MARTIN Shkreli aka ‘Pharma Bro’ has been jailed

MARTIN Shkreli aka ‘Pharma Bro’ has been jailed over Facebook posts in which he offered $US5,000 in exchange for a strand of Hillary Clinton’s hair.


The convicted fraudster was declared a “danger to society” by a US federal judge on Wednesday and jailed over the provocative social media posts.

Despite a grovelling letter from the 34-year-old former pharmaceutical chief executive, in which he claimed that the social media status was an “awkward attempt at humour or satire,” Brooklyn federal court judge Kiyo Matsumoto revoked his $US5 million bond and ordered him thrown behind bars.

Prosecutors asked the judge to lock up Shkreli following a since-deleted Facebook status in which he told followers he’d pay $US5,000 for a strand of Clinton’s locks.

The creepy joke, the climax of a series of other postings in which he seemed to suggest he intended to clone the former Secretary of State, was scrubbed from his account after Shkreli was contacted by the secret service.

“On HRC’s book tour, try and grab a hair from her,” he wrote on September 4. “I must confirm the sequences I have. Will pay $5,000 per hair obtained from Hillary Clinton.”
In a September 12 letter to the court, Shkreli apologised for the status, which he called an “awkward attempt at humour or satire,” and said he never intended to “threaten” HRC.

But the judge wasn’t buying it, and ordered the marshals to take him into custody.


Shkreli was convicted of defrauding hedge fund investors in early August, and faces up to 20 years behind bars when sentenced.

Ahead of the trial, he was so hated that the judge had to discharge more than 200 jurors, who admitted to despising him over his actions as chief executive of Turing Pharmaceuticals.

Shkreli made headlines around the world as the “most hated man in America” after buying the rights to a lifesaving cancer and AIDS drug and jacking up the price by 5000 per cent.

In the hours after jurors returned the mixed verdict, he announced on a Facebook lifestream that prison — which he called “Club Fed” — wouldn’t be that bad.

“I’ll play basketball and tennis and Xbox,” he mused.

Shkreli will now languish in “Club Fed” for an untold period of time, as a sentencing date has yet to be set.

”F — the government,” Shkreli wrote on Facebook after prosecutors filed a motion asking the judge to revoke his hefty bond.

“I will never kiss their ring or snitch. Come at me with your hardest because I haven’t seen anything impressive yet.”

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/pharma-bro-jailed-after-judge-declares-him-a-danger-to-society/news-story/c48012e09cd9b85530641d177afda657

Raggamuffin wrote:He was jailed because he was already on bail, and the bail got revoked.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:He was jailed because he was already on bail, and the bail got revoked.

And the bail got revoked because he tried to intimidate Sec. Clinton.

Raggamuffin wrote:He was jailed for that? How silly. I'm awaiting the outcome of the conviction for fraud, although he was acquitted on several counts so he's not going to get 20 years.

He's an interesting character IMO - completely fearless and relentless.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:He was jailed for that? How silly. I'm awaiting the outcome of the conviction for fraud, although he was acquitted on several counts so he's not going to get 20 years.

He's an interesting character IMO - completely fearless and relentless.

No surprise there, Raggs...

You've defended and spoken up for nazis, perverts, racists, tax evaders, murderers, and crooked cops at various times on this forum..

So it shouldn't surprise anyone to see you championing yet another greedy and slimy corporate crim'.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:He was jailed for that? How silly. I'm awaiting the outcome of the conviction for fraud, although he was acquitted on several counts so he's not going to get 20 years.

He's an interesting character IMO - completely fearless and relentless.

No surprise there, Raggs...

You've defended and spoken up for nazis, perverts, racists, tax evaders, murderers, and crooked cops at various times on this forum..

So it shouldn't surprise anyone to see you championing yet another greedy and slimy corporate crim'.

Raggamuffin wrote:Back on topic, the point is - will Shkreli be judged purely for the fraud or on the Daraprim issue as well? That's why he's hated, not because of his stockmarket dealings - I doubt any of you give a toss about that. He didn't break the law on the Daraprim deal, so presumably the judge will ignore that.

Raggamuffin wrote:I wish people would stop trolling this thread - it's an interesting subject, and it's not for personal vendettas and childish comments.

eddie wrote:The man sounds like an ignorant, arrogant arse and not even prison time will change that.  He'll come out and write a book and still make money because morally corrupt people always get rich.

eddie wrote:The man sounds like an ignorant, arrogant arse and not even prison time will change that.  He'll come out and write a book and still make money because morally corrupt people always get rich.

eddie wrote:
The man sounds like an ignorant, arrogant arse and not even prison time will change that.  He'll come out and write a book and still make money because morally corrupt people always get rich.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:The man sounds like an ignorant, arrogant arse and not even prison time will change that.  He'll come out and write a book and still make money because morally corrupt people always get rich.

He's a risk-taker, and it sometimes paid off, and other times it didn't. That happens all the time in the stockmarkets. I'm not completely sure what the charges he was convicted of relate to. He was acquitted of the more serious ones - ie, using one company to pay off the debts of another.

You have to remember that he couldn't do any of this without people willing to dabble in the stockmarket, sometimes taking massive risks themselves, like the chap I just mentioned. It's a game which requires nerves of steel and a gambler's attitude.

The Daraprim incident is nothing to do with his conviction, but it just shows how risky it is to leave essential drugs in the hands of the Pharma companies alone. Other companies have hiked drug prices too, but Shkreli got into the papers because it was more dramatic.

Raggamuffin wrote:
I wish people would stop trolling this thread - it's an interesting subject, and it's not for personal vendettas and childish comments.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
I wish people would stop trolling this thread - it's an interesting subject, and it's not for personal vendettas and childish comments.

You are only person "trolling" this thread, Raggs  !!!

(Until Smelly or gelico happens along..).

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He's a risk-taker, and it sometimes paid off, and other times it didn't. That happens all the time in the stockmarkets. I'm not completely sure what the charges he was convicted of relate to. He was acquitted of the more serious ones - ie, using one company to pay off the debts of another.

You have to remember that he couldn't do any of this without people willing to dabble in the stockmarket, sometimes taking massive risks themselves, like the chap I just mentioned. It's a game which requires nerves of steel and a gambler's attitude.

The Daraprim incident is nothing to do with his conviction, but it just shows how risky it is to leave essential drugs in the hands of the Pharma companies alone. Other companies have hiked drug prices too, but Shkreli got into the papers because it was more dramatic.

"Risk taker"  ???

Bullshit...

He's a thief, a chancer, and an asset stripper..

Neither a genuine "risk taker", nor any kind of entrepreneur.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You are only person "trolling" this thread, Raggs  !!!

(Until Smelly or gelico happens along..).

Behave Wolfie. She's not trolling - you may not agree with her but she's hardly trolling.

eddie wrote:Really didge? Oh well. I'm trying to keep the topic on topic and calling someone a troll when all they're doing is actually debating the topic is hardly fair, is it?

She didn't arrive on the thread and call anyone any names.

And I'm not explaining myself further.

eddie wrote:You don't half talk some bollcoks sometimes.

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Really didge? Oh well. I'm trying to keep the topic on topic and calling someone a troll when all they're doing is actually debating the topic is hardly fair, is it?

She didn't arrive on the thread and call anyone any names.

And I'm not explaining myself further.

PMSL please spare me your load of crap. She called Wolf a troll and also inferred I was by posting that people were trolling after a post I made. I never called her any names, so what is your excuse for inferring I am a troll?

I have no need for you to explain any further, you are an utter hypocrite. Its why Ben created a rule on this forum to make it like North Korea.

Raggamuffin wrote:I see that nobody is actually interested in this story at all. It's a shame really - if some people took their heads out of their arses, they might find it quite interesting.

I don't mean you eddie.

eddie wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


You are only person "trolling" this thread, Raggs  !!!

(Until Smelly or gelico happens along..).

Behave Wolfie. She's not trolling - you may not agree with her but she's hardly trolling.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I see that nobody is actually interested in this story at all. It's a shame really - if some people took their heads out of their arses, they might find it quite interesting.

I don't mean you eddie.

I hope he get the conviction for fraud and I think he will but I thin his previous shenanigans will play a part. part of the reason for the delay has been the difficulty finding people that do not already hold a negative opinion of him.

I don't know that he is a 'risk taker' there is very little risk in the type of moral less profiteering he is known for. He simple pushed what is legally allowable for personal profit. people need to buy live saving medicine regardless of cost, so very little risk to the business model.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:

Behave Wolfie. She's not trolling - you may not agree with her but she's hardly trolling.

"Debating"  Raggamuffin style...

Raggs (and company...) can drop in on threads, abuse people left, right and centre --  and that's still called 'debating'..

Raggs, Horatio and Sly have all falsely accused me of "trolling" over recent months --  and the only people who speak up against their lies are my fellow 'lefties' and/or Didge..

Any of us complain about genuine "trolling" by certain 'Flap goons,  and you or victor defend their actions as some form of "debate"  !!!          

eddie wrote:Wolfie I am not on anybody's "side" and usually when they attack you it's because you've attacked them or vice versa - it's an ongoing war.
But in this particular thread rags was actually just debating with no malice.

Please realise one thing: I don't have a side. I never have.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think people should leave eddie alone. She was right to intervene, and those who are trolling should just own up to it and shut up, unless they have something interesting to say about the subject.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Thorin wrote:


PMSL please spare me your load of crap. She called Wolf a troll and also inferred I was by posting that people were trolling after a post I made. I never called her any names, so what is your excuse for inferring I am a troll?

I have no need for you to explain any further, you are an utter hypocrite. Its why Ben created a rule on this forum to make it like North Korea.

You know what, you're so right. We need a constitutional convention ... for NewsFix.

Raggamuffin wrote:Who has he stolen from? He was acquitted of using one company to pay off the debts of another.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Who has he stolen from? He was acquitted of using one company to pay off the debts of another.

One should not be allowed to take profit from someone's life or good health.  Pharma's and Healthcare should be prohibited from being marketed, just as a contract to break the law is prohibited.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

One should not be allowed to take profit from someone's life or good health.  Pharma's and Healthcare should be prohibited from being marketed, just as a contract to break the law is prohibited.

Yes, but this case was nothing to do with the Daraprim, where Shkreli did not break the law, it was to do with other issues,  As far as the Daraprim problem went, no other company bothered to develop their own version in all the years that it was available, thereby leaving it in the hands of one supplier. Shkreli highlighted a problem that needs to be fixed. Pyrimethanine is the active ingredient, and other companies can develop that, but the FDA can't rush anything through because of safety issues.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but this case was nothing to do with the Daraprim, where Shkreli did not break the law, it was to do with other issues,  As far as the Daraprim problem went, no other company bothered to develop their own version in all the years that it was available, thereby leaving it in the hands of one supplier. Shkreli highlighted a problem that needs to be fixed. Pyrimethanine is the active ingredient, and other companies can develop that, but the FDA can't rush anything through because of safety issues.

The issue is not with the pharmaceutical end.  It should be illegal do do such a frivolous thing as gambling (risk), with such an important thing as medicines and healthcare.  

The stock market is a gaming house.  Healthcare and pharmaceuticals are lifesaving endeavors.  The stock market should not be allowed to truck and trade in lives.