverin but did effect anyone else who chose the same path it might well be Constitutional but would it serve this nation in the best ways possible? Would it be a law of which we could be proud? Would it be a law which served the purpose of expanding liberty or would it merely serve state interests? In short, would it serve to encourage more participation in our economy and our culture or would it discourage people from making a living here in favor of making that living elsewhere?

Originally Posted by lutherf

Sound like a good bit more than "shaming them into it" to me.

You have one thing I agree with. At some point you will run into a person that will fuck you over no matter how much you do for them but if we gear our laws in such a way that everyone will be subject to penalty for the failings of a few outliers then we are surely fucking ourselves over.

This guy, to the best of my knowledge, has complied with the laws of this nation and functioned as a proper citizen for the time he has spent here. His work has benefited him but it has also benefited others who have worked with him and invested their time and ability in common endeavors. It is now his choice to move on. So be it.

I would hope that you have some level of agreement that ex post facto laws are not desirable in this country and should be prohibited. To level some kind of penalty against this guy would be a direct violation of this principle, right? Now, if we were to introduce some kind of reactionary legislation that didn't effect Saverin but did effect anyone else who chose the same path it might well be Constitutional but would it serve this nation in the best ways possible? Would it be a law of which we could be proud? Would it be a law which served the purpose of expanding liberty or would it merely serve state interests? In short, would it serve to encourage more participation in our economy and our culture or would it discourage people from making a living here in favor of making that living elsewhere?

As a constitutional obligation, we cannot impose an ex post facto law on him. That proscription, however, deals with penal laws. It has no application to civil ones. I'd be fully for any laws that would affect a turd like him that fall under civil sanctions. That can certainly include certain manners of tax collection, affecting his right to be present or do business here, etc. And laws can affect conduct going forward. That can also be used to make his life miserable here, especially since he has his Facebook interest and likely others here. Uncle Sam gave him his chance of life and then wealth and he secured both. He sought us. We didn't seek him. He owes Uncle Sam for that whether he likes it or not, and I'm all for showing him within the law just how much that is so given what he did and for anyone else of similar circumstances and mind who do so.

Moreover on the subject of laws, doing what is legal is not the same as doing what is right, and it's not something one usually deserves any credit. As Chris Rock aptly put it to paraphrase him, you don't get credit for doing what's expected of you: "Well I've never been in jail." "Motherfucker you aren't supposed to be in jail! What do you want, a cookie?" Are the Westboro Baptist Church assholes worthy of praise because they follow the law in their picketing? Or the Klan in following parade permits and other laws when preaching their bile? Or the peadophile who saw a loophole in MA law and others that allowed him to send obscene text messages to minors? No, on the latter, we condemned the SOB and quickly passed laws closing that loophole in states that used the 1960s Model Penal Code definition that was never updated to include the new texting technology.

It's not just about him, though. It's also about how Forbes and others reacted to his conduct. It's also about straightening out any idea that this is something good and healthy for the country and reminding people what's actually valuable to this nation's survival, maintenance and support. It's also about deterring this conduct for those who lack the character to want to do so if tolerated.

Originally Posted by lutherf

ex post facto laws

Should be encouraged.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

As a constitutional obligation, we cannot impose an ex post facto law on him. That proscription, however, deals with penal laws. It has no application to civil ones. I'd be fully for any laws that would affect a turd like him that fall under civil sanctions. That can certainly include certain manners of tax collection, affecting his right to be present or do business here, etc. And laws can affect conduct going forward. That can also be used to make his life miserable here, especially since he has his Facebook interest and likely others here. Uncle Sam gave him his chance of life and then wealth and he secured both. He sought us. We didn't seek him. He owes Uncle Sam for that whether he likes it or not, and I'm all for showing him within the law just how much that is so given what he did and for anyone else of similar circumstances and mind who do so.

Moreover on the subject of laws, doing what is legal is not the same as doing what is right, and it's not something one usually deserves any credit. As Chris Rock aptly put it to paraphrase him, you don't get credit for doing what's expected of you: "Well I've never been in jail." "Motherfucker you aren't supposed to be in jail! What do you want, a cookie?" Are the Westboro Baptist Church assholes worthy of praise because they follow the law in their picketing? Or the Klan in following parade permits and other laws when preaching their bile? Or the peadophile who saw a loophole in MA law and others that allowed him to send obscene text messages to minors? No, on the latter, we condemned the SOB and quickly passed laws closing that loophole in states that used the 1960s Model Penal Code definition that was never updated to include the new texting technology.

It's not just about him, though. It's also about how Forbes and others reacted to his conduct. It's also about straightening out any idea that this is something good and healthy for the country and reminding people what's actually valuable to this nation's survival, maintenance and support. It's also about deterring this conduct for those who lack the character to want to do so if tolerated.

I have no intention of praising the guy for his decision but I'll be damned if I see fit to punish him for it.

Here's the deal, this guy is exhibiting signs that he has no interest in working any more. He made his pile and now he wants to piss it away on champagne and hookers. That's not a decision I would make and I don't think that it's a particularly good decision but the upshot is that it's his decision. Now, if we were interested in him pissing that fortune away here we could have easily set up the law in such a way that it would encourage him to stay here. Instead of that, though, we are in the process of bumping cap gains from 15% to 20% and probably screwing away other tax benefits so I can totally see why he's getting out of dodge. The political climate here over the past few years has been one of "It's all the State's money and you should be fucking ecstatic that we let you keep some of it" rather than one of "We want you to be as prosperous as you can be and enjoy the fruits of your labor".

As a guy who gives tax advice on a pretty regular basis I can't really say that his decision is a bad one. It allows him to reap the most benefit from what he has earned. Now, if Singapore starts to look at the situation and says to themselves "Hey, we've got this mope in the basket. Drop the hammer on him!" that's their prerogative but I'm going to hazard a guess that instead of doing that they'll look at his decision as an opportunity to attract even more successful people to head their way and piss away their piles in that country as well.