Molly White's Citation Needed - Sam Bankman-Fried’s helicopter parents crash into federal court

Episode Date: March 27, 2026

SBF praises Trump from prison, his parents beg for a pardon on CNN, and his legal ethics professor mother files court documents claiming to be from him — prompting a judge to demand he swear under oath who wrote them. Originally published on March 27, 2026.

I'm Molly White, and you're listening to the audio feed for the Citation Needed Newsletter. You can see the text version of the newsletter online at citation needed.news. Sam Bankman-Freed's helicopter parents crash into federal court. SBF praises Trump from prison, his parents beg for a pardon on CNN, and his legal ethics professor mother files court documents claiming to be from him, prompting a judge to demand he swear under oath who wrote them. This issue was originally published on March 27, 26. On Monday, federal judge Louis Kaplan issued an order.

Sam Bankman-Fried, currently serving a 25-year sentence for the massive fraud he perpetrated at his FTX cryptocurrency exchange, must declare, under penalty of perjury, whether attorneys drafted the supposedly pro se filing submitted under his name. The order is the latest episode in an increasingly bizarre saga involving Bankman Fried and his Stanford law professor parents, who were filing and perhaps also drafting legal documents on behalf of their 34-year-old son. The whole mess began in February when Barbara Fried, Professor Emerita of Legal Ethics at Stanford, who retired in 2022, filed on her son's behalf a motion seeking a new trial before a new judge. This was odd from the start, as Bankman Fried currently has an appeal under consideration before the Second Circuit, where a panel of judges heard his arguments in November that FTCS merely had a liquidity problem, not a solvency problem, and that all his customers were repaid anyway, so no harm, no foul. He also argued that he was deprived of a fair trial by Judge Kaplan, who presided over his 2023 trial,

and who had prohibited him from discussing his reliance on FTX Attorney's Counsel after he opted not to present a formal advice of counsel defense. With an appeal open in which he presents the same arguments with the assistance of high-powered legal counsel, why file a separate motion at all? And why opt to proceed pro se, that is, represent himself, despite having no legal background, rather than use those attorneys to help him draft it? He probably shouldn't, and legally he can't. defendant cannot simultaneously be represented by counsel and proceed pro se.

Furthermore, if either of his parents or any other attorney drafted the motion and then filed it claiming it was from their son acting pro se, they would be misleading the court. The pro se designation exists to give judges discretion to be more lenient with defendants who lack legal training, not as a vehicle for attorneys to file motions in courts where they're not admitted, while avoiding the requirements that would apply if they were openly representing their client. If an attorney drafted Bankman Fried's motion, then it's not pro se. If Barbara Fried wrote it, she's practicing law in a court where she's not admitted. And if Sam Bankman Fried signed off on a filing claiming he wrote something someone else actually wrote, he's lying to a federal judge.

The immediate risk is sanctions from Judge Kaplan himself. Federal judges have broad authority to sanction attorneys who mislead the court, including fines, referring the matter to bar authorities, or even holding the attorney in contempt. And beyond the immediate risk of court sanctions, Barbara Fried, as a member of the New York Bar, remains bound by professional responsibility rules, even when not actively practicing. Helping to file documents that misrepresent their authorship could subject her to bar discipline, potentially including disbarment. The timeline. On February 10, Sam Bankman-Fried Fried filed a motion for a new trial in front of a new judge. Attached to it was a cover letter from his mother, which explained, quote, although Mr. Bankman Fried is proceeding pro se, because he is currently

incarcerated he has authorized me to file this on his behalf. The government responded to the substance of the motion on March 11th, without addressing the cover letter, arguing that, quote, the motion is a transparent attempt to relitigate questions the jury decided, re-assert factual claims the record refutes and advance a political narrative the defendant committed to writing before his arrest. Also on March 11th, Barbara Fried published a substack post comparing Judge Kaplan to Irving Kaufman, the judge who sentenced the Rosenbergs to death in the 1950s, and wrote that Kaplan, quote, seems to take pleasure in his cruelty. The following day, she wrote to Kaplan's court to request a three-week extension for her son to respond to the government's reply brief. She identified herself,

as, quote, the holder of power of attorney for Sam Bankman-Freet, and explained that he was soon to be relocated from Los Angeles's Terminal Island Prison, and thus would be, quote, out of contact with the outside world for some period of time that is hard to predict at this point. There were multiple problems with this letter, as Judge Kaplan would soon point out. While Fried may hold power of attorney for her son, allowing her to make a broad range of decisions on his behalf, it does not literally designate her as his attorney. And while Freed does maintain an active license to practice in New York state courts, she is not admitted to the bar of the Southern District of New York, nor has she requested Prohokvici admission. Further, court staff informed Judge Kaplan that Freed, or someone

identifying themselves as such, had left a voicemail with his chambers, an improper ex parte communication. Judge Kaplan responded on March 16th, with a rebuke made more withering by his patience in spelling out the procedural matters that a law professor of 40 years and formerly practicing attorney should clearly know, but nevertheless failed to follow. Quote, Miss Fried is not a member of the bar of this court, has not sought leave to appear prohawk Ricci, and has not filed an appearance. A power of attorney granted by the defendant does not authorize her to seek relief from the court or otherwise to participate in this litigation. The court, of course, understands that Ms. Freed is the defendant's mother, was trained and practiced as a lawyer, and has taught at Stanford Law School. Nevertheless, with no disrespect, she lacks standing to file papers or seek relief in this case. But despite the reprimand, Kaplan said that he would, on his own initiative, grant a several-day extension to allow Bankman-Fried or his attorneys to request more time if needed.

On March 19, such a letter arrived, purportedly, for the court. from Bankmanfried himself. And while the government responded to say they did not object to a reasonable extension to accommodate Bankman Fried's lack of access to, quote, legal work, counsel, or ability to communicate with the court, they noted several questions pertaining to the letter's authenticity. The letter had arrived by overnight FedEx, with a return address of S. Bankman Fried, Terminal Island, DOC, San Pedro, California. But prosecutors noted that inmates are not permitted to send mail via private carriers, including FedEx. Terminal Island is also a federal correctional institution, FCI, rather than a Department of Corrections or DOC facility, an unlikely error for someone who's been

held there for nearly a year. They noted the FedEx tracking number indicated the document had been shipped from Palo Alto or its neighboring Menlo Park, almost 400 miles from Terminal Island, but home to Bankman Fried's parents. Finally, the letter was signed with a conformed signature rather than an actual signature. Though prosecutors didn't note it in their letter, the telephone number on the FedEx return address matches the one listed on his father Joseph Bankman's California attorney profile. All of this is to say the government has, quote, reason to doubt that the letter purportedly submitted by the defendant was in fact sent by him. On March 23rd, Judge Kaplan extended the deadline for Bankman-Fried's reply,

again sua sponte. Simultaneously, he issued a memorandum in order, noting that Bankman Fried is at present being represented by several attorneys in his ongoing appeal, but nevertheless has attempted to file a pro se motion for a new trial. He explains that defendants represented by counsel may only, quote, submit written arguments, speak in court, and do other things normally done by counsel only in the discretion of the district court. To help him decide whether to exercise that discretion, and, quote, to ensure that ethical rules are being adhered to by anyone involved, Kaplan ordered Bankman-Freed must state under penalty of perjury whether his filings had been prepared by an attorney, and if so, by whom. He also ordered that any future pro se filings

must include such a declaration. Bankman-Freed has until April 15 to respond. Sam Bankmanfried's campaign. This motion for a new trial is part of a multi-front public relations and legal campaign by Bankman Fried and his family to secure his freedom, alongside his ongoing Second Circuit appeal, and an increasingly overt appeal for a presidential pardon. From prison, Bankman Fried has been posting to Twitter via a proxy. His account bio states, quote, we can use BOP-approved phone calls slash emails to tell others what to post on our socials.

Recent posts have heaped praise on President Trump, endorsing his war on Iran, claiming that oil prices have come down under his leadership, and stating that he, quote, Fixed the SEC. He has endorsed Trump's interpretation of his own legal troubles as an attack by a politically motivated Justice Department and claim that he too is a victim of such attacks. Although Bankman Fried was publicly perceived as a Democrat and was among Biden's largest donors, he has decided that Biden caught wind of his straw and dark money donations to Republicans and that the DOJ's case against him was retaliatory.

Television. On March 21st, his parents made their pitch, sitting for their first televised interview since their son's conviction. When asked by CNN's Michael Smirconish what she wanted to say to President Trump, Barbara Fried made the appeal. I think that Sam was the victim of an out-of-the-control-of-and-out-the-control prosecution and I know that Trump himself feels he was. I would say also that Sam is one of the most brilliant, talented young man of his generation

and the amount of good he can do in this world. If he is free to live a life of the life he wants, would be of enormous benefit to the economy, to a lot of things Trump cares about in this world, and that he ought to regard Sam as a huge asset going forward for the country. Throughout the interview, Bankman and Freed echoed their son, that he is innocent, that his companies were solvent throughout, that all customers were repaid with interest,

and that the prosecution was politically motivated. The Biden administration had decided, to destroy crypto. I am describing a part of the Biden administration that I think did really bad things. Although the CNN interview was his parents' first televised interview since the conviction, it was not their first public advocacy. As I mentioned, on March 11, 10 days before the CNN interview

and the day before she filed the improper extension request, Barbara Fried published a substack post. and although I briefly described her animus for Judge Kaplan, who she accused of harboring, quote, visceral hate of Sam, I barely scratched the surface. Substack. Barbara Freed had launched her substack, titled The Untold Story of Sam Bankman Fried,

in October 2025, with a link to a 65-page Google document outlining her version of events, which largely echoed her sons. The blog sat mostly unused until earlier this month, when she published a post titled Harmless Error, ostensibly about the Second Circuit oral arguments, but dedicating substantial space to attacks on Judge Kaplan. Early in the post, even though she notes that only 5% of federal criminal convictions are reversed,

Freed cites, quote, a few unnamed lawyers who she claims commented that her son had, quote, one of the strongest criminal appeals they could remember. She claims they estimated chances of reversal in the whopping 30 to 60% range, Perhaps the kind of overly optimistic assessment, compassionate friends might offer a grieving parent. But most of the post is spent on attacks aimed at Judge Kaplan, in the form of a lengthy comparison to Judge Irving Kaufman, a former SDNY judge notorious for presiding over the 1951 espionage trial of husband and wife, Julius, and Ethel Rosenberg. Kaufman secretly colluded with prosecutors throughout the trial, and as Freed writes, quote, his one-sided rulings for the prosecution virtually compelled the jury to convict.

Kaufman ultimately imposed death sentences for both Rosenbergs, an unprecedented outcome for an espionage trial, made even more extraordinary by the fact that the Rosenbergs had only acted as messengers. Freed writes that she, quote, was struck by the similarities to Kaplan's behavior in Sam's case. Though she writes that, quote, no one would accuse Kaplan of secretly colluding with the prosecution in her son's case, She goes on to do precisely that, both arguing that Kaplan colluded openly, rather than secretly, with prosecutors, and later writing of, quote, the intricate bait and Kaplan orchestrated to deflect the jury's attention from the charge

that the funds were wrongly appropriated. She suggests that Kaplan may even outdo Kaufman. Quote, Kaplan, however, has one character trait that I don't think Kaufman had, despite everything. He seems to take pleasure in his cruelty. Fried also devotes some time to a theory she claims was suggested to her, again by an unnamed party, that, quote, Kaplan's extreme animus towards Sam could be explained in part by Jewish self-loathing, or a need to distance himself from a fellow Jew accused of a crime. Though she writes that it had seemed unlikely to her, she finishes, quote,

notwithstanding the anti-Semitic hate mail that we continue to receive, Sam's Jewish identity wouldn't be noteworthy either, at least to Kaplan, I think. Though she claims not to hold the opinion, she nevertheless finds it worthwhile to mention, and hedges her position with a very pointed, I think. Posting through it. Her behavior mirrors Sam Bankman-Freed's own approach throughout his trial, when he demonstrated an almost pathological need to explain himself publicly. He launched a substack where he laid out his version of events and legal theories in great detail.

He spoke to journalists and participated in chaotic audio interviews on 20. Twitter, even as his lawyers likely begged him to stop creating such a robust record of sometimes contradictory statements that could, and would, later be used against him at trial. He tweeted constantly, right up until Judge Kaplan had finally had enough and yanked his bail after he leaked former lover and FTX co-ex executive turned star witness Caroline Ellison's private diary entries to the New York Times. And ultimately, he opted to take the stand in his own defense, despite a largely unanimous opinion by outside legal commentators and presumably his own legal team, that this would at best not help his case, and at worst be disastrous. Now, from prison, he has someone posting to Twitter

on his behalf. He constitutionally cannot help but post. And somehow he believes that this posting somehow aids his case, as though if he can just explain his position clearly enough, everyone will finally understand. I'm now beginning to believe his condition may be genetic, But if the family hoped their multi-platform campaign would generate sympathy or support for a pardon, they badly miscalculated. Even crypto-friendly Republicans, who might otherwise be sympathetic to claims of regulatory overreach under Biden, have been emphatic in their rejection. Quote, the guy's a piece of shit, Senator Bernie Moreno, a Republican from Ohio and crypto industry favorite, told Politico.

Quote, the guy shouldn't be pardoned. The guy should go to jail for a long long long. long time. Long-time industry allies Senator Cynthia Lomas, a Republican from Wyoming, feels similarly. Quote, I hope the president doesn't fall for that. He hurt a lot of people. And Trump himself told the New York Times in January that he had no plans to pardon Bankman Freed, a position his spokespeople reiterated in late February. Falls from Grace. The parents' involvement in their son's business ventures had already been questioned long before this recent courtroom drama. In September 2023, weeks before Bankman-Fried's criminal trial began,

the FDX bankruptcy team filed an adversary case against Barbara Fried and Joseph Bankman, alleging they were unjustly enriched by around $30 million in benefits from the FTX fraud. These included a $16.4 million luxury property in the Bahamas and a $10 million cash gift. Joseph Bankman was described as heavily involved in the company's day-to-day operations, providing legal and financial input, and ultimately requesting a $1 million salary. Evidence published during the trial showed him as a participant in several signal group chats, including the, quote, small group chat that functioned as a war room, as the executive team desperately tried to stop the collapse.

As for Barbara Fried, she was involved in FTX's charitable spending, soliciting some of the donations that ultimately resulted in a criminal wire fraud conviction for executive Ryan Salem. The adversary case was dismissed in late 2025, with no clear explanation of why or whether a settlement was reached. The parents were never criminally charged. At that point, they could have faded from public view. Sam Bankman-Fried's fall from grace was the inevitable outcome of his massive fraud, but his parents' reputations are being destroyed right along with his. Barbara Fried, a legal ethics professor, is now suspected of engaging in unauthorized practice of law. Joseph Bankman's phone number appears on suspicious mailings to a federal judge. It's difficult not to feel some sympathy for parents facing the reality that their son will spend 25 years in prison,

and who understand that they may not live to see him released. But while their grief and desperation is understandable, their response, publicly attacking the judge, inserting themselves into their son's legal schemes, and launching a scattershot pardon campaign across cable news and substack, has accomplished nothing except to tarnish their own reputations and demonstrate precisely the kind of entitlement and inability to accept consequences that got their son into trouble in the first place. They seem unable to accept that their brilliant son committed fraud, unable to stop posting through it, and unable to recognize that their campaign to free him may only be making things worse. The helicopter parents have followed their son all the way into federal court,

and now they're crashing right alongside him. Thanks for listening to this issue of the citation needed newsletter. If you would like to support my work with a free or pay what you want subscription to the citation needed newsletter, or if you would like to receive these issues in your email, go to citation needed.news slash sign up. If you enjoyed the podcast version of this episode, please consider leaving a rating or review in your podcast player of choice.