3 ms·

Yep. People should learn the difference between Kwon filing an opposing statement [that may have seemed convincing] and a judge actually ruling that way. By "la

Yep. People should learn the difference between Kwon filing an opposing statement [that may have seemed convincing] and a judge actually ruling that way. By "late last year but failed spectacularly" I think /u/atian just accepted that process story (nov/dec) as being the result, perhaps because first the SEC filed and then Kwon filed a response. Every question before the court in cases like these has at least three documents typed up in Times New Roman and looking like that. Only the last one matters, the first and second are not useful to lay folk except to indicate that things are still chugging along. In summary: the judge agreed with the SEC. The subpoena is being enforced.

jcranmer 4y ago
> Every question before the court in cases like these has at least three documents typed up in Times New Roman and looking like that. At risk of being excessively pedantic, there's generally the motion, the response, and then movants' reply, and then the judge's order. Sometimes the brief and the motion are separate documents (particularly when you're moving for a temporary restraining order or the like). So that's generally 4, not 3, documents that you'd expect to see. Also, different courts have different rules on what the appropriate font is. There are some jurisdictions that explicitly prescribe a list of acceptable fonts (e.g., apparently Connecticut gives you a choice between Arial and Univers), and Times New Roman isn't necessarily on that list.
- cormacrelf 4y ago
  Yeah, a bit pedantic, each of those points was rhetorically preferable and accurate enough. Re the number, that's why I said "at least three". The point I'm making is that it is practically never 2, so one should not conclude that the SEC lost simply because another story appeared that seemed to contradict its view. You have to wait for the one that actually says it's a judge's orders, counting is not my proposed method. As for the font, sure. It was just another way of saying "official-seeming", I'm trying to encourage people to look past the official-ness because all the filings look pretty similar and you do have to read the title. Nevertheless in the federal courts (except SCOTUS) and in California, which are the cases you see most often on HN, it seems to be Times New Roman everywhere.

jcranmer 4y ago

> Every question before the court in cases like these has at least three documents typed up in Times New Roman and looking like that. At risk of being excessively pedantic, there's generally the motion, the response, and then movants' reply, and then the judge's order. Sometimes the brief and the motion are separate documents (particularly when you're moving for a temporary restraining order or the like). So that's generally 4, not 3, documents that you'd expect to see. Also, different courts have different rules on what the appropriate font is. There are some jurisdictions that explicitly prescribe a list of acceptable fonts (e.g., apparently Connecticut gives you a choice between Arial and Univers), and Times New Roman isn't necessarily on that list.

cormacrelf 4y ago
Yeah, a bit pedantic, each of those points was rhetorically preferable and accurate enough. Re the number, that's why I said "at least three". The point I'm making is that it is practically never 2, so one should not conclude that the SEC lost simply because another story appeared that seemed to contradict its view. You have to wait for the one that actually says it's a judge's orders, counting is not my proposed method. As for the font, sure. It was just another way of saying "official-seeming", I'm trying to encourage people to look past the official-ness because all the filings look pretty similar and you do have to read the title. Nevertheless in the federal courts (except SCOTUS) and in California, which are the cases you see most often on HN, it seems to be Times New Roman everywhere.