@DCPEASTBCP @AddlCPEast We have filed a FIR and have taken Injunction order from the court. Yet the circle inspector (Vasan Kumar) of @Hennurps Is being numb on the situation
#Bangalore #landgrabbing
Not only he refused to accept the order.
But also he harassed me and my father
More from Law
1/ After a good night's sleep, I have a few thoughts on the impending Ripple lawsuit.
Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB
2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.
I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.
Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their
3/ Second, the USG should lose.
The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.
I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)
4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.
I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.
So we're effectively in this together.
5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.
XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.
XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB
BREAKING: The @SEC_News intends to sue @ripple over its sale of XRP, alleging the cryptocurrency is an unregistered security according to @bgarlinghouse.@nikhileshde reportshttps://t.co/7Z3KSWk7dn
— CoinDesk (@CoinDesk) December 22, 2020
2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.
I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.
Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their
3/ Second, the USG should lose.
The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.
I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)
4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.
I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.
So we're effectively in this together.
5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.
XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.
XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
There is a now-relevant parallel here to the difference here between matters before a judge & matters before a jury. Judges are far more reluctant to strike testimony or evidence if they are the only recipients of it, with the theory being that they are really smart about ...
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
To the extent that precedents matter in this trial, when hearsay has been challenged in past trials, it's been admitted if it's probative. And it's been noted that senators aren't *regular* jurors, but rather people of learning who can figure on their own how to weigh evidence.
— Ira Goldman \U0001f986\U0001f986\U0001f986 (@KDbyProxy) January 24, 2020
law stuff & will know what they can & can't consider. For instance, there is a long-held rule that a fact witness can't make legal arguments, only a lawyer. So what will happen in a motion for summary judgment, where the entire proceeding is on paper, will play out like this:
1) Defendant makes a motion for summary judgment. It includes a sworn declaration from some fact witness.
2) The declaration includes all sorts of legal arguments about why the defendant should win. Often the declaration includes arguments the brief didn't even make.
Defendants (especially DOJ-represented ones) often do this to get around the word or page-limits placed on briefs.
3) Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration for its inclusion of inadmissible legal arguments.
4) Judge denies the motion to strike, on the grounds that a ...
judge is a sophisticated consumer of evidence & can choose what to consider & what to ignore, unlike a jury.
The legal fiction behind this impeachment exception is that Senators are also smart enough to know what to listen to & what to ignore. Now, that may not be ACCURATE, ...
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.