Sam Bankman-Fried’s helicopter parents crash into federal court

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 CitationNeeded.News.

Sam Bankman Freed's helicopter parents crashed into federal court.

SBF praises Trump from prison, his parents begged 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, 2026.

On Monday, federal judge Lewis Kaplan issued an order.

Sam Bankman Freed, 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-say filing submitted under his name.

The order is the latest episode in an increasingly bizarre saga involving Bankman Freed 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 Freed, 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 Freed currently has an appeal under consideration

before the second circuit, where a panel of judges heard his arguments in November that

FTX 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-say, 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.

A defendant cannot simultaneously be represented by counsel and proceed pro-say.

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-say, they would be misleading the court.

The pro-say designation exists to give Judge's discretion to be more lenient with defendants

who lack legal training, not as a vehicle for attorneys to file motions and 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 Freed's motion, then it's not pro-say.

If Barber Freed wrote it, she's practicing law in a court where she's not admitted,

and if Sam Bankman Freed signed off on a file and claiming he wrote some things someone

else actually wrote, he's lying to a federal judge.

The immediate risk is sanctions from Judge Kaplan himself.

Legal judges have brought 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, Barber Freed, 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.

On February 10, Sam Bankman Freed 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 Freed is proceeding pro-say, 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 11 without addressing

the cover letter, arguing that, quote, the motion is a transparent attempt to relitigate

questions the jury decided, reassert factual claims the record refutes,

and advance a political narrative the defendant committed to writing before his arrest.

Also on March 11, Barber Freed published a sub-stack 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 Freed,

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

point out. While Freed 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 pro-Hawk Vichy admission.

Further, court staff informed Judge Kaplan that Freed, or someone identifying themselves as such,

had left a voicemail with his chambers, an improper exparte communication. Judge Kaplan responded

on March 16, with a rebuke made more withering by his patients, in spelling out the procedural

matters that a law professor of 40 years and formally practicing attorney should clearly know,

but nevertheless failed to follow. Quote, Miss Freed is not a member of the bar of this court,

has not sought leave to appear pro-Hawk Vichy, 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 Miss 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 Freed or his attorneys to request more time if needed.

On March 19, such a letter arrived, purportedly from Bankman Freed himself. And while the

government responded to say they did not object to a reasonable extension to accommodate Bankman

Freed'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 Freed, 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 Freed'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,

reasoned to doubt that the letter purportedly submitted by the defendant was, in fact,

sent by him. On March 23, Judge Kaplan extended the deadline for Bankman Freed's reply,

again, Suasponte. Simultaneously, he issued a memorandum in order, noting that Bankman Freed is

at present being represented by several attorneys in his ongoing appeal. But nevertheless,

has attempted to file a pro-say 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-say filings must include such a declaration. Bankman Freed has until April 15

to respond. Sam Bankman Freed's campaign. This motion for a new trial is part of a multi-front

public relations and legal campaign by Bankman Freed 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 Freed 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 claimed that he too is a victim of such attacks.

Although Bankman Freed 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 21, his parents made their pitch, sitting for their first televised interview since

their son's conviction. When asked by CNN's Michael Smirconish, which he wanted to say to President

Trump, Barbara Freed made the appeal. I think that Sam was the victim of and out of control of

prosecution, and I know that Trump himself feels he was.

I would say also that Sam is one of the most brilliant talented young men 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 um 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 Freed 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 Freed 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 30-60% range,

perhaps the kind of overly optimistic assessment compassionate friends might offer a grieving parent.

But most of the posts 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-switch that the prosecution 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. Freed 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 sub-stack 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 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-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 infatic 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 time. Long-time industry ally,

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 Freed's criminal trial began, the FTX bankruptcy team filed an adversary case against

Barbara Freed 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 Freed, 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 Freed's fall from grace was the inevitable outcome of his massive fraud,

but his parents' reputations are being destroyed right along with his.

Barbara Freed, 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 sub-stack,

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 CitationNeeded.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.