I think that's arguable. You're completely within your rights to refuse an unlawful order from a police officer. That it usually would lead to you getting shot reflects poorly on our society, not on the judgement of the person refusing the unlawful order.
FYI: The SEC can issue an "administrative subpoena" on its own authority, created by Congress. They're only tested in court if you refuse, at which point the SEC (or similar agency) can go to any court of competent jurisdiction.
This is not an unusual state of affairs; something like ~300 federal enforcement missions can independently issue subpeonas.
If the court is in your home territory this may make sense. If, for example,you got a subpoena from a high court in Saudi Arabia, would you respond? Would you even hire a local lawyer? Nope,you would wait until it was filed in a court in your country of operations.
Resisting unjust legal action (initiated either by officer or judge) can happen any number of ways, including telling the court to stuff it.
Plea deals are the overwhelming number of convictions in the US, something like 90%. Most people do not have access to legal recourse and trusting any US court to operate sanely is a bad idea. Best to avoid it if you can.
It's not. They have access to lawyers, but can they outspend the SEC or any other agency that wishes to participate? One of the best predictors of whether a lawsuit succeeds is money spent.
This just isn't true. Yes, if you have zero dollars it's bad news for you. But if you have enough money to have decent lawyers then things even out, even if the other person has much more money than you. Then what the law says is a big deal!
Ehh, no; and frankly, it's like you've not even read my comments at all. If you have please speak to some specific argument they bring up. Otherwise, repeating the opposing argument serves no point.
It's almost always about money. On the defensive side, there are enough ways to stall that you can almost always outspend someone to win. On the offensive side, you can spend more time investigating and almost assuredly turn something indictable up. Have you really never heard of this?
As someone who as gone through a fair deal of litigation and arbitration, this is wrong (or at the very least, inapplicable). It’s a common armchair lawyer’s myth.
If your opponent has more than $100,000 the tables are fairly even; more than $1 million, totally even. There is a ceiling to court costs, and a finite amount of time before judges issue rulings. (Spending to try and get an outcome predictably pisses off judges.) Getting to a judge costs money; once you’re there, American courts are robust.
At an individual level, these thresholds are prohibitive. At a corporate level, they’re not. Exhibit A for you should be the SEC’s win-loss record, even against individuals. (It’s mixed.)
Do you think there are any viable financial instruments that would allow the little guy to not be bossed around by the threat of ruinous legal fees? eg: Insurance that would cover up to $100,000 in legal fees in the event that you are sued. (If everyone were required to have such insurance, it would be quite cheap.) Another option could be to allow the defendant to "double the stakes" and say, "If I lose, I will pay 2x the amount you are asking for. If I win, you must pay the amount you are asking for... to me." That would allow innocent-but-nonrich people to secure loans for legal fees. Heck, some firms might even "invest" in the defendant by charging a percentage of the winnings (if they are judged not guilty).
Surely class actions cover this sort of thing? And I know court costs work differently in the US and UK, but there are plenty of "no-win, no-fee" legal firms over here - affectionately known as "ambulance chasers" lol.
You seem to have completely misunderstood me. I'm talking about situations where a poor or middle class person is being sued by a rich person or large company. How does a class action cover that? And ambulance chasers sue big companies on behalf of poor people, not defend poor people from lawsuits. Both of your examples are the opposite of what I'm talking about.
It seems you interacted with reasonable people who wanted to uphold the rule of law. Not all lawyers, prosecutors, judges, or police officers are like that. The best suggestion I can make is to look up the correlation between time spent preparing in a criminal case and conviction rate. I do not have research db access anymore and can't do this for you.
It should be obvious that time/money spent and outcome correlate by looking at the reverse. Spending no time would assuredly prepare an inadequate case. What is unusual is the almost unbounded positive direction correlation.
You need to divorce "following the law" and "following the law that was intended or that may result in the most freedom for the most people." Many high level cases are the former, not the latter.
I have a friend who went to prison for a crime someone else committed, almost solely because the defense did not have the financial resources to fight the charges effectively.
It is not necessary that I agree, but probably that the Telegram offering is not a security. Sure, "all they had to do was file" but that is a pretty onerous requirement if you think you're not a security, and hugely restricts your market.
The Telegram token may increase in price but there's no profit sharing directly from Telegram. It's as if you funded a kickstarter for a limited edition trading card and the company was going to soon start printing more.
Nobody is actually commenting on this argument. It just seems like there's a team of people following me around downvoting me.
>but that is a pretty onerous requirement if you think you're not a security
But the SEC does, so tough luck?
>The Telegram token may increase in price but there's no profit sharing directly from Telegram
Sounds like a weasely attempt to skirt the rules. Look up the Howey test
>The leading case on the definition of an investment contract is the U.S. Supreme Court case, SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. Under the Howey test, an investment contract is “a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise[1] and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.”
