![NuclearHerbs's tweet photo. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool everyone! Letâs learn some more Latin:
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.â
This is a well-known Latin phrase in law, and it means that if someone is found to be lying about one thing, it is reasonable to conclude that they shouldnât be believed about anything else.
Which brings me to todayâs topic: The SEC, and more specifically, settling with the SEC, which is materially different than settling with any other government agency or private party.
The easiest way to describe todayâs issue is to quote from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in SEC v Novinger, 40 F.4th297 (5th Cir. 2022):
âSince 1972, the SEC has prohibited defendants who settle civil enforcement actions without admitting guilt from publicly denying the allegations in the complaint filed against them. The SEC enacted this no-deny policy, which is codified at 17 C.F.R. 202.5(e), after determining that it was important to avoid creating, or permitting to be created, an impression that a decree is being entered or a sanction imposed, when the conduct alleged did not, in fact, occur. Id. Under the policy, a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations. Id.â
(FYI, whenever you see âIdâ in a case, it means itâs referencing the case it cited immediately prior. This just saves time typing the same case name and citation over and over when you cite it multiple times in a row.)
The short version: If you settle a case with the SEC, you are *never* allowed to deny the allegations they made against you, even if theyâre complete bullshit and you only settled because they offered you a minimal fine and it would have cost you 10,000x that amount to fight them in court. If you do speak out (even if you speak the truth), the SEC can reopen the case against you.
Does this seem fundamentally unfair? Absolutely.
Does it seem like a 1st Amendment violation? Absolutely.
So letâs ask a very important question: Why does the SEC think it still deserves to have this policy enforced by courts when itâs racking up a history of legally questionable or outright illegal actions?
By âlegally questionable,â I donât even mean actions that could be reasonably interpreted as incompetence, such as completely f*cking up with ZZZZ Best, Enron, Madoff, FTX, or Alameda. As bad as those failures were, thereâs still an argument an attorney could make in court for the actions the SEC took or didnât take without the judge laughing at them.
I donât even mean âlegally questionableâ in the sense of going after favorable news treatment by filing legally problematic complaints, because THATâS LITERALLY THEIR GOAL. Andrew Vollmer, former SEC deputy general, said the SEC only âwants headlines and therefore it needs to have eye-popping civil penalty numbersâ as opposed to effective business regulatory policies.
But incompetence and politics are one thing, deliberately taking illegal and/or unethical actions are another. Letâs take some recent examples:
Deliberately Withholding Exculpatory Evidence:
In United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2012), the SEC deliberately withheld 30 interview transcripts from the Defendant that contained exculpatory information. Iâve attached a part of the ruling in the Douglass Mackey case below where the 2nd Circuit addresses this. You donât withhold exculpatory evidence by accident. This was a deliberately illegal and unethical action by SEC attorneys. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Lying to the Court:
The SEC straight-up lied to the Court in order to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in its case against Debt Box. TROs, for those unfamiliar, are issued ex parte, which means one party (in this case, the SEC) goes into court and tells a judge that âif you donât do this right now, without letting the other side even know about these proceedings, there will be irreparable harm.â See the judgeâs November 30, 2023, order in SEC v. Dig. Licensing (Debt Box) 2:23-cv-00482-RJS-DBP (D. Utah, Nov 30, 2023). In fact, the SEC didnât just lie about one thing in that case, they lied to the court repeatedly, as the court outlines in detail. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this. You can google the actual order if you want, but hereâs an article summarizing it: https://t.co/SP3xOq4vmd
Acting in an âArbitrary and Capriciousâ manner:
The SEC has also been found to have acted in an âarbitrary and capriciousâ manner in two recent cases: Chamber of Commerce v. SEC (5th Circuit) and in the Grayscale case in the DC Circuit.
What does âarbitrary and capriciousâ mean? Well, basically, an agency action may be set aside only if it is âarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.â 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The arbitrary-and-capricious standard is âhighly deferentialâ and âpresumes the validity of agency action.â Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2007). âHighly deferentialâ means you have to f*ck up really, really, really bad to overcome that standard, because the courts are going to start off by presuming youâre not f*cking up at all, much less really, really, really bad. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Letâs sum up where we are so far:
We have a federal agency, the SEC, that has exactly zero issues with lying to judges, withholding exculpatory evidence, and repeatedly acting improperly with respect to its obligations under the Administrative Procedures Act. Oh, and letâs not forget the general incompetence over the past decade or two.
--> So what on Godâs green earth would make anyone with more than two firing neurons believe that the SEC is being honest with opposing counsel, other judges, or defendants in other cases?
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,â remember? If theyâre lying to one judge, defendant, or defense attorney, we can reasonably believe itâs happening a lot more, canât we?
Maybe people believe the SEC because they keep settling with defendants who never speak out against them! So the SEC must be doing things right if no defendants ever claim they were wrongfully prosecuted, right? If youâre an average citizen who doesnât know any better, this sounds like an objectively reasonable conclusion.
But we know better, donât we?
Richard Heart has been a staunch Freedom of Speech advocate long before I even heard his name. The Pulsechain sacrifice was for people who also shared his belief in Freedom of Speech, and it showed that there are plenty of us out there. Maybe the SEC finally picked the wrong door here, and it will be Richardâs case that gets rid of this ridiculous policy forever.
With that backdrop, letâs look at what judges have to say about this SEC policy.
Recent court rulings have shown that judges are (finally) beginning to question the SECâs policy of âSTFU or weâll bend you over again.â A SDNY judge in 2022 wrote a pretty damn solid takedown of the SECâs policy and I encourage everyone to read it. Itâs not that long, but itâs worth your time I promise you: https://t.co/bg6xiDcx5o
Unfortunately for the defendant here, the judge noted he was bound by 2nd Circuit precedent in the Romeril case, but his final paragraph illustrates his concerns:
âWhat is the SEC so afraid of? Any criticism, apparentlyâor, rather, anything that may even âcreate the impressionâ of criticismâof that governmental agency. Accordingly, while the Court will approve the Consent Agreement at the request of the parties, consistent with Romeril, 15 F.4th at 172, it does so with reluctance in light of the SECâs continued and misguided practice of restraining speech. After all, speech âis the means to hold officials accountable to the people,â Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010), and is âessential to effective democracy,â Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).â
Next up, I found a judge in a 2010 case criticizing this policy, noting that â[o]nly one thing is left certain: the public will never know whether the SECâs charges are true.â SEC v Vitesse Semiconductor 1:10-cv-09239 (SDNY Dec 10, 2010). Iâm personally a big fan of letting people have all the information they need to decide things for themselves. When the government shuts down one side entirely, people donât get the opportunity to evaluate all necessary information and come to their own conclusions, and thatâs wrong on every single possible level.
And recently, two judges in the 5th Circuit in SEC v Novinger stated that nothing in the opinion they issued âapproves of or acquiesces in the SECâs longstanding policy that conditions settlement of any enforcement action on partiesâ giving up First Amendment rightsâ and that âa more effective prior restraint is hard to imagine.â
A âprior restraintâ is when the government proactively limits or forbids someoneâs speech. Prior restraints are the most onerous form of government suppression, and courts generally severely limit when the government can impose them.
Incredibly, the 5th Circuit also noted that they were informed of a petition filed with the SEC âto review and revoke this SEC policyâŚfiled nearly four years agoâ and that the âSEC never responded to the petition.â Those two judges ended with this: âGiven the agencyâs current activism, I think it will not be long before the courts are called on to fully consider this policy.â
The phrase âcurrent activismâ is what caught my eye here, and it means that the Courts are starting to recognize SEC enforcement actions for what they are: more of a political weapon than anything that can be mistaken for investor protection.
Bottom line:
The SEC was formed with the intent of protecting investors, and probably still does that once in a while.
But its current staff includes attorneys who lie to judges, act unethically, withhold evidence, fail to follow their own procedures, and ignore legitimately-filed petitions asking for a review of their policies indefinitely. This should result in the SEC losing the benefit of any doubt, in any court, anywhere. And it should finally force courts to consider whether their settlement policy forcing Defendants to give up their 1stAmendment rights is Constitutional.
After all, consider the following hypothetical scenarios in which the SEC could reopen a case against a crypto founder after settling with them under their own policy:
1. The SEC relies on a whistleblower to initiate a case against some crypto founder, which it then sues for fraud. The founder doesnât have the resources to litigate so they settle. Later, they learn that the SEC withheld exculpatory evidence, and the founder never would have settled if they had known. Why should this founder be prevented from criticizing the allegations he now knows were based on the SECâs illegal or unethical acts?
2. Or what if that whistleblower falsified, altered, or simply made-up evidence that the SEC used to force a settlement? If the founder learned that the evidence wasnât legitimate or authentic after settling, how is it fair or in the interests of anyone, anywhere, to impose a gag order on him so he canât share that information with the world?
The âSTFU foreverâ policy needs to be struck down not only because itâs unconstitutional to begin with, but also because the SEC is an activist agency with an obvious anti-crypto agenda that will stop at nothing to win, including lying to courts and withholding evidence from defendants.
Go get them, @RichardHeartWin. Weâre all behind you.
See you all at the #PulseChainTour in Vegas next week. Iâm looking forward to meeting many of you and seeing and hearing about all the great things on the horizon for this ecosystem.
As always, nothing I say is legal advice.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHl39XaawAAAe1f.png)
![NuclearHerbs's tweet photo. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool everyone! Letâs learn some more Latin:
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.â
This is a well-known Latin phrase in law, and it means that if someone is found to be lying about one thing, it is reasonable to conclude that they shouldnât be believed about anything else.
Which brings me to todayâs topic: The SEC, and more specifically, settling with the SEC, which is materially different than settling with any other government agency or private party.
The easiest way to describe todayâs issue is to quote from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in SEC v Novinger, 40 F.4th297 (5th Cir. 2022):
âSince 1972, the SEC has prohibited defendants who settle civil enforcement actions without admitting guilt from publicly denying the allegations in the complaint filed against them. The SEC enacted this no-deny policy, which is codified at 17 C.F.R. 202.5(e), after determining that it was important to avoid creating, or permitting to be created, an impression that a decree is being entered or a sanction imposed, when the conduct alleged did not, in fact, occur. Id. Under the policy, a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations. Id.â
(FYI, whenever you see âIdâ in a case, it means itâs referencing the case it cited immediately prior. This just saves time typing the same case name and citation over and over when you cite it multiple times in a row.)
The short version: If you settle a case with the SEC, you are *never* allowed to deny the allegations they made against you, even if theyâre complete bullshit and you only settled because they offered you a minimal fine and it would have cost you 10,000x that amount to fight them in court. If you do speak out (even if you speak the truth), the SEC can reopen the case against you.
Does this seem fundamentally unfair? Absolutely.
Does it seem like a 1st Amendment violation? Absolutely.
So letâs ask a very important question: Why does the SEC think it still deserves to have this policy enforced by courts when itâs racking up a history of legally questionable or outright illegal actions?
By âlegally questionable,â I donât even mean actions that could be reasonably interpreted as incompetence, such as completely f*cking up with ZZZZ Best, Enron, Madoff, FTX, or Alameda. As bad as those failures were, thereâs still an argument an attorney could make in court for the actions the SEC took or didnât take without the judge laughing at them.
I donât even mean âlegally questionableâ in the sense of going after favorable news treatment by filing legally problematic complaints, because THATâS LITERALLY THEIR GOAL. Andrew Vollmer, former SEC deputy general, said the SEC only âwants headlines and therefore it needs to have eye-popping civil penalty numbersâ as opposed to effective business regulatory policies.
But incompetence and politics are one thing, deliberately taking illegal and/or unethical actions are another. Letâs take some recent examples:
Deliberately Withholding Exculpatory Evidence:
In United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2012), the SEC deliberately withheld 30 interview transcripts from the Defendant that contained exculpatory information. Iâve attached a part of the ruling in the Douglass Mackey case below where the 2nd Circuit addresses this. You donât withhold exculpatory evidence by accident. This was a deliberately illegal and unethical action by SEC attorneys. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Lying to the Court:
The SEC straight-up lied to the Court in order to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in its case against Debt Box. TROs, for those unfamiliar, are issued ex parte, which means one party (in this case, the SEC) goes into court and tells a judge that âif you donât do this right now, without letting the other side even know about these proceedings, there will be irreparable harm.â See the judgeâs November 30, 2023, order in SEC v. Dig. Licensing (Debt Box) 2:23-cv-00482-RJS-DBP (D. Utah, Nov 30, 2023). In fact, the SEC didnât just lie about one thing in that case, they lied to the court repeatedly, as the court outlines in detail. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this. You can google the actual order if you want, but hereâs an article summarizing it: https://t.co/SP3xOq4vmd
Acting in an âArbitrary and Capriciousâ manner:
The SEC has also been found to have acted in an âarbitrary and capriciousâ manner in two recent cases: Chamber of Commerce v. SEC (5th Circuit) and in the Grayscale case in the DC Circuit.
What does âarbitrary and capriciousâ mean? Well, basically, an agency action may be set aside only if it is âarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.â 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The arbitrary-and-capricious standard is âhighly deferentialâ and âpresumes the validity of agency action.â Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2007). âHighly deferentialâ means you have to f*ck up really, really, really bad to overcome that standard, because the courts are going to start off by presuming youâre not f*cking up at all, much less really, really, really bad. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Letâs sum up where we are so far:
We have a federal agency, the SEC, that has exactly zero issues with lying to judges, withholding exculpatory evidence, and repeatedly acting improperly with respect to its obligations under the Administrative Procedures Act. Oh, and letâs not forget the general incompetence over the past decade or two.
--> So what on Godâs green earth would make anyone with more than two firing neurons believe that the SEC is being honest with opposing counsel, other judges, or defendants in other cases?
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,â remember? If theyâre lying to one judge, defendant, or defense attorney, we can reasonably believe itâs happening a lot more, canât we?
Maybe people believe the SEC because they keep settling with defendants who never speak out against them! So the SEC must be doing things right if no defendants ever claim they were wrongfully prosecuted, right? If youâre an average citizen who doesnât know any better, this sounds like an objectively reasonable conclusion.
But we know better, donât we?
Richard Heart has been a staunch Freedom of Speech advocate long before I even heard his name. The Pulsechain sacrifice was for people who also shared his belief in Freedom of Speech, and it showed that there are plenty of us out there. Maybe the SEC finally picked the wrong door here, and it will be Richardâs case that gets rid of this ridiculous policy forever.
With that backdrop, letâs look at what judges have to say about this SEC policy.
Recent court rulings have shown that judges are (finally) beginning to question the SECâs policy of âSTFU or weâll bend you over again.â A SDNY judge in 2022 wrote a pretty damn solid takedown of the SECâs policy and I encourage everyone to read it. Itâs not that long, but itâs worth your time I promise you: https://t.co/bg6xiDcx5o
Unfortunately for the defendant here, the judge noted he was bound by 2nd Circuit precedent in the Romeril case, but his final paragraph illustrates his concerns:
âWhat is the SEC so afraid of? Any criticism, apparentlyâor, rather, anything that may even âcreate the impressionâ of criticismâof that governmental agency. Accordingly, while the Court will approve the Consent Agreement at the request of the parties, consistent with Romeril, 15 F.4th at 172, it does so with reluctance in light of the SECâs continued and misguided practice of restraining speech. After all, speech âis the means to hold officials accountable to the people,â Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010), and is âessential to effective democracy,â Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).â
Next up, I found a judge in a 2010 case criticizing this policy, noting that â[o]nly one thing is left certain: the public will never know whether the SECâs charges are true.â SEC v Vitesse Semiconductor 1:10-cv-09239 (SDNY Dec 10, 2010). Iâm personally a big fan of letting people have all the information they need to decide things for themselves. When the government shuts down one side entirely, people donât get the opportunity to evaluate all necessary information and come to their own conclusions, and thatâs wrong on every single possible level.
And recently, two judges in the 5th Circuit in SEC v Novinger stated that nothing in the opinion they issued âapproves of or acquiesces in the SECâs longstanding policy that conditions settlement of any enforcement action on partiesâ giving up First Amendment rightsâ and that âa more effective prior restraint is hard to imagine.â
A âprior restraintâ is when the government proactively limits or forbids someoneâs speech. Prior restraints are the most onerous form of government suppression, and courts generally severely limit when the government can impose them.
Incredibly, the 5th Circuit also noted that they were informed of a petition filed with the SEC âto review and revoke this SEC policyâŚfiled nearly four years agoâ and that the âSEC never responded to the petition.â Those two judges ended with this: âGiven the agencyâs current activism, I think it will not be long before the courts are called on to fully consider this policy.â
The phrase âcurrent activismâ is what caught my eye here, and it means that the Courts are starting to recognize SEC enforcement actions for what they are: more of a political weapon than anything that can be mistaken for investor protection.
Bottom line:
The SEC was formed with the intent of protecting investors, and probably still does that once in a while.
But its current staff includes attorneys who lie to judges, act unethically, withhold evidence, fail to follow their own procedures, and ignore legitimately-filed petitions asking for a review of their policies indefinitely. This should result in the SEC losing the benefit of any doubt, in any court, anywhere. And it should finally force courts to consider whether their settlement policy forcing Defendants to give up their 1stAmendment rights is Constitutional.
After all, consider the following hypothetical scenarios in which the SEC could reopen a case against a crypto founder after settling with them under their own policy:
1. The SEC relies on a whistleblower to initiate a case against some crypto founder, which it then sues for fraud. The founder doesnât have the resources to litigate so they settle. Later, they learn that the SEC withheld exculpatory evidence, and the founder never would have settled if they had known. Why should this founder be prevented from criticizing the allegations he now knows were based on the SECâs illegal or unethical acts?
2. Or what if that whistleblower falsified, altered, or simply made-up evidence that the SEC used to force a settlement? If the founder learned that the evidence wasnât legitimate or authentic after settling, how is it fair or in the interests of anyone, anywhere, to impose a gag order on him so he canât share that information with the world?
The âSTFU foreverâ policy needs to be struck down not only because itâs unconstitutional to begin with, but also because the SEC is an activist agency with an obvious anti-crypto agenda that will stop at nothing to win, including lying to courts and withholding evidence from defendants.
Go get them, @RichardHeartWin. Weâre all behind you.
See you all at the #PulseChainTour in Vegas next week. Iâm looking forward to meeting many of you and seeing and hearing about all the great things on the horizon for this ecosystem.
As always, nothing I say is legal advice.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHl39VzasAAOA40.png)
![NuclearHerbs's tweet photo. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool everyone! Letâs learn some more Latin:
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.â
This is a well-known Latin phrase in law, and it means that if someone is found to be lying about one thing, it is reasonable to conclude that they shouldnât be believed about anything else.
Which brings me to todayâs topic: The SEC, and more specifically, settling with the SEC, which is materially different than settling with any other government agency or private party.
The easiest way to describe todayâs issue is to quote from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in SEC v Novinger, 40 F.4th297 (5th Cir. 2022):
âSince 1972, the SEC has prohibited defendants who settle civil enforcement actions without admitting guilt from publicly denying the allegations in the complaint filed against them. The SEC enacted this no-deny policy, which is codified at 17 C.F.R. 202.5(e), after determining that it was important to avoid creating, or permitting to be created, an impression that a decree is being entered or a sanction imposed, when the conduct alleged did not, in fact, occur. Id. Under the policy, a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations. Id.â
(FYI, whenever you see âIdâ in a case, it means itâs referencing the case it cited immediately prior. This just saves time typing the same case name and citation over and over when you cite it multiple times in a row.)
The short version: If you settle a case with the SEC, you are *never* allowed to deny the allegations they made against you, even if theyâre complete bullshit and you only settled because they offered you a minimal fine and it would have cost you 10,000x that amount to fight them in court. If you do speak out (even if you speak the truth), the SEC can reopen the case against you.
Does this seem fundamentally unfair? Absolutely.
Does it seem like a 1st Amendment violation? Absolutely.
So letâs ask a very important question: Why does the SEC think it still deserves to have this policy enforced by courts when itâs racking up a history of legally questionable or outright illegal actions?
By âlegally questionable,â I donât even mean actions that could be reasonably interpreted as incompetence, such as completely f*cking up with ZZZZ Best, Enron, Madoff, FTX, or Alameda. As bad as those failures were, thereâs still an argument an attorney could make in court for the actions the SEC took or didnât take without the judge laughing at them.
I donât even mean âlegally questionableâ in the sense of going after favorable news treatment by filing legally problematic complaints, because THATâS LITERALLY THEIR GOAL. Andrew Vollmer, former SEC deputy general, said the SEC only âwants headlines and therefore it needs to have eye-popping civil penalty numbersâ as opposed to effective business regulatory policies.
But incompetence and politics are one thing, deliberately taking illegal and/or unethical actions are another. Letâs take some recent examples:
Deliberately Withholding Exculpatory Evidence:
In United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2012), the SEC deliberately withheld 30 interview transcripts from the Defendant that contained exculpatory information. Iâve attached a part of the ruling in the Douglass Mackey case below where the 2nd Circuit addresses this. You donât withhold exculpatory evidence by accident. This was a deliberately illegal and unethical action by SEC attorneys. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Lying to the Court:
The SEC straight-up lied to the Court in order to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in its case against Debt Box. TROs, for those unfamiliar, are issued ex parte, which means one party (in this case, the SEC) goes into court and tells a judge that âif you donât do this right now, without letting the other side even know about these proceedings, there will be irreparable harm.â See the judgeâs November 30, 2023, order in SEC v. Dig. Licensing (Debt Box) 2:23-cv-00482-RJS-DBP (D. Utah, Nov 30, 2023). In fact, the SEC didnât just lie about one thing in that case, they lied to the court repeatedly, as the court outlines in detail. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this. You can google the actual order if you want, but hereâs an article summarizing it: https://t.co/SP3xOq4vmd
Acting in an âArbitrary and Capriciousâ manner:
The SEC has also been found to have acted in an âarbitrary and capriciousâ manner in two recent cases: Chamber of Commerce v. SEC (5th Circuit) and in the Grayscale case in the DC Circuit.
What does âarbitrary and capriciousâ mean? Well, basically, an agency action may be set aside only if it is âarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.â 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The arbitrary-and-capricious standard is âhighly deferentialâ and âpresumes the validity of agency action.â Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2007). âHighly deferentialâ means you have to f*ck up really, really, really bad to overcome that standard, because the courts are going to start off by presuming youâre not f*cking up at all, much less really, really, really bad. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Letâs sum up where we are so far:
We have a federal agency, the SEC, that has exactly zero issues with lying to judges, withholding exculpatory evidence, and repeatedly acting improperly with respect to its obligations under the Administrative Procedures Act. Oh, and letâs not forget the general incompetence over the past decade or two.
--> So what on Godâs green earth would make anyone with more than two firing neurons believe that the SEC is being honest with opposing counsel, other judges, or defendants in other cases?
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,â remember? If theyâre lying to one judge, defendant, or defense attorney, we can reasonably believe itâs happening a lot more, canât we?
Maybe people believe the SEC because they keep settling with defendants who never speak out against them! So the SEC must be doing things right if no defendants ever claim they were wrongfully prosecuted, right? If youâre an average citizen who doesnât know any better, this sounds like an objectively reasonable conclusion.
But we know better, donât we?
Richard Heart has been a staunch Freedom of Speech advocate long before I even heard his name. The Pulsechain sacrifice was for people who also shared his belief in Freedom of Speech, and it showed that there are plenty of us out there. Maybe the SEC finally picked the wrong door here, and it will be Richardâs case that gets rid of this ridiculous policy forever.
With that backdrop, letâs look at what judges have to say about this SEC policy.
Recent court rulings have shown that judges are (finally) beginning to question the SECâs policy of âSTFU or weâll bend you over again.â A SDNY judge in 2022 wrote a pretty damn solid takedown of the SECâs policy and I encourage everyone to read it. Itâs not that long, but itâs worth your time I promise you: https://t.co/bg6xiDcx5o
Unfortunately for the defendant here, the judge noted he was bound by 2nd Circuit precedent in the Romeril case, but his final paragraph illustrates his concerns:
âWhat is the SEC so afraid of? Any criticism, apparentlyâor, rather, anything that may even âcreate the impressionâ of criticismâof that governmental agency. Accordingly, while the Court will approve the Consent Agreement at the request of the parties, consistent with Romeril, 15 F.4th at 172, it does so with reluctance in light of the SECâs continued and misguided practice of restraining speech. After all, speech âis the means to hold officials accountable to the people,â Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010), and is âessential to effective democracy,â Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).â
Next up, I found a judge in a 2010 case criticizing this policy, noting that â[o]nly one thing is left certain: the public will never know whether the SECâs charges are true.â SEC v Vitesse Semiconductor 1:10-cv-09239 (SDNY Dec 10, 2010). Iâm personally a big fan of letting people have all the information they need to decide things for themselves. When the government shuts down one side entirely, people donât get the opportunity to evaluate all necessary information and come to their own conclusions, and thatâs wrong on every single possible level.
And recently, two judges in the 5th Circuit in SEC v Novinger stated that nothing in the opinion they issued âapproves of or acquiesces in the SECâs longstanding policy that conditions settlement of any enforcement action on partiesâ giving up First Amendment rightsâ and that âa more effective prior restraint is hard to imagine.â
A âprior restraintâ is when the government proactively limits or forbids someoneâs speech. Prior restraints are the most onerous form of government suppression, and courts generally severely limit when the government can impose them.
Incredibly, the 5th Circuit also noted that they were informed of a petition filed with the SEC âto review and revoke this SEC policyâŚfiled nearly four years agoâ and that the âSEC never responded to the petition.â Those two judges ended with this: âGiven the agencyâs current activism, I think it will not be long before the courts are called on to fully consider this policy.â
The phrase âcurrent activismâ is what caught my eye here, and it means that the Courts are starting to recognize SEC enforcement actions for what they are: more of a political weapon than anything that can be mistaken for investor protection.
Bottom line:
The SEC was formed with the intent of protecting investors, and probably still does that once in a while.
But its current staff includes attorneys who lie to judges, act unethically, withhold evidence, fail to follow their own procedures, and ignore legitimately-filed petitions asking for a review of their policies indefinitely. This should result in the SEC losing the benefit of any doubt, in any court, anywhere. And it should finally force courts to consider whether their settlement policy forcing Defendants to give up their 1stAmendment rights is Constitutional.
After all, consider the following hypothetical scenarios in which the SEC could reopen a case against a crypto founder after settling with them under their own policy:
1. The SEC relies on a whistleblower to initiate a case against some crypto founder, which it then sues for fraud. The founder doesnât have the resources to litigate so they settle. Later, they learn that the SEC withheld exculpatory evidence, and the founder never would have settled if they had known. Why should this founder be prevented from criticizing the allegations he now knows were based on the SECâs illegal or unethical acts?
2. Or what if that whistleblower falsified, altered, or simply made-up evidence that the SEC used to force a settlement? If the founder learned that the evidence wasnât legitimate or authentic after settling, how is it fair or in the interests of anyone, anywhere, to impose a gag order on him so he canât share that information with the world?
The âSTFU foreverâ policy needs to be struck down not only because itâs unconstitutional to begin with, but also because the SEC is an activist agency with an obvious anti-crypto agenda that will stop at nothing to win, including lying to courts and withholding evidence from defendants.
Go get them, @RichardHeartWin. Weâre all behind you.
See you all at the #PulseChainTour in Vegas next week. Iâm looking forward to meeting many of you and seeing and hearing about all the great things on the horizon for this ecosystem.
As always, nothing I say is legal advice.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHl358QbkAAYYjz.jpg)
Olivia
Online
đ/đ¤ MaximumHEXposure âđź+â¤ď¸
@MaxHEXposure
Regular dude. đś Humor. Son. Father. 9-5+. Doing what I can with what I got. Lowering my đĄ. Compassion. Pay IT forward. Villager. 1:1 Value. LFG đĽ
Same planet you on
Joined June 2021
1.1K Following
1.3K Followers
5.7K Posts
Comment "real" & RT if you agree:
âŁď¸ Our community caused MetaMask to add PulseChain as a default networkânext to ETH.
đ Now help us prove to X @premiumbusiness that PulseChainConf is a real organization and we are respectfully waiting for our $1,000/mo badges to be approved/restored.
Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool everyone! Letâs learn some more Latin:
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.â
This is a well-known Latin phrase in law, and it means that if someone is found to be lying about one thing, it is reasonable to conclude that they shouldnât be believed about anything else.
Which brings me to todayâs topic: The SEC, and more specifically, settling with the SEC, which is materially different than settling with any other government agency or private party.
The easiest way to describe todayâs issue is to quote from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in SEC v Novinger, 40 F.4th297 (5th Cir. 2022):
âSince 1972, the SEC has prohibited defendants who settle civil enforcement actions without admitting guilt from publicly denying the allegations in the complaint filed against them. The SEC enacted this no-deny policy, which is codified at 17 C.F.R. 202.5(e), after determining that it was important to avoid creating, or permitting to be created, an impression that a decree is being entered or a sanction imposed, when the conduct alleged did not, in fact, occur. Id. Under the policy, a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations. Id.â
(FYI, whenever you see âIdâ in a case, it means itâs referencing the case it cited immediately prior. This just saves time typing the same case name and citation over and over when you cite it multiple times in a row.)
The short version: If you settle a case with the SEC, you are *never* allowed to deny the allegations they made against you, even if theyâre complete bullshit and you only settled because they offered you a minimal fine and it would have cost you 10,000x that amount to fight them in court. If you do speak out (even if you speak the truth), the SEC can reopen the case against you.
Does this seem fundamentally unfair? Absolutely.
Does it seem like a 1st Amendment violation? Absolutely.
So letâs ask a very important question: Why does the SEC think it still deserves to have this policy enforced by courts when itâs racking up a history of legally questionable or outright illegal actions?
By âlegally questionable,â I donât even mean actions that could be reasonably interpreted as incompetence, such as completely f*cking up with ZZZZ Best, Enron, Madoff, FTX, or Alameda. As bad as those failures were, thereâs still an argument an attorney could make in court for the actions the SEC took or didnât take without the judge laughing at them.
I donât even mean âlegally questionableâ in the sense of going after favorable news treatment by filing legally problematic complaints, because THATâS LITERALLY THEIR GOAL. Andrew Vollmer, former SEC deputy general, said the SEC only âwants headlines and therefore it needs to have eye-popping civil penalty numbersâ as opposed to effective business regulatory policies.
But incompetence and politics are one thing, deliberately taking illegal and/or unethical actions are another. Letâs take some recent examples:
Deliberately Withholding Exculpatory Evidence:
In United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2012), the SEC deliberately withheld 30 interview transcripts from the Defendant that contained exculpatory information. Iâve attached a part of the ruling in the Douglass Mackey case below where the 2nd Circuit addresses this. You donât withhold exculpatory evidence by accident. This was a deliberately illegal and unethical action by SEC attorneys. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Lying to the Court:
The SEC straight-up lied to the Court in order to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in its case against Debt Box. TROs, for those unfamiliar, are issued ex parte, which means one party (in this case, the SEC) goes into court and tells a judge that âif you donât do this right now, without letting the other side even know about these proceedings, there will be irreparable harm.â See the judgeâs November 30, 2023, order in SEC v. Dig. Licensing (Debt Box) 2:23-cv-00482-RJS-DBP (D. Utah, Nov 30, 2023). In fact, the SEC didnât just lie about one thing in that case, they lied to the court repeatedly, as the court outlines in detail. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this. You can google the actual order if you want, but hereâs an article summarizing it: https://t.co/SP3xOq4vmd
Acting in an âArbitrary and Capriciousâ manner:
The SEC has also been found to have acted in an âarbitrary and capriciousâ manner in two recent cases: Chamber of Commerce v. SEC (5th Circuit) and in the Grayscale case in the DC Circuit.
What does âarbitrary and capriciousâ mean? Well, basically, an agency action may be set aside only if it is âarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.â 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The arbitrary-and-capricious standard is âhighly deferentialâ and âpresumes the validity of agency action.â Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2007). âHighly deferentialâ means you have to f*ck up really, really, really bad to overcome that standard, because the courts are going to start off by presuming youâre not f*cking up at all, much less really, really, really bad. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Letâs sum up where we are so far:
We have a federal agency, the SEC, that has exactly zero issues with lying to judges, withholding exculpatory evidence, and repeatedly acting improperly with respect to its obligations under the Administrative Procedures Act. Oh, and letâs not forget the general incompetence over the past decade or two.
--> So what on Godâs green earth would make anyone with more than two firing neurons believe that the SEC is being honest with opposing counsel, other judges, or defendants in other cases?
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,â remember? If theyâre lying to one judge, defendant, or defense attorney, we can reasonably believe itâs happening a lot more, canât we?
Maybe people believe the SEC because they keep settling with defendants who never speak out against them! So the SEC must be doing things right if no defendants ever claim they were wrongfully prosecuted, right? If youâre an average citizen who doesnât know any better, this sounds like an objectively reasonable conclusion.
But we know better, donât we?
Richard Heart has been a staunch Freedom of Speech advocate long before I even heard his name. The Pulsechain sacrifice was for people who also shared his belief in Freedom of Speech, and it showed that there are plenty of us out there. Maybe the SEC finally picked the wrong door here, and it will be Richardâs case that gets rid of this ridiculous policy forever.
With that backdrop, letâs look at what judges have to say about this SEC policy.
Recent court rulings have shown that judges are (finally) beginning to question the SECâs policy of âSTFU or weâll bend you over again.â A SDNY judge in 2022 wrote a pretty damn solid takedown of the SECâs policy and I encourage everyone to read it. Itâs not that long, but itâs worth your time I promise you: https://t.co/bg6xiDcx5o
Unfortunately for the defendant here, the judge noted he was bound by 2nd Circuit precedent in the Romeril case, but his final paragraph illustrates his concerns:
âWhat is the SEC so afraid of? Any criticism, apparentlyâor, rather, anything that may even âcreate the impressionâ of criticismâof that governmental agency. Accordingly, while the Court will approve the Consent Agreement at the request of the parties, consistent with Romeril, 15 F.4th at 172, it does so with reluctance in light of the SECâs continued and misguided practice of restraining speech. After all, speech âis the means to hold officials accountable to the people,â Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010), and is âessential to effective democracy,â Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).â
Next up, I found a judge in a 2010 case criticizing this policy, noting that â[o]nly one thing is left certain: the public will never know whether the SECâs charges are true.â SEC v Vitesse Semiconductor 1:10-cv-09239 (SDNY Dec 10, 2010). Iâm personally a big fan of letting people have all the information they need to decide things for themselves. When the government shuts down one side entirely, people donât get the opportunity to evaluate all necessary information and come to their own conclusions, and thatâs wrong on every single possible level.
And recently, two judges in the 5th Circuit in SEC v Novinger stated that nothing in the opinion they issued âapproves of or acquiesces in the SECâs longstanding policy that conditions settlement of any enforcement action on partiesâ giving up First Amendment rightsâ and that âa more effective prior restraint is hard to imagine.â
A âprior restraintâ is when the government proactively limits or forbids someoneâs speech. Prior restraints are the most onerous form of government suppression, and courts generally severely limit when the government can impose them.
Incredibly, the 5th Circuit also noted that they were informed of a petition filed with the SEC âto review and revoke this SEC policyâŚfiled nearly four years agoâ and that the âSEC never responded to the petition.â Those two judges ended with this: âGiven the agencyâs current activism, I think it will not be long before the courts are called on to fully consider this policy.â
The phrase âcurrent activismâ is what caught my eye here, and it means that the Courts are starting to recognize SEC enforcement actions for what they are: more of a political weapon than anything that can be mistaken for investor protection.
Bottom line:
The SEC was formed with the intent of protecting investors, and probably still does that once in a while.
But its current staff includes attorneys who lie to judges, act unethically, withhold evidence, fail to follow their own procedures, and ignore legitimately-filed petitions asking for a review of their policies indefinitely. This should result in the SEC losing the benefit of any doubt, in any court, anywhere. And it should finally force courts to consider whether their settlement policy forcing Defendants to give up their 1stAmendment rights is Constitutional.
After all, consider the following hypothetical scenarios in which the SEC could reopen a case against a crypto founder after settling with them under their own policy:
1. The SEC relies on a whistleblower to initiate a case against some crypto founder, which it then sues for fraud. The founder doesnât have the resources to litigate so they settle. Later, they learn that the SEC withheld exculpatory evidence, and the founder never would have settled if they had known. Why should this founder be prevented from criticizing the allegations he now knows were based on the SECâs illegal or unethical acts?
2. Or what if that whistleblower falsified, altered, or simply made-up evidence that the SEC used to force a settlement? If the founder learned that the evidence wasnât legitimate or authentic after settling, how is it fair or in the interests of anyone, anywhere, to impose a gag order on him so he canât share that information with the world?
The âSTFU foreverâ policy needs to be struck down not only because itâs unconstitutional to begin with, but also because the SEC is an activist agency with an obvious anti-crypto agenda that will stop at nothing to win, including lying to courts and withholding evidence from defendants.
Go get them, @RichardHeartWin. Weâre all behind you.
See you all at the #PulseChainTour in Vegas next week. Iâm looking forward to meeting many of you and seeing and hearing about all the great things on the horizon for this ecosystem.
As always, nothing I say is legal advice.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX
![NuclearHerbs's tweet photo. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool everyone! Letâs learn some more Latin:
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.â
This is a well-known Latin phrase in law, and it means that if someone is found to be lying about one thing, it is reasonable to conclude that they shouldnât be believed about anything else.
Which brings me to todayâs topic: The SEC, and more specifically, settling with the SEC, which is materially different than settling with any other government agency or private party.
The easiest way to describe todayâs issue is to quote from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in SEC v Novinger, 40 F.4th297 (5th Cir. 2022):
âSince 1972, the SEC has prohibited defendants who settle civil enforcement actions without admitting guilt from publicly denying the allegations in the complaint filed against them. The SEC enacted this no-deny policy, which is codified at 17 C.F.R. 202.5(e), after determining that it was important to avoid creating, or permitting to be created, an impression that a decree is being entered or a sanction imposed, when the conduct alleged did not, in fact, occur. Id. Under the policy, a refusal to admit the allegations is equivalent to a denial, unless the defendant or respondent states that he neither admits nor denies the allegations. Id.â
(FYI, whenever you see âIdâ in a case, it means itâs referencing the case it cited immediately prior. This just saves time typing the same case name and citation over and over when you cite it multiple times in a row.)
The short version: If you settle a case with the SEC, you are *never* allowed to deny the allegations they made against you, even if theyâre complete bullshit and you only settled because they offered you a minimal fine and it would have cost you 10,000x that amount to fight them in court. If you do speak out (even if you speak the truth), the SEC can reopen the case against you.
Does this seem fundamentally unfair? Absolutely.
Does it seem like a 1st Amendment violation? Absolutely.
So letâs ask a very important question: Why does the SEC think it still deserves to have this policy enforced by courts when itâs racking up a history of legally questionable or outright illegal actions?
By âlegally questionable,â I donât even mean actions that could be reasonably interpreted as incompetence, such as completely f*cking up with ZZZZ Best, Enron, Madoff, FTX, or Alameda. As bad as those failures were, thereâs still an argument an attorney could make in court for the actions the SEC took or didnât take without the judge laughing at them.
I donât even mean âlegally questionableâ in the sense of going after favorable news treatment by filing legally problematic complaints, because THATâS LITERALLY THEIR GOAL. Andrew Vollmer, former SEC deputy general, said the SEC only âwants headlines and therefore it needs to have eye-popping civil penalty numbersâ as opposed to effective business regulatory policies.
But incompetence and politics are one thing, deliberately taking illegal and/or unethical actions are another. Letâs take some recent examples:
Deliberately Withholding Exculpatory Evidence:
In United States v. Mahaffy, 693 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2012), the SEC deliberately withheld 30 interview transcripts from the Defendant that contained exculpatory information. Iâve attached a part of the ruling in the Douglass Mackey case below where the 2nd Circuit addresses this. You donât withhold exculpatory evidence by accident. This was a deliberately illegal and unethical action by SEC attorneys. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Lying to the Court:
The SEC straight-up lied to the Court in order to obtain a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in its case against Debt Box. TROs, for those unfamiliar, are issued ex parte, which means one party (in this case, the SEC) goes into court and tells a judge that âif you donât do this right now, without letting the other side even know about these proceedings, there will be irreparable harm.â See the judgeâs November 30, 2023, order in SEC v. Dig. Licensing (Debt Box) 2:23-cv-00482-RJS-DBP (D. Utah, Nov 30, 2023). In fact, the SEC didnât just lie about one thing in that case, they lied to the court repeatedly, as the court outlines in detail. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this. You can google the actual order if you want, but hereâs an article summarizing it: https://t.co/SP3xOq4vmd
Acting in an âArbitrary and Capriciousâ manner:
The SEC has also been found to have acted in an âarbitrary and capriciousâ manner in two recent cases: Chamber of Commerce v. SEC (5th Circuit) and in the Grayscale case in the DC Circuit.
What does âarbitrary and capriciousâ mean? Well, basically, an agency action may be set aside only if it is âarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.â 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The arbitrary-and-capricious standard is âhighly deferentialâ and âpresumes the validity of agency action.â Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Air Agencies v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1221, 1228 (D.C. Cir. 2007). âHighly deferentialâ means you have to f*ck up really, really, really bad to overcome that standard, because the courts are going to start off by presuming youâre not f*cking up at all, much less really, really, really bad. As far as I know, nobody lost their job from this.
Letâs sum up where we are so far:
We have a federal agency, the SEC, that has exactly zero issues with lying to judges, withholding exculpatory evidence, and repeatedly acting improperly with respect to its obligations under the Administrative Procedures Act. Oh, and letâs not forget the general incompetence over the past decade or two.
--> So what on Godâs green earth would make anyone with more than two firing neurons believe that the SEC is being honest with opposing counsel, other judges, or defendants in other cases?
âFalsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,â remember? If theyâre lying to one judge, defendant, or defense attorney, we can reasonably believe itâs happening a lot more, canât we?
Maybe people believe the SEC because they keep settling with defendants who never speak out against them! So the SEC must be doing things right if no defendants ever claim they were wrongfully prosecuted, right? If youâre an average citizen who doesnât know any better, this sounds like an objectively reasonable conclusion.
But we know better, donât we?
Richard Heart has been a staunch Freedom of Speech advocate long before I even heard his name. The Pulsechain sacrifice was for people who also shared his belief in Freedom of Speech, and it showed that there are plenty of us out there. Maybe the SEC finally picked the wrong door here, and it will be Richardâs case that gets rid of this ridiculous policy forever.
With that backdrop, letâs look at what judges have to say about this SEC policy.
Recent court rulings have shown that judges are (finally) beginning to question the SECâs policy of âSTFU or weâll bend you over again.â A SDNY judge in 2022 wrote a pretty damn solid takedown of the SECâs policy and I encourage everyone to read it. Itâs not that long, but itâs worth your time I promise you: https://t.co/bg6xiDcx5o
Unfortunately for the defendant here, the judge noted he was bound by 2nd Circuit precedent in the Romeril case, but his final paragraph illustrates his concerns:
âWhat is the SEC so afraid of? Any criticism, apparentlyâor, rather, anything that may even âcreate the impressionâ of criticismâof that governmental agency. Accordingly, while the Court will approve the Consent Agreement at the request of the parties, consistent with Romeril, 15 F.4th at 172, it does so with reluctance in light of the SECâs continued and misguided practice of restraining speech. After all, speech âis the means to hold officials accountable to the people,â Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010), and is âessential to effective democracy,â Whitney v. Cal., 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).â
Next up, I found a judge in a 2010 case criticizing this policy, noting that â[o]nly one thing is left certain: the public will never know whether the SECâs charges are true.â SEC v Vitesse Semiconductor 1:10-cv-09239 (SDNY Dec 10, 2010). Iâm personally a big fan of letting people have all the information they need to decide things for themselves. When the government shuts down one side entirely, people donât get the opportunity to evaluate all necessary information and come to their own conclusions, and thatâs wrong on every single possible level.
And recently, two judges in the 5th Circuit in SEC v Novinger stated that nothing in the opinion they issued âapproves of or acquiesces in the SECâs longstanding policy that conditions settlement of any enforcement action on partiesâ giving up First Amendment rightsâ and that âa more effective prior restraint is hard to imagine.â
A âprior restraintâ is when the government proactively limits or forbids someoneâs speech. Prior restraints are the most onerous form of government suppression, and courts generally severely limit when the government can impose them.
Incredibly, the 5th Circuit also noted that they were informed of a petition filed with the SEC âto review and revoke this SEC policyâŚfiled nearly four years agoâ and that the âSEC never responded to the petition.â Those two judges ended with this: âGiven the agencyâs current activism, I think it will not be long before the courts are called on to fully consider this policy.â
The phrase âcurrent activismâ is what caught my eye here, and it means that the Courts are starting to recognize SEC enforcement actions for what they are: more of a political weapon than anything that can be mistaken for investor protection.
Bottom line:
The SEC was formed with the intent of protecting investors, and probably still does that once in a while.
But its current staff includes attorneys who lie to judges, act unethically, withhold evidence, fail to follow their own procedures, and ignore legitimately-filed petitions asking for a review of their policies indefinitely. This should result in the SEC losing the benefit of any doubt, in any court, anywhere. And it should finally force courts to consider whether their settlement policy forcing Defendants to give up their 1stAmendment rights is Constitutional.
After all, consider the following hypothetical scenarios in which the SEC could reopen a case against a crypto founder after settling with them under their own policy:
1. The SEC relies on a whistleblower to initiate a case against some crypto founder, which it then sues for fraud. The founder doesnât have the resources to litigate so they settle. Later, they learn that the SEC withheld exculpatory evidence, and the founder never would have settled if they had known. Why should this founder be prevented from criticizing the allegations he now knows were based on the SECâs illegal or unethical acts?
2. Or what if that whistleblower falsified, altered, or simply made-up evidence that the SEC used to force a settlement? If the founder learned that the evidence wasnât legitimate or authentic after settling, how is it fair or in the interests of anyone, anywhere, to impose a gag order on him so he canât share that information with the world?
The âSTFU foreverâ policy needs to be struck down not only because itâs unconstitutional to begin with, but also because the SEC is an activist agency with an obvious anti-crypto agenda that will stop at nothing to win, including lying to courts and withholding evidence from defendants.
Go get them, @RichardHeartWin. Weâre all behind you.
See you all at the #PulseChainTour in Vegas next week. Iâm looking forward to meeting many of you and seeing and hearing about all the great things on the horizon for this ecosystem.
As always, nothing I say is legal advice.
#HEX #PLS #PLSX](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHl39Y4b0AAS_nP.jpg)
Some people have been doxing Satoshi of #Bitcoin fame by leaking their emails with him. A stricter documents retention/deletion policy would help you not violate the privacy of someone you claim to respect. Consider your own documents policy now. Courts can and do force you to give up documents you possess, sometimes at the behest of frivolous lawsuits. Why harm Satoshi?
AVAX stopped working for ~5 hours.
John Deaton (Pro crypto) is running against Elizabeth Warren (Anti crypto) in Massachusetts.
The SEC has been sued in Texas. The complaint reads well and has great quotes from the relevant precedents. https://t.co/trKswi2VaJ
The $UNI token is still trying to figure out what PulseX already figured out. PulseX buy and burn is cool. Or hot? It burns amirite.
PulseChain, HEX, & PulseX continue to operate wonderfully why so many other things fail.
Who to follow
GarO#5555 đ´ó §ó ˘ó ˇó Źó łó ż 
@gar_crypto
Architect / CGI / #HEX / #PulseChain / #eHEX / Day 1 HEX PulseChain 5555 Staker / HEX T-Shares / Freedom Maximalist / Donât Take Me Too Seriously / đŹđ§ Patriot
Mikee.pls⏣ââŹ
@miketherealme
I like Crypto, DeFi, Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Binance, PulseChain, Chainlink, $ADA $HEX $PEPE $XRP $HBAR $SUI. Here for the tech, the news, and the community.
highnoon
@theREALhighnoon
Expanding #HEX community one tweet at a time. Thank me later. Stake #HEX #Hexican $HEX #Pulsechain #PulseX #Pulse #5555club https://t.co/rIGnRwmQdL
Did you know that: ETFs allow price to decouple from actual supply. ETFs are like adding a fiat inflation bug to an asset...inflation controlled by the exchange authority.
BTC has had a conventional ETF since 2021.
Gold ETF was launched in 1974 (50 years ago)
Look into HEX#
đ¨ JUST HAD AN AMAZING TALK WITH @BenArmstrongsX
â
He said âIâm going to do everything to make sure $HEX #HEX/#PulseChain are adopted, letâs grow!â
â
He also said âI wouldnât be in the HEX/PulseChain community if it wasnât for you Corey.â
â
I onboard close friendsâ¤ď¸!
What happens if @BenArmstrongsX and Crypto Wynde outperform all of their crypto counterparts by choosing #HEX
@IOHK_Charles I'm sure guvmnt debasing the value of our currency has no effect on companies cutting costs to acquire more units to compete/survive đđđź
The people lose up, down, left, right, forwards, and back.
đ¨ JUST IN:
PulseChain Bridge is over +$140M đ
eHEX has surpassed USDC in bridged in value at $29M đ
#PulseChain
Here is your first class on growing your X/Twitter Account.
Today we learn how to make MEMES the EXTREMELY LAZY (but impactful) WAY
https://t.co/IM1HsxTtA8
â¤đđđ
PulseChain will Outpeform Solana
PLS/SOL Ratio constructed in here
@X Gm can you please fix our $12,000 community investment in X? Our affiliate badges were ripped away from over 20 creators.
https://t.co/8A5nhHFbLZ
I forgot I wrote a book. I'm an author. Cool. I read some of my quotes. I like em, haha. #sciVive https://t.co/SC315lbgsQ
I think you can download them both at https://t.co/mogieNzUjX
7.3X in 13.5 months and Eric Wall owes me $50,000
Who thinks Eric losing? âşď¸
#PulseChain $HEX #PulseX
â¤ď¸đđđ
Imagine ignoring my 400 tweets and 15 videos telling you that PulseChain will flip Cardano.
Itâs an entire 9x away.
$PLS 9x flippening target for a Core Coin⌠big if true
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Video Bokep Indo Jepang Lokal Korea 17+HD
Seen from Indonesia
ŕ¸ŕšŕ¸˛ŕ¸ŕ¸¸ŕ¸zzzz
Seen from Thailand
cantik banget
Seen from Singapore
vannavathanK
Arab Chub
Ju
Seen from France
JosĂŠ Bailon
Seen from United States
RIEâ¤ď¸âđĽ
Seen from United States
gavatđŤ
Seen from Turkey
sex gay đĽđź
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.7M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
110.4M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.6M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.9M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.5M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
81.4M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.9M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.7M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
69.7M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.8M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.6M followers