Rabbit of Caerbannog. Opinions well reasoned and indisputably correct. The joke is sometimes on me. Lawyer supporting short activists and whistleblowers.
For those who believe that this "court reform" legislation would be constitutional, a question: Would it be constitutional if the legislation has every new Justice becoming a Senior Justice after one minute of being a regular Justice? They would get the title/salary for life.
Samuel Chase might be the messiest Founding Father in American history, and almost nobody knows his name. Buckle up.
1762: He gets expelled from his Annapolis debating club for "extremely irregular and indecent" behavior. He is 21.
1765: He leads the Sons of Liberty in storming public offices and burning the local stamp distributor in effigy. The mayor's circle publicly brands him "a busy, reckless incendiary, a ringleader of mobs, a foul-mouthed and inflaming son of discord." Chase's response, basically: yes, and?
1776: Maryland is the holdout on independence. Chase races roughly 150 miles on horseback to Annapolis, strong-arms the convention into a yes, and gets word to Philadelphia just in time for the vote. He signs the Declaration of Independence at 35.
1778: As a congressman, he learns of a secret plan to buy flour for the French fleet. He allegedly tips off business partners to corner the market first. A furious 23-year-old Alexander Hamilton invents a pen name just to publicly destroy him, writing that his crimes were "infamous in itself, repugnant to your station, and ruinous to your country."
The pen name Hamilton invented to torch Samuel Chase? Publius. The same one he'd reuse nine years later for the Federalist Papers. The most famous byline in American political history started as a burner account for one feud.
Somehow Chase rehabilitates himself, and in 1796 George Washington puts him on the Supreme Court. His colleagues nickname him "Old Bacon Face" because of how red he turns when he rants from the bench. He rants a lot.
He rants so much, openly campaigning against Jefferson from the bench, that in 1804 he becomes the only Supreme Court justice ever impeached.
Now the twist. The official who presides over his 1805 Senate trial is Vice President Aaron Burr, who at that moment is wanted in two states for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel.
A Boston newspaper covered it under the headline "The World Upside Down": formerly the murderer was arraigned before the judge, but now the judge is arraigned before the murderer.
Burr ran the trial flawlessly. Chase was acquitted on every count. And that acquittal is the reason, to this day, that a president cannot remove judges just for ruling against him.
One man's rap sheet: expelled, mob ringleader, profiteer, justice, impeached, acquitted, and the accidental origin of the Federalist Papers. They don't make Founders like this anymore.
Good quotes here, but I'd differ a bit. This is a trial verdict; what has changed is the perception of risk, rather than the risk itself. That could change with a bad 9th Circuit decision, but the utter muddle of the DoJ theory means the verdict doesn't shift much if anything.
@mcelarier Exactly! I described it to a client as putting a bunch of industry standard behavior in a blender labeled fraud and then triumphantly announcing the jury liked it.
“Sportsball” tweets are always bad tweets.
This particular one is in service to the poster’s desire to link the downfall of the Roman Empire to gay sex.
The servility of Senator Graham here is absolute, disgraceful, and disqualifying. He once thought January 6th was a breaking point with Trump, but now he wants to reward the lawbreakers. A sad man and an unserious public servant.
@Thatsregrettab1 Appreciate this. Unfortunately journalists ain't lawyers. I'd want to know when he covered, where and in what context he made the comment about "from the side" etc. That reads great in a story but doesn't tell me what I need to know legally. And even then may be insufficient.
Fisking the triumphalist DoJ press release in the Left trial. It spotlights the weaknesses of the case, and the few strong points.
Let's start with this bullshit.
Left isn't a financial adviser and has none of the fiduciary duties. DoJ knows this. Horseshit No. 1.
To the Short Activist community. Many of you are worried about "what the Left verdict means for us." At this stage, for most, not much except increased paranoia (I know that seems impossible). But that doesn't mean the community shouldn't be proactive in this fight because the real law will be made on appeal. There is room in the anticipated appeal for one or more amicus briefs before the 9th Circuit. Here are a few suggested areas. I'm curious which strikes you all as most potentially fruitful.
* First Amendment protection for market research.
* No general duty to disclose trading positions absent a recognized legal obligation.
* Lack of symmetry between long and short activism.
* Price discovery and anti-fraud benefits provided by short sellers.
* Fair-notice concerns about expanding securities-fraud doctrine.
I'm open to organizing a group in the industry to back the expense of and/or sign onto public association with such a brief.
The replies are a trip.
As expected, it’s not hard to convince a jury to hate a short seller. It will be a lot harder to convince the ninth circuit, and if they don’t do the job, there’ll be a cert petition.
Today I was found guilty. Amongst other things, for recommending Tesla, Nvidia and Meta back in 2018.
Not once did anyone say I lied. The government’s own agent admitted it on the stand. There were no false statements.
So now a truthful opinion that ends up making money is illegal. Is this America?
We disagree with the jury and this does not stop here. We will keep fighting for free, honest speech and opportunity, the backbone of this country.
This is not over.
@USAttyEssayli Here is a thread fisking your absolutely ridiculous, lawless, triumphalist nonsense of a press release. It betrays such a significant failure to understand and focus on actual securities law violations that you should be ashamed. https://t.co/II5h2yOYLV
Fisking the triumphalist DoJ press release in the Left trial. It spotlights the weaknesses of the case, and the few strong points.
Let's start with this bullshit.
Left isn't a financial adviser and has none of the fiduciary duties. DoJ knows this. Horseshit No. 1.
Cannot emphasize enough how batshit insane this is: "significant and emotional harm he inflicted upon his unwitting investors." Left didn't have any investors, and "emotional harm" as the basis for a criminal conviction for securities fraud is absolutely nuts.
Emotional harm??? What the actual fuck. Is DoJ now saying hurting baggies feelings is a crime? This is ludicrous although entirely consistent with the "make them hate him" strategy employed throughout.