Richard Heart taking on the SEC

[polonieth]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1744858068981268985

Some heavy hitters forming his legal counsel. The idea that blockchains are speech; therefore, using blockchains is a protected human right as an exercise of free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment forms part of his motion to dismiss.

 

[wellington]

At first (last night i thought to myself - he will be creamed) then a respectable lawyer i follow, remarked about his representation being the best in the world.

polonieth said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1744858068981268985

Some heavy hitters forming his legal counsel. The idea that blockchains are speech; therefore, using blockchains is a protected human right as an exercise of free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment forms part of his motion to dismiss.
Click to expand...

It's a good point as money is 'speech' and protected by it

Blockchain, Wallets, TXT's etc therefore are expressions of speech.

 

[polonieth]

wellington said:
At first (last night i thought to myself - he will be creamed) then a respectable lawyer i follow, remarked about his representation being the best in the world.


It's a good point as money is 'speech' and protected by it

Blockchain, Wallets, TXT's etc therefore are expressions of speech.
Click to expand...

I like how it was submitted the same day the SEC twitter account was hacked. A good omen!

 

[jafo]

The lawyers will love this! They are going to be RICHER! Another one bites the dust! 😳

 

[polonieth]

jafo said:
The lawyers will love this! They are going to be RICHER! Another one bites the dust! 😳
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't working pro bono, that's for sure.

But from what I can see, they do have a decent track record representing Musk previously.

Not sure what other options he had, settle? No chance. Run? Why? So defending and bringing in some of the heavy hitter law firms, while expensive, seems like one of the best options given his wealth and the way he has positioned himself over the years.

 

[jafo]

polonieth said:
Well, they aren't working pro bono, that's for sure.

But from what I can see, they do have a decent track record representing Musk previously.

Not sure what other options he had, settle? No chance. Run? Why? So defending and bringing in some of the heavy hitter law firms, while expensive, seems like one of the best options given his wealth and the way he has positioned himself over the years.
Click to expand...

I understand most people's mindset on this issue... It's hard to see through the "legal/freedom/democracy" deception.

What are Richard's possible end results?

(1) The Good: He can spend a few years (~3 to 5 years) and hundreds of millions paying lawyers and fight on the SEC/US gov.'s turf and "win" an opinion.

(2) The Bad: He can spend a few years (~3 to 5 years) and hundreds of millions paying lawyers and fight on the SEC/US gov.'s turf and "lose" an opinion.

(3) The ugly: He can spend a few years (~3 to 5 years) and hundreds of millions paying lawyers and fight on the SEC/US gov.'s turf and have several jailhouse snitches and other confidential informants testify (they do NOT have to know Richard) in a Grand Jury that he committed some heinous crime and get indicted. Grand Jury transcripts are secret, so he'll never get to see this.
He now has to defend an "unrelated" criminal indictment. I've been here - it's anything but fun or lucrative or positive and there are NO upsides, but the legal fees are astronomical and the expenses will NOT be disclosed to you no matter how much one yells and demands. At the very best, the lawyers gang billing you will file a Memorandum of Withdrawal and the court WILL grant it. You now need to hire new lawyers and they have to review the case in its entirety AGAIN and you are back to square one. Rinse and repeat until you have NO more money left and you need a public defender.
In case anyone thinks I am whistling Dixie out of my *ss.... please read the appellate court case of HERBERT WHITLOCK and GORDON “RANDY” STEIDL

Here are some tidbits:

Herrington was a homeless alcoholic and Reinbolt was a homeless drug addict. None of them had ever seen Whitlock or Steidl. They had NO relationship with the defendants.

Who in their right mind would go

1. against the "state"
2. on the soil of the state
3. using people licensed by the state, i.e. state-sanctioned attorneys, to defend them
4. while paying these "state-sanctioned attorneys" millions and millions of dollars
5. knowing that almost half that money will end up in the state coffers benefitting the state? 🙄

PS. I have archived thousands of these types of cases of "judicial & prosecutorial" misconduct and they are NOT exclusive to the USA 😳

 

[wellington]

I've been waiting for a indictment for Heart, it's weird one hasn't dropped.

This is civil FYI, i imagine they are allowing the SEC first bite, see if he bends to the will -> when he doesn't they move forward, however he is indulging in it so that will keep them at bay because otherwise it looks like a bullying tactic that is evident i.e in good honour respectfully going through the legal system and process in a civil matter, to then be indicted at the same time.

 

[polonieth]

jafo said:
I understand most people's mindset on this issue... It's hard to see through the "legal/freedom/democracy" deception.

What are Richard's possible end results?

(1) The Good: He can spend a few years (~3 to 5 years) and hundreds of millions paying lawyers and fight on the SEC/US gov.'s turf and "win" an opinion.

(2) The Bad: He can spend a few years (~3 to 5 years) and hundreds of millions paying lawyers and fight on the SEC/US gov.'s turf and "lose" an opinion.

(3) The ugly: He can spend a few years (~3 to 5 years) and hundreds of millions paying lawyers and fight on the SEC/US gov.'s turf and have several jailhouse snitches and other confidential informants testify (they do NOT have to know Richard) in a Grand Jury that he committed some heinous crime and get indicted. Grand Jury transcripts are secret, so he'll never get to see this.
He now has to defend an "unrelated" criminal indictment. I've been here - it's anything but fun or lucrative or positive and there are NO upsides, but the legal fees are astronomical and the expenses will NOT be disclosed to you no matter how much one yells and demands. At the very best, the lawyers gang billing you will file a Memorandum of Withdrawal and the court WILL grant it. You now need to hire new lawyers and they have to review the case in its entirety AGAIN and you are back to square one. Rinse and repeat until you have NO more money left and you need a public defender.
In case anyone thinks I am whistling Dixie out of my *ss.... please read the appellate court case of HERBERT WHITLOCK and GORDON “RANDY” STEIDL

Here are some tidbits:

View attachment 5953

View attachment 5954

View attachment 5955

View attachment 5956

Herrington was a homeless alcoholic and Reinbolt was a homeless drug addict. None of them had ever seen Whitlock or Steidl. They had NO relationship with the defendants.

Who in their right mind would go

1. against the "state"
2. on the soil of the state
3. using people licensed by the state, i.e. state-sanctioned attorneys, to defend them
4. while paying these "state-sanctioned attorneys" millions and millions of dollars
5. knowing that almost half that money will end up in the state coffers benefitting the state? 🙄

PS. I have archived thousands of these types of cases of "judicial & prosecutorial" misconduct and they are NOT exclusive to the USA 😳
Click to expand...

Heart vs the SEC is a civil case.

Too much speculation.

wellington said:
I've been waiting for a indictment for Heart, it's weird one hasn't dropped.

This is civil FYI, i imagine they are allowing the SEC first bite, see if he bends to the will -> when he doesn't they move forward, however he is indulging in it so that will keep them at bay because otherwise it looks like a bullying tactic that is evident i.e in good honour respectfully going through the legal system and process in a civil matter, to then be indicted at the same time.
Click to expand...

What would an indictment have been for so far? Given the higher burden of proof needed I don't think it's a surprise there isn't one so far.

 

[jafo]

polonieth said:
Heart vs the SEC is a civil case.
Click to expand...

What did you think mine was? 🙄

polonieth said:
Too much speculation.
Click to expand...

Exactly what ALL the lawyers told me. Told me that the elderly businessman who taught me the business was fvll of sh1t! He was a lunatic. Except, he was the ONLY one who put millions in my bank account (I worked for him, of course).
Guess who got indicted?
Guess who spent millions on his defense?
Guess who ended up going Pro Se?
Guess who is on every list (Thompson Reuters et al) despite being acquitted 4 times (back to back) for something that is NOT even a prohibited act?
Ohhhhh....and guess who was locked up while the trial circus was going on? 🙄

PS. You all have been warned. You all are adults and can make your own decisions. Once people get locked up and a few months go by, the smart ones all of a sudden realize how fvcked they are stupi#21

 

[polonieth]

Heart's case involves allegations of unregistered securities offerings and fraudulent activities related to cryptocurrencies in a civil case. The Whitlock and Steidl case is a criminal case involving murder charges, wrongful convictions, and fabricated evidence and misconduct by law enforcement and prosecutors.

What's the parallel here? Ok, yes, a broader theme of legal challenges and the potential for judicial and investigatory errors or misconduct, but this is seriously stretching at this moment in time.

 

[jafo]

polonieth said:
Whitlock and Steidl case is a criminal case involving murder charges, wrongful convictions, and fabricated evidence and misconduct by law enforcement and prosecutors.
Click to expand...

Nope! Their case was: that they went to the FBI to be good law-abiding citizens to inform on people who were gambling illegally in Illinois. What they did NOT anticipate is, that the FBI agent was friends with one of the local prosecutors and others involved in illegal gambling. Read the whole docket and court transcripts. It will be obvious.

Whitlock & Steidl had NOTHING to do with the murders. The state used the criminal system to bring criminal charges on Whitlock & Steidl to discredit & silence them. Those guys were NOT even in the same town as the victims. 🙄

Anyway, if you don't see it, it may not be obvious to you (extremely nice people can't fathom such a world), but mark my words: Richard Hearst will become poor or end up in prison or locked up for a while fighting his case (even though civil..they'll come up with something else). Unless he becomes a Confidential Informant. He'll suffer the same fate as Kim Dotcom, Julian Assange, CZ, and others...
Hey, but let's look at the bright side ... the lawyers will make a killing though rof/%

PS. Satoshi KNEW (I wished I was THAT smart to see it coming before it lit me up on fire)...and he disappeared into darkness. 😉

 

[polonieth]

jafo said:
Nope! Their case was: that they went to the FBI to be good law-abiding citizens to inform on people who were gambling illegally in Illinois. What they did NOT anticipate is, that the FBI agent was friends with one of the local prosecutors and others involved in illegal gambling. Read the whole docket and court transcripts. It will be obvious.

View attachment 5958


Whitlock & Steidl had NOTHING to do with the murders. The state used the criminal system to bring criminal charges on Whitlock & Steidl to discredit & silence them. Those guys were NOT even in the same town as the victims. 🙄

Anyway, if you don't see it, it may not be obvious to you (extremely nice people can't fathom such a world), but mark my words: Richard Hearst will become poor or end up in prison or locked up for a while fighting his case (even though civil..they'll come up with something else). Unless he becomes a Confidential Informant. He'll suffer the same fate as Kim Dotcom, Julian Assange, CZ, and others...
Hey, but let's look at the bright side ... the lawyers will make a killing though rof/%

PS. Satoshi KNEW (I wished I was THAT smart to see it coming before it lit me up on fire)...and he disappeared into darkness. 😉
Click to expand...

But they're not similar at all. Regardless of what it entails and the obvious wrongful convictions, yours is not a civil case.

You have gone for the crystal ball approach.

 

[jafo]

polonieth said:
yours is not a civil case.
Click to expand...

I started with a civil case suing the US gov. in 2001 on the advice of counsel "to help others"... I wasn't even involved.

5 years and 51 weeks after the civil case started and was ready to go to the Supreme Court, the US gov. came in with an indictment on charges that were not and have NEVER been, as a matter of law, a prohibitive act. I'm wondering if I am NOT explaining this well enough 🙄 Got to admit though.... I was stubborn as h3ll when 2 Feds stopped me on the road and explained to me nicely how if I don't drop the lawsuit, I'll end up in prison. I told the attorneys, two of them being former US Attorneys, and they screamed and danced saying the Feds were scared....BOY ...were they WRONG AF! Those guys gave me an EASY out and I didn't take it. stupi#21 stupi#21 stupi#21 stupi#21 stupi#21
So, it's NOT strange to me why you are not understanding this. I was in it, was paying millions in legal fees, was getting slammed, and I STILL didn't get it. In defense of everyone else, that doesn't get it... the BOP is full of people doing life and they STILL don't get cry&¤

PS. I'm NOT Steidl or Whitlock...btw. Richard Hearst also is NOT that big of a deal for them. Had RH kept quiet and didn't make enemies along the way and posted himself purchasing Haute Couture, he would NOT have been indicted. Of course, CZ got it coming a long time ago. He was literally taking business away from the US market. Read this book:

Nobody is indicting Satoshi (they can't find him) or Michael Saylor (he is in the US) for that matter. Also, they aren't out there being ostentatious.

 

[polonieth]

jafo said:
I started with a civil case suing the US gov. in 2001 on the advice of counsel "to help others"... I wasn't even involved.

5 years and 51 weeks after the civil case started and was ready to go to the Supreme Court, the US gov. came in with an indictment on charges that were not and have NEVER been, as a matter of law, a prohibitive act. I'm wondering if I am NOT explaining this well enough 🙄 Got to admit though.... I was stubborn as h3ll when 2 Feds stopped me on the road and explained to me nicely how if I don't drop the lawsuit, I'll end up in prison. I told the attorneys, two of them being former US Attorneys, and they screamed and danced saying the Feds were scared....BOY ...were they WRONG AF! Those guys gave me an EASY out and I didn't take it. stupi#21 stupi#21 stupi#21 stupi#21 stupi#21
So, it's NOT strange to me why you are not understanding this. I was in it, was paying millions in legal fees, was getting slammed, and I STILL didn't get it. In defense of everyone else, that doesn't get it... the BOP is full of people doing life and they STILL don't get cry&¤

PS. I'm NOT Steidl or Whitlock...btw. Richard Hearst also is NOT that big of a deal for them. Had RH kept quiet and didn't make enemies along the way and posted himself purchasing Haute Couture, he would NOT have been indicted. Of course, CZ got it coming a long time ago. He was literally taking business away from the US market. Read this book:
View attachment 5969

Nobody is indicting Satoshi (they can't find him) or Michael Saylor (he is in the US) for that matter. Also, they aren't out there being ostentatious.
Click to expand...

So you brought a civil case against the US Government, as the sole plaintiff?

And then five years later with the case ongoing, you were personally indicted, and then tried for the purported crime?

 

[jafo]

polonieth said:
So you brought a civil case against the US Government, as the sole plaintiff?

And then five years later with the case ongoing, you were personally indicted, and then tried for the purported crime?
Click to expand...

#Bingooooooooooooooooooooo

PS. I can show you part of the trial transcripts where the government admits to the jury and judge: We have NO records. No bank records. No emails. Nothing. What we have is his lawyers in pleadings telling us his business (I NEVER told the lawyers my business - I'm STUPID, but NOT to that degree 🙄 ).
The witnesses? None of them knew me and they admitted they didn't know me. Never met me. Never spoke to me. If you don't believe me, I'll DM the parts of the trial transcript.... How do you think I got acquitted 4 times? And that is ONLY because I went Pro Se. The lawyers would have fvcked me! They were having dinner with the prosecutors. Three of the four lawyers were former prosecutors. stupi#21

Last edited: Jan 11, 2024

 

[wellington]

jafo said:
Kim Dotcom
Click to expand...

To be fair Kim is doing ok, keeps having more kids.

Buying new cars, homes, toys etc.

jafo said:
5 years and 51 weeks after the civil case started and was ready to go to the Supreme Court, the US gov. came in with an indictment on charges that were not and have NEVER been, as a matter of law, a prohibitive act. I'm wondering if I am NOT explaining this well enough 🙄
Click to expand...

The guy filing cases to get Trump dismissed from the ballet was indicted this morning. (or yesterday).

Tax related

 

[khinkali]

wellington said:
The guy filing cases to get Trump dismissed from the ballet was indicted this morning. (or yesterday).

Tax related
Click to expand...

In any country with complex regulations, pretty much everyone is a potential criminal.

The authorities don't need to fabricate offenses, they can just enforce selectively.

It's scary.

 

[jafo]

khinkali said:
In any country with complex regulations, pretty much everyone is a potential criminal.
Click to expand...

#Bingooooooooooooooo

Book premiered on September 1st, 2009.

khinkali said:
The authorities don't need to fabricate offenses
Click to expand...

But they do it anyway! They LOVE to do it just for kicks. dev56"""
Just search on PACER, Westlaw, or Lexis Nexis for the term "as a matter of law" and then read the court records...be prepared to be shocked beyond consciousness. 😳

khinkali said:
they can just enforce selectively.
Click to expand...

100% this all day and twice on Sundays!
Senior Federal Judge Arrested in FBI Sting Involving Guns, Drugs, Stripper. Senior U.S. District Judge Jack T. Camp faces drug and firearms charges for his arrest Friday in which he unwittingly handed over $160 to an undercover law enforcement agent for cocaine and Roxycodone, a narcotic plain reliever that he supposedly intended to use with the exotic dancer. Authorities also seized two guns from the front seat of the judge's vehicle during his arrest, authorities said in a court document released Monday. A well-known federal judge was released on a $50,000 bond Monday after he was busted by an undercover agent for allegedly using cocaine, marijuana and other illegal drugs with an Atlanta stripper.

and his buddies, other federal judges, and prosecutors only "locked" him up after a barrage of protests by other inmates and their families with similar crimes for only 30 days in a camp... stupi#21

Jack T. Camp, if you do the research, sentenced anyone with the same crime to no less than 188 months in federal prison! None of them get a $50,000 bond either! 🙄

khinkali said:
It's scary.
Click to expand...

It's cowardly and evil!