Subpoena

Can you imagine if the employees, docs and others now in deep shit could have spent a little more time understanding what the 2013 Subpoena would mean? One of the VP's is quoted in the press as having said it was simply "routine."

Insys Therapeutics Receives Subpoena From Office of Inspector General
PHOENIX, AZ--(Marketwired - Dec 12, 2013)
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: INSY) announced today that it has received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") in connection with an investigation of potential violations involving HHS programs. The subpoena requests documents regarding Subsys®, including Insys' sales and marketing practices relating to this product. Insys intends to cooperate with the investigation.

 

They will all go to trial. NOT GUILTY!

 

They would have got a conviction had they indicted the correct offenders. How in the world they handed down indictments to these six is beyond my comprehension. Start with JK and move to HR, legal, and compliance. With the six they indicted. NOT GUILTY on all counts.

 

Beyond you ? Maybe. Quick question, "Were you absent the day they taught criminal law in your law school?"
Just wondering.......

 

I'm sorry this is beyond your comprehension (please note that I started my sentence with an apology). Your statement of "not guilty" begs the question as to whether you have read any of the very detailed indictment from the DOJ with actual emails, texts, phone calls, log books, management meetings, taped meetings - all directly from the 6 arrested. It's child play to piece this puzzle together - how it started, why it happened and how it all went so wrong. There is a plethora of evidence you simply do not seem to be aware of. You need to understand there is also a vast amount, and growing, testimony from those who worked alongside and under the 6 VP's. Oh, and let's not forget all the doctors, nurses, employees, patients and patient's families who have turned over evidence. There is simply no way a jury trial will not convict. The prosecutors will go hard, very hard, and the outcome will not be pretty. As I posted earlier, there is a preponderance of incriminating evidence that a Grand Jury reviewed in order to proceed with the indictment. You seem to overlook that very important fact. I am sorry if you are connected to one of the guilty 6 headed to prison. That would explain your naive, desperate and repetitive posts of "not guilty".

 

Weren't there only 2 VPs arrested?

 

I'm glad you are asking questions. That's what CP is all about, getting accurate info out to the public.

SIX ARRESTED:
Michael L. Babich, Alec Burlakoff, Richard M. Simon, Sunrise Lee, Joseph A. Rowan, Michael J. Gurry

THE INVESTIGATION TEAM:
FBI; HHS-OIG; FDA Office of Criminal Investigations; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration; the Office of Personnel Management; the U.S. Postal Inspection Service; the U.S. Postal Service Office of Inspector General; and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The U.S. Attorney would like to acknowledge the outstanding cooperation and assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country engaged in parallel investigations, including the District of Connecticut; the Eastern District of Michigan; the Southern District of New York; and the Southern District of Alabama. The efforts of the Central District of California and the Civil Fraud Section of the Department of Justice are also greatly appreciated.

THE INDICTMENT:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/pharmaceutical-executives-charged-racketeering-scheme

 

Not guilty???? You are delusional!The jig is up!

 

I hate to point this out but criminal law isn't taught on a single day in law school. It's a series of courses (like torts or constitutional law), taken during the 1L, 2L, and 3L years. While I appreciate your attempt at trying to put others down, if you don't know what you're saying, you are the one who looks dumb. Keep it up though, eventually you'll get a zinger in there!

 

Although I'm on the author of the reply, I'm certain it was not meant to educate anyone on law school.
"Stupid is as stupid does" is what I might have replied to the same post that read "... they would have got a conviction blah blah blah." Speaking frankly, tt was quite frankly a very stupid post.

 

OMG! Did you actually go to law school ? I think so ! Now don't I feel foolish, assuming an attorney could recognize the distinction between sarcasm and literal commentary. Thanks for reminding me to remember my audience and well, you know, keep it simple. So sorry for your confusion. Is it a very painful condition?

 

i'll be my left nut your wrong. both of them for that matter.

 

OK, I recognize much of what passes for "communication" on this site is sorely lacking in both content and clarity. It's fine, I generally am able to unscramble, and eventually decipher, your actual meaning. For example, I understand you are NOT the author , as opposed to residing ON the author, of the previous post, as you stated. Being ON the author, opens up a whole range of unintended, probably untrue, and definitely unpleasant, possible physical entanglements. Probably not what you were going for.

After that great opener though, I must confess, it took a few more readings to figure out that I'm almost certain, well frankly, pretty sure, that I think, perhaps, maybe, you frankly, agree with me? (See what I did there?) It's no fun to sift through meaningless and repetitive words is tt ? (or did you mean it)?

You are young. (I hope, otherwise the prognosis is poor). Realize that words matter. You will be judged by how well you choose and use them. There's really only two ways this goes, either you master the language or it masters (read makes a fool of) you. As many of you may soon be scanning new job postings, you will likely encounter this common job requirement: Excellent verbal and written communication skills. It's great to be able to check YES . Even better if it's true !

 

Give the kid a break. They were obviously agreeing with you. I got that point on the first read and laughed at the line that read, "On the author." From your earlier posts, I'm guessing that you have a sense of humor and probably laughed too.

 

Right, so again I ask - weren't there only 2 VPs arrested? I didn't think Rich, Sunrise or Joe were VPs.

 

Yes, two VP's arrested - Alec Burlakoff and Michael Gurry. I believe the term "VP's" has been used at times in the media and on this site when the term "executives" would have been more accurate if referring to the group as a whole (who all had different titles).

 

You're right, of course. Errors in spelling, grammar and word choice are hardly limited to this site. Just this morning I was amazed to hear a very well-educated , cabinet nominee confidently state, " Seeing elderly people lose their homes was one of the most painstaking aspects of my job as CEO." Oh really? Kicking old folks out of their homes required patience and precision? ( Painful and painstaking are not synonyms.) These are Harvard grads (sigh)

 

To quote Jay Z "I ain't passed the bar but i know a little bit" enough to call you on your bullshit.

That song is called 99 problems. You definitely have 99 problems. But keep trying too hard and I'll keep making you look stupid.

Cheers!

 

Well she may have 99 problems Andrew, but bitch you ain't one. You are soon to have a lot more problems than she has.

 

Oh goodie! We're resorting to song lyrics, Hummm .....Let's see,.... Got it !

"What a fool believes"

But what a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power to reason away
What seems to be
Is always better than nothing
And nothing at all keeps sending him​

Don't you just love the Doobie Brothers ?, or, OH NO, have I confused you once again ?
Well, it's not really on me if you insist on showing up for this battle of wits totally unarmed now is it?

Cheers? ( Really? that's the best you got) You sure you want to keep playing, cause honey I am not even breaking a sweat here.