Jump to content

Danny

Bronze Member
  • Posts

    769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Danny

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Danny's Achievements

  1. True and that's basically what I tried to convey, except I personally think Netburn has been aware of this from the beginning. By doing what she's done so far, she's caused the SEC to increasingly lose ground. Eventually, when you've lost enough ground, you literally fail to hold your position.
  2. I second that. Each time the judge has to make a decision (i.e. whether to take a new ruling into consideration, grant another SEC request etc.), she must be assessing if and to what extent her decision will give grounds to the SEC to appeal.
  3. I hope you're right Ripley. Bejing Biden tends to do ridiculous things.
  4. I wouldn't be surprised if Biden's order will reflect some of this: https://decentralizedlegalsystem.com/us-crypto-currency-regulation/ I read that an executive order has the power of federal law. Congress may try to overturn an executive order by passing a bill that blocks it, but the president can veto that bill and Congress would then need to override that veto to pass the bill. Could an executive order nullify Judge Netburn's decision or verdict?
  5. I love you HAL, but we're having two different conversations here. Never mind.
  6. I'm referring to the question if what was said by Hinman in an interview, is lawful and legally valid. You responded to my question saying: "Either way, good luck getting a judge to see it the way you want it to be perceived, "that video means absolutely nothing judge, honest", rather than the way it actually is. JC and Hinman are both on camera appearing as SEC officials, with SEC logos surrounding them, they KNOWINGLY did this deliberately and nobody at the SEC corrected any of this at the time and now, according to the SEC, WE all have this clear communication to market participants all wrong." I don't disagree with you that Netburn is a smart woman and the SEC has expressed huge inconsistencies and has set double standards, not at all, but Netburn did confirm that what Hinman said, IS his personal opinion, not the agency's, despite the SEC logos and all that.
  7. That may be true and perhaps we should simply wait a little longer. All I've been trying to say in this thread is that Hinman's speech does NOT imply he reflected an official SEC policy, rule or protocol (hence my reference to "murder & evidence"). His speech being on the SEC website won't change Netburn's ruling that what he said was his personal view.
  8. Netburn recently said Hinman's speech concerned his personal views, not those of the agency.
  9. Documents mentioned: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldeconaf/131/131.pdf https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/40345/html/
  10. Worst case scenario according to John Deaton, thanks to CryptoEri. Interesting point at 5:30 when John mentions a Connecticut trial that took place two months ago in which the jury found against the SEC that that particular digital asset was NOT a security.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.