#U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

[dencyemily]

Landmark Decision: Court Gives Green Light to Genesis for $1.3 Billion GBTC Liquidation to Resolve Investor Debts

In a crucial development, Genesis Global Holdco has received court approval to initiate the phased liquidation of its $1.3 billion Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) shares. The approval, granted during a February 14 hearing at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, underscores Genesis's commitment to its repayment plan for investors.

The sanctioned liquidation encompasses approximately 35 million GBTC shares, alongside 11 million shares from Grayscale Ethereum Trust (ETHE) and Grayscale Ethereum Classic Trust (ETCG). This move follows the SEC's approval on January 10 for the conversion of GBTC into a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), a significant development in Genesis's strategy for cash redemption.

Genesis's legal and financial maneuvers, including a $21 million settlement with the SEC over allegations related to the Gemini Earn program, have set the stage for this court-approved liquidation. The decision allows Genesis to collaborate with a brokerage for a phased liquidation approach, ensuring a controlled divestment of assets.

Despite a legal battle with Gemini over the GBTC shares, the court's approval provides Genesis with the green light to proceed with its asset liquidation plan. This development has sparked interest within the cryptocurrency community, with stakeholders closely watching for potential market implications amid ongoing changes in the GBTC landscape.

[cryptonewsupdate]

Defiance Against SEC: Terraform CEO Contests Regulatory Authority in Charging Do Kwon and Company

In a strategic maneuver to weather ongoing legal storms, Terraform Labs, the masterminds behind TerraUSD (UST) and Luna, have opted for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in Delaware. The move is positioned as a calculated response to legal challenges, prominently the SEC lawsuit and other legal complexities in Singapore. CEO Chris Amani underscores the pivotal role of this bankruptcy filing in steering the company through its objectives in the face of intricate legal landscapes.

The bankruptcy documents lay bare Terraform Labs' financial landscape, indicating assets and liabilities within the $100 million to $500 million range, with 100 to 199 creditors in the mix. Beyond financial restructuring, the Chapter 11 filing strategically positions Terraform Labs in its legal strategy. Typically, an appeal against the SEC would necessitate a "supersedeas bond," an amount equivalent to 110% of the total judgment, yet Chapter 11 protection might exempt the company from this requirement.

The upcoming appeal centers on Terraform Labs' argument that the SEC lacks jurisdiction to charge the company or co-founder Do Kwon, contending that their crypto assets are beyond the realm of securities. A favorable outcome could significantly alleviate the company's primary claim, bringing relief to Terraform Labs, its creditors, and the broader community.

Despite the challenges posed by bankruptcy, Terraform Labs remains resolute in its pursuit of growth within the Web3 sector. Recent strategic moves, such as the acquisition of Pulsar Finance and the launch of Station v3, a new cryptocurrency wallet, demonstrate the company's commitment to navigating complexities and forging ahead.

The postponement of the SEC's civil trial to March 25 has offered some respite. However, the custody situation of Do Kwon in Montenegro, with potential extradition looming, adds a layer of complexity. Kwon's arrest, stemming from the collapse of TerraUSD and Luna, contributed to significant disruptions in the cryptocurrency market.

Established in 2018, Terraform Labs faced a severe downturn in May 2022, witnessing a substantial loss of over $40 billion in market value. This downturn triggered the collapse of TerraUSD and Luna, escalating the company's legal battles. A recent U.S. court ruling further complicates matters by classifying LUNA and MIR as securities, intensifying Terraform Labs' legal challenges.

[eightopals]

Hi, the SEC is the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a federal regulatory agency. The SEC’s mission is to regulate the U.S. stock markets and the companies that make money by selling stock on those markets. As a regulator, the SEC investigates companies that may have violated U.S. securities regulations. The SEC employees mentioned are therefore federal employees, and the phones in question may well be the phones the agency issues to employees for official agency business.

I’m not sure exactly what ax Levine is trying to grind here, but he used to work for Goldman Sachs:

The SEC v. Goldman Sachs: Reputation, Trust, and Fiduciary Duties in Investment Banking

https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1125250

Always consider the source.

The researchers “use de-identified smartphone geolocation data for a sample of US phones from January 2019 to February 2020,” obtained “from an online data vendor that provides data commercially to businesses, governments, and researchers” and “works with numerous mobile application providers that track ‘pings’ of the location of a phone while the application is either currently in use or is running in the background.” Then they use the addresses of SEC offices and corporate headquarters, and then match the smartphone pings to the buildings. A smartphone is assumed to belong to an SEC employee if it “pinged for at least 20 unique workday hours within one SEC location during the month” and “the accumulated time in that SEC building [is] greater than in any other buildings in the respective month.” And then they go measure which companies those SEC employees visited.

Matt Levine casually mentioning this in an aside like it's normal

[saywhat-politics]

As Tesla stock has fallen in recent weeks, members of the board and an executive at Elon Musk's company have been selling off millions of dollars in stock, according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

NOTE: The video is from a previous report.

Together, four top officers at the company have offloaded over $100 million in shares since early February.

Last week, longtime Musk ally James Murdoch -- the estranged son of Fox boss Rupert Murdoch and a board member since 2017 -- became the latest to do so, exercising a stock option and selling shares worth approximately $13 million, according to an SEC filing. The sale took place on March 10, coinciding with the stock's largest single-day decline in five years.

Elon Musk's brother, Kimbal Musk, who also sits on the board, unloaded 75,000 shares worth approximately $27 million last month, according to a filing.

The chairman of the board, Robyn Denholm, has offloaded more than $75 million dollars worth of shares in two transactions in the past five weeks, federal filings show. The selloffs made by Denholm came as part of a predetermined sales plan.

[blueiscoool]

Miniature Roman Gold Box Lock From 3rd Century Discovered in Germany

Archaeologists have uncovered a miniature Roman gold lock, measuring just 1.2 by 1.1 centimeters—smaller than a U.S. quarter coin—in a field in Petershagen-Frille in northwestern Germany. The object, dating back to the 3rd or 4th century AD, is believed to be the smallest Roman lock ever found in Europe.

The discovery, made in 2023 by licensed explorer Constantin Fried, has drawn significant attention due to the lock’s size, material, and intricate craftsmanship.

Fried, who found the piece in a cultivated field in the Minden-Lübbecke district, immediately reported it to Bielefeld’s Regional Association of Westphalia-Lippe’s (LWL) archaeology team. Experts were stunned.

“I could hardly believe it myself when I held the find in my hand,” Fried said. “Because such Roman locks are usually much larger and consist of iron or bronze parts.”

A lock of mystery and history

Archaeologists believe the lock was originally used to secure a small chest or valuable container. Dr. Barbara Rüschoff-Parzinger, a cultural expert and archaeologist at LWL, confirmed that its design matches cylindrical Roman locks. The craftsmanship suggests it was made in a specialized Roman workshop.

Despite missing its original key and chain, the lock remains in remarkable condition. It consists of two small cylindrical plates held together by three gold rivets. Experts say its decorative details indicate it was likely owned by someone of high status.

Researchers are investigating how the lock arrived in Westphalia. Early theories suggest it could have been traded, taken as war loot, or brought back by a soldier returning from service in the Roman army.

Dr. Michael Rind, head of archaeology at LWL, said the lock would have been considered rare and valuable in its time, even if it was no longer functional. “The golden miniature tin lock is the only one of its kind in Europe and is the northernmost tin lock found in Germany,” Rind said.

Advanced technology unveils internal design

To study the lock’s inner workings, researchers turned to modern imaging techniques. Traditional X-rays failed to reveal details due to the density of the gold.

Instead, experts used neutron computed tomography, a rare technique in archaeology, to create a detailed visualization of the internal mechanism.

The scan revealed key structural components, including a spring frame, latch, and base plate. Further analysis showed that the lock had been tampered with, possibly in an attempt to force it open.

Despite the damage, researchers reconstructed its mechanism and created a functional replica four times its original size. The model, crafted by an LWL restorer, demonstrates how the lock once operated and confirms the technical complexity of its design.

A glimpse into Roman influence

The discovery of this lock offers a rare glimpse into Roman craftsmanship and its influence on distant regions. Researchers say it serves as evidence of cultural and economic exchanges between Roman elites and Germanic tribes.

While the lock answers some historical questions, others remain open. Was it a unique commissioned piece? Were similar locks produced? Could more be buried beneath the fields of Westphalia?

Archaeologists continue their investigation, hoping to uncover more about this tiny yet significant piece of history.

By Nisha Zahid.

The 4:1 scale reconstruction of the lock with chain 

[political-us]

US Securities and Exchange Commission beginning to bring on DOGE staff, email says

WASHINGTON, March 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is beginning to bring on officials with billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, according to an email sent on Friday to department staff.

SEC staff were informed that the DOGE task force had contacted the regulator, and that they would be treated as staff for the purposes of network, system and data access. The SEC is establishing a liaison team with the "intent to partner" with DOGE, the email said. The memo was first reported by Reuters.

(The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is an independent agency of the United States federal government, created in the aftermath of the Wall Street crash of 1929. Its primary purpose is to enforce laws against market manipulation.)

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-securities-exchange-commission-beginning-onboard-doge-staff-email-says-2025-03-28/

[raygun631]

Brian Walsby

oretsdSopn:3h0011587g c9hM633A26u9rt2M31ci h8 46hi7laia9t1 4  · 

Everyone is fatigued. I was talking online with a Canadian last night who asked me why no one was doing anything and I didn’t have an answer. You wonder why both parties don’t work together to get rid of these two assholes, one of which no one here voted for. You wonder how these people can be so spineless and cowardly.

This might provide some answers.

Stay Silent and Stay Powerless Against Trump’s Tyranny

by Ralph Nader

March 14, 2025

There are reasons why influential or knowledgeable Americans are staying silent as the worsening fascist dictatorship of the Trumpsters and Musketeers gets more entrenched by the day. Most of these reasons are simple cover for cowardice.

Start with the once-powerful Bush family dynasty. They despise Trump as he does them. Rich and comfortable George W. Bush is very proud of his Administration’s funding of AIDS medicines saving lives in Africa and elsewhere. Trump, driven by vengeance and megalomania, moved immediately to dismantle this program. Immediate harm commenced to millions of victims in Africa and elsewhere who are reliant on this U.S. assistance (including programs to lessen the health toll on people afflicted by tuberculosis and malaria).

Not a peep from George W. Bush, preoccupied with his landscape painting and perhaps occasional pangs of guilt from his butchery in Iraq. His signal program is going down in flames and he keeps his mouth shut, as he has largely done since the upstart loudmouth Trump ended the Bush family’s power over the Republican Party.

Then there are the Clintons and Obama. They are very rich, and have no political aspirations. Yet, though horrified by what they see Trump doing to the government and its domestic social safety net services they once ruled, mum’s the word.

What are these politicians afraid of as they watch the overthrow of our government and the oncoming police state? Trump, after all, was not elected to become a dictator—declaring war on the American people with his firings and smashing of critical “people’s programs” that benefit liberals and conservatives, red state and blue state residents alike.

Do they fear being discomforted by Trump/Musk unleashing hate and threats against them, and getting tarred by Trump’s tirades and violent incitations? No excuses. Regard for our country must take precedence to help galvanize their own constituencies to resist tyranny and fight for Democracy.

What about Kamala Harris — the hapless loser to Trump in November’s presidential election? She must think she has something to say on behalf of the 75 million people who voted for her or against Trump. Silence! She is perfect bait for Trump’s intimidation tactics. She is afraid to tangle with Trump despite his declining polls, rising inflation, the falling stock market and anti-people budget slashing which is harming her supporters and Trump voters’ economic wellbeing, health and safety.

This phenomenon of going dark is widespread. Regulators and prosecutors who were either fired or quit in advance have not risen to defend their own agencies and departments, if only to elevate the morale of those civil servants remaining behind and under siege.

Why aren’t we hearing from Gary Gensler, former head of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), now being dismantled, especially since the SEC is dropping his cases against alleged cryptocurrency crooks?

Why aren’t we hearing much more (she wrote one op-ed) from Samantha Power, the former head of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) under Biden, whose life-saving agency is literally being illegally closed down, but for pending court challenges?

Why aren’t we hearing from Michael Regan, head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Biden about saboteur Lee Zeldin, Trump’s head of EPA, who is now giving green lights to lethal polluters and other environmental destructions?

These and many other former government officials all have their own circles – in some cases, millions of people – who need to hear from them.

They can take some courage of the seven former I.R.S. Commissioners — from Republican and Democratic Administrations — who condemned slicing the I.R.S staff in half and aiding and abetting big time tax evasion by the undertaxed super-rich and giant corporations. I am told that they would be eager to testify, should the Democrats in Congress have the energy to hold unofficial hearings as ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees.

Banding together is one way of reducing the fear factor. After Trump purged the career military at the Pentagon to put his own “yes men” at the top, five former Secretaries of Defense, who served under both Democratic and Republican presidents, sent a letter to Congress denouncing Trump’s firing of senior military officers and requesting “immediate” House and Senate hearings to “assess the national security implications of Mr. Trump’s dismissals.” Not a chance by the GOP majority there. But they could ask the Democrats to hold UNOFFICIAL HEARINGS as ranking members of the Armed Services Committees!

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker can be one of the prime witnesses at these hearings – he has no fear of speaking his mind against the Trumpsters.

On March 6, 2025, the Washington Bureau Chief of the New York Times, Elisabeth Bumiller, put her rare byline on an urgent report titled, “‘People Are Going Silent’: Fearing Retribution, Trump Critics Muzzle Themselves.”

She writes: “The silence grows louder every day. Fired federal workers who are worried about losing their homes ask not to be quoted by name. University presidents [one exception is Wesleyan University President Michael Roth] fearing that millions of dollars in federal funding could disappear are holding their fire. Chief executives alarmed by tariffs that could hurt their businesses are on mute.”

To be sure, government employees and other unions are speaking out and suing in federal court. So are national citizen groups like Public Citizen and the Center for Constitutional Rights, though hampered in alerting large audiences by newspapers like the Times rarely reporting their initiatives.

Yes, Ms. Bumiller, pay attention to that aspect of your responsibility. Moreover, the Times’ editorial page (op-ed and editorials) are not adequately reflecting the urgency of her reporting. Nor are her reporters covering the informed outspokenness and actions of civic organizations.

Don’t self-censoring people know that they are helping the Trumpian dread, threat and fear machine get worse? Study Germany and Italy in the nineteen thirties.

The Trump/Musk lawless, cruel, arrogant, dictatorial regime is in our White House. Their police state infrastructure is in place. Silence is complicity!

https://nader.org/.../stay-silent-and-stay-powerless.../

[mariacallous]

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump claims to have ideas for quickly settling the Russia-Ukraine. Whether or not that’s true—and there’s plenty of reason to think it’s not—it’s likely the Trump administration will soon halt its bankrolling of Ukraine’s war effort. On the campaign trail, Trump derided U.S. funding of Ukraine, which currently amounts to more than $60 billion—around half of Ukraine’s total military support from abroad—and has given every indication that he would discontinue it.

This would plunk the problem of support for Ukraine squarely in Europe’s lap. The continent is still not prepared for that reality. The fear of a Russian rout of Ukraine, however, could motivate Europe to try assuming responsibility for supporting Ukraine on its own—beginning with a recognition that ramping up its support is not beyond its ability.

The possibility of U.S. disengagement from Ukraine hasn’t caught Europe completely by surprise. Although Trump didn’t disclose specifics while on the campaign trail, he presented an outline of a plan to end the war: U.S.-led negotiations would stop Russia where it is on the battlefield, cede the territories that Russia occupies to it, and then lift international sanctions against Russia in exchange for the termination of military hostilities toward Ukraine. There would be no NATO or other Western security guarantee but rather, according to Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, a demilitarized zone along Ukraine’s new borders with defensive fortifications robust enough to prevent another Russian invasion. Most important to Trump seems to be jettisoning the U.S. financial commitment to Ukraine.

Europe’s own contribution to Ukraine’s cause so far should not be underestimated. According to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, the European Union is the largest provider of aid to Ukraine, having allocated a total of $133 billion since Russia’s full-scale invasion. (In total, the US has shelled out nearly $91 billion in combined military, economic, and humanitarian assistance.) The EU states have come up with more than $45 billion in military aid for Ukraine’s defense, including large volumes of weaponry and munitions. The bloc’s offer of membership to Ukraine and money for reconstruction and recovery—all directed toward fulfilling membership criteria, as well as rebuilding—buttress the country’s resilience and fuel its democratic aspirations. And at home, member states are accommodating 4 million refugees and have dramatically cut their fossil energy imports from Russia.

The losses, however, should the United States really step back, would be egregious in terms of leadership, money, and weaponry. Europe’s leaders remain convinced that maintaining Ukraine’s independence and halting Russian aggression is vital to the entire continent’s security. But there’s also a recognition that Europe’s effort alone is likely not enough to hold Ukrainian lines on the battlefield, much less serve Russia a knockout blow.

Germany was never a convincing candidate for leadership on the military front, and now that Chancellor Olaf Scholz is heading up a minority coalition until new elections early next year, it will enjoy even less clout. In France, even though President Emmanuel Macron has aspired to leadership—and obviously understands what is at stake for Europe—he is politically weak and facing tough elections soon, too. And the United Kingdom’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer, is fresh in office and already engulfed in struggles.

Thus, the task could fall on the shoulders of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, if they accept it. Even though she doesn’t command a single battalion, von der Leyen has already shown what she can do as point person when the occasion demands it: When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in Europe in 2020, she organized the EU-wide response like a seasoned field marshal, and then immediately on its heels, the quick pivot of Europe’s energy imports away from Russia. Simultaneously, the EU wasted no time imposing sanctions on Russia. And though only by a hair’s breadth, the EU recently outbattled Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moldova, where it helped fend off an onslaught of Russian disinformation, thus helping to reelect a liberal-minded president who is committed to democracy.

If the United States really bows out of the Russia-Ukraine war, however, von der Leyen is going to have to assume an even greater burden—leading a truly global military effort. The EU has allies beyond the bloc in countries like the UK, Japan, Australia, Canada, South Korea—all of which are pitching in for Ukraine but require a point person to look toward and to coordinate their support. This war was internationalized long before Russia put 10,000 North Korean troops on the ground, and the maintenance of a global pro-Ukraine front is vital to success.

Von der Leyen’s first hurdle, though, will be rallying the entire EU to the cause, and two members—Hungary and Slovakia—are pushing Trump-like “solutions.” Moreover, Russian-friendly populists are surging just about everywhere in the bloc.

At the recent European Political Community summit in Budapest, von der Leyen and Europe’s other top officials seemed to grasp the urgency of the task at hand but stopped short of offering specific plans for a way forward. “It is in all our interests that the autocrats of this world get a very clear message that there is not the right of might, that the rule of law is important,” von der Leyen said.

One thing appears absolutely certain: Europe will have to dig much deeper into its pockets. This means domestic politicos have to make the case to their populations much more bluntly: This war is about Europe, and Ukraine’s defeat would throw into jeopardy much of what decades of integration has accomplished—and cost their countries dearly in many ways.

EU leaders have already begun shifting monies to defense-related priorities.  Nearly a third of the bloc’s common budget, over $400 billion for 2021 to 2027, is allotted to cohesion funding, namely for the reduction of economic inequality between members. But, according to the Financial Times, nearly 95 percent of this budget goes untapped. This spending cannot go toward traditional military hardware but it can buy “dual-use products,” such as drones, global positioning satellites, night vision technology, thermal imaging, and some lasers. Germany, for instance, which is a transportation nexus for western Europe’s shipping for military goods to Ukraine, could call on its more than $40 billion in cohesion funds to repair its badly aged roads, bridges and trains.

A first step will have to involve pushing the third of NATO members who don’t even bankroll the alliance with the stated goal of committing 2 percent of their output to military spending. But maintaining Ukraine’s war effort will demand far more than that.

A proposal by Estonia, made before the U.S. election, deserves serious consideration. It calls for all NATO members anteing up at least 0.25 percent of their GDP for Ukraine’s defense, as the Baltic states already do. That would net   for ensuring Ukraine can still purchase weapons to check Russia. The EU could also consider pursuing raising funds in this way on its own, outside of NATO.

Whether these armaments come from the production facilities of European or foreign arms-makers is beside the point. Europeans’ procurement of weaponry is already happening beyond Europe’s own defense industries. The Czech Republic, head of a multinational arms-buying initiative, tapped markets in a number of non-EU countries to supply Ukraine’s armed forces with 800,000 million artillery shells.

Denmark is trailblazing direct investment in the Ukrainian defense industry. The Danish contribution and frozen Russian assets managed by Denmark on behalf of the EU pay the Ukrainian defense industry $600 million to produce attack drones, artillery, anti-tank weapons, missiles, and naval missiles. Belgium is also working in this direction, with the idea being that every euro buys armaments (more cheaply than on the international market) and establishes a more sophisticated defense industry in Ukraine itself.

The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) recommends the creation of a law similar to the U.S. Defense Production Act, which grants the U.S. president powers to bolster the nation’s defense by fast-tracking the production of materials and services. It would, according to ECFR, “provide European policymakers with the tools to use the collective power of EU institutions, member-state governments, and European development banks to respond faster and more effectively to crises.” This would allow Europe to more efficiently use any additional money it commits to Ukraine, accelerating production of defensive armaments such as artillery shells and air-defense missiles, as well as medical supplies. The key would be for Europeans to do all this as one unit—not 27 separate states.

One key item that Europeans will not provide is the advanced surveillance and reconnaissance technology that the United States excels in. “All precision weapons systems today depend on this technology and no industry does it like the [United States],” said Christian Mölling, deputy director of the German Council on Foreign Relations.

Certainly, part of the European strategy must be to talk sense to Trump. A scenario to avoid at all costs would be the United States canceling sanctions or just ignoring them in return for nothing but Russian business. Europeans might point out to Trump that Russia’s two main allies are Iran and North Korea, countries that he disfavors. And perhaps, if the United States can’t be convinced with political arguments, they can find a way to interest Trump in the form of a bargain: The Europeans could agree to spend big specifically on U.S. weapons in exchange for Washington holding the Western line on Russia. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace suggested Europe’s NATO members offer Trump the carrot that they raise defense spending to 3 percent by the end of his tenure in 2028.

Whatever happens, even in best case, it is highly unlikely that Trump will lead an alliance against Russia the way the Biden administration did. This means that Europe’s hour has arrived: It can grab the initiative and set the agenda rather than allowing the Orbans, Putins, and Xis of the world to do it their way.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Robert Reich's Substack:

Friends, For years, conservatives have railed against what they call the “administrative state” and denounced regulations. But let’s be clear. When they speak of the “administrative state,” they’re talking about agencies tasked with protecting the public from corporations that seek profits at the expense of the health, safety, and pocketbooks of average Americans. Regulations are the means by which agencies translate broad legal mandates into practical guardrails. Substitute the word “protection” for “regulation” and you get a more accurate picture of who has benefited — consumers, workers, and average people needing clean air and clean water. Substitute “corporate legal movement” for the “conservative legal movement” and you see who’s really mobilizing, and for what purpose.

**

[...] Last week, the Supreme Court made it much harder for the FTC, the Labor Department, and dozens of other agencies — ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Food and Drug Administration, Securities and Exchange Commission, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and National Highway and Safety Administration — to protect Americans from corporate misconduct.

On Thursday, the six Republican-appointed justices eliminated the ability of these agencies to enforce their rules through in-house tribunals, rather than go through the far more costly and laborious process of suing corporations in federal courts before juries. On Friday, the justices overturned a 40-year-old precedent requiring courts to defer to the expertise of these agencies in interpreting the law, thereby opening the agencies to countless corporate lawsuits alleging that Congress did not authorize the agencies to go after specific corporate wrongdoing. In recent years, the court’s majority has also made it easier for corporations to sue agencies and get public protections overturned. The so-called “major questions doctrine” holds that judges should nullify regulations that have a significant impact on corporate profits if Congress was not sufficiently clear in authorizing them.

[...] In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, then a modest business group in Washington, D.C., asked Lewis Powell, then an attorney in Richmond, Virginia, to recommend actions corporations should take in response to the rising tide of public protections (that is, regulations). Powell’s memo — distributed widely to Chamber members — said corporations were “under broad attack” from consumer, labor, and environmental groups. In reality, these groups were doing nothing more than enforcing the implicit social contract that had emerged at the end of World War II, ensuring that corporations be responsive to all their stakeholders — not just shareholders but also their workers, consumers, and the environment.

[...] The so-called “conservative legal movement” of young lawyers who came of age working for Ronald Reagan — including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — were in reality part of this corporate legal movement. And they still are. Trump’s three appointments to the Supreme Court emerged from the same corporate legal movement. The next victory of the corporate legal movement will occur if and when the Supreme Court accepts a broad interpretation of the so-called “non-delegation doctrine.” Under this theory of the Constitution, the courts should not uphold any regulation in which Congress has delegated its lawmaking authority to agencies charged with protecting the public. If accepted by the court, this would mark the end of all regulations — that is, all public protections not expressly contained in statutes — and the final triumph of Lewis Powell’s vision.

Robert Reich wrote an interesting Substack piece on the history of the right-wing war on regulatory power that began with the infamous Powell Memo by Lewis Powell, and culminated with the recent Loper Bright Enterprises, Jarkesy, and Trump rulings.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Rolling Stone:

As Elon Musk‘s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continues to wreak havoc with the internal mechanics of the federal government in its efforts to gut and dissolve vital agencies, the White House is signaling that it has no problem with the richest man on the planet serving as his own ethics watchdog.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt fielded a question about Musk being a special government employee while his various companies have billions in government contracts, and whether the Trump administration was taking steps to curtail the many conflicts of interest that has created. Leavitt replied that the president had already addressed this concern, saying that “if Elon Musk comes across a conflict of interest with the contracts and the funding that DOGE is overseeing, Elon will excuse himself from those contracts.”

Of course, it’s nearly impossible for Musk to direct any action by DOGE in Washington without potentially affecting one of his businesses. X, formerly Twitter, currently faces a lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission that alleges he withheld information about the stake he was acquiring in the company ahead of his bid to purchase it. The Department of Labor, which could be next on the chopping block for DOGE, has probed and fined Tesla and SpaceX for unsafe working conditions through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Tesla is also under investigation by the Justice Department for possible securities and wire fraud related to its unsupported claims about fully autonomous vehicles.

SpaceX has additionally been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration — and Musk personally pressured the last FAA administrator to resign, leaving the agency leaderless when a commercial passenger jet and U.S. Army helicopter collided in mid-air over the Potomac River in D.C. last week, killing 67 people. (Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Wednesday that DOGE staff were going to “plug in to help upgrade our aviation system.” Duffy’s department includes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has its own ongoing investigation into Tesla’s self-driving features.) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is suing Tesla over alleged racial harassment at a manufacturing plant, and the National Labor Relations Board has tangled with both Tesla and SpaceX, with the result that Musk’s companies and other corporate behemoths are waging a legal battle to see the agency declared unconstitutional and wiped off the map for good.

[1americanconservative]

"In 2022, Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, set a world record for the largest charitable donation by a car company owner, contributing an astounding $5.7 billion to various global causes.

This massive philanthropic gesture, filed through a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure, marked a pivotal moment in tech industry philanthropy, surpassing donations from other billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Musk’s donation focused on causes such as sustainability, education, and healthcare, aligning with his broader commitment to tackling pressing global challenges.

As a leading tech philanthropist, Musk’s generosity underscores his vision of using wealth from electric vehicles and space exploration to create lasting positive change"

[dencyemily]

Ripple Seeks Extension for SEC Case Financial Disclosure Deadline

In the aftermath of a court ruling that swung in favor of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Ripple strategically seeks an extension until February 20, 2024, to navigate the demands for additional financial disclosures. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres and Judge Sarah Netburn issued a mandate, compelling Ripple to reveal financial records for 2022-2023 and details on "post-compliant institutioncal sales" of XRP. Ripple's initial resistance, deeming the demand "unnecessary" and "untimely," sheds light on the intricacies of the ongoing legal saga.

On February 6, Ripple submitted a court request to Judge Torres, proposing a delay in the deadline from February 12 to February 20, 2024. The rationale presented by Ripple revolves around the pragmatic challenges of producing a comprehensive set of documents spanning the entire post-complaint period. Interestingly, the SEC has concurred with this extension, showcasing a temporary alignment of interests in this legal tug of war.

This development amplifies the broader regulatory discourse, questioning the classification of digital currencies, with Ripple at the forefront of these deliberations. As Ripple maneuvers strategically to comply with the SEC's demands, the cryptocurrency industry observes with keen interest, cognizant of the potential implications on regulatory dynamics and the overarching categorization of cryptocurrencies.

[cryptonewsupdate]

Forward-Looking Perspective: Standard Chartered Anticipates a Positive Trajectory for ETH, Highlighting the Potential SEC Approval for ETFs

Standard Chartered's projection of a promising Ethereum future takes center stage with the anticipation of a spot Ethereum Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) approval by the SEC in May. Envisioning a potential surge to $4,000, the bank's forecast underscores Ethereum's resilience and growing significance in the digital asset landscape.

In the wake of the SEC's approval of Bitcoin ETFs, Geoffrey Kendrick, Standard Chartered's Head of Crypto Research, draws parallels between Bitcoin and Ethereum. Kendrick suggests that Ethereum's legal and financial parallels with Bitcoin position it favorably for ETF approval, despite lingering uncertainties over its SEC classification.

The delay in the SEC's decision on Ethereum ETF proposals adds an element of suspense to the unfolding narrative. SEC Chairman Gary Gensler's ambiguous stance on Ethereum's classification introduces an element of unpredictability, adding to the market's anticipation and speculation.

Beyond Ethereum's potential price surge, Standard Chartered also projects a substantial rise in Bitcoin's value, predicting it to reach $200,000 by 2025. The bank maintains a bullish stance on Bitcoin's growth, reflecting a broader confidence in the cryptocurrency market.

As the Ethereum market showcases resilience and growth, evidenced by Glassnode data, investor interest is reignited. The approval of Ethereum ETFs is seen as a catalyst, with prominent firms like BlackRock proposing their own, signaling a potential influx of institutional interest that could fortify the Ethereum ecosystem.

The Ethereum Spot ETF hype, as highlighted by blockchain figure Michaël van de Poppe, plays a pivotal role in revitalizing market interest. The resurgence in confidence, coupled with the prospect of ETF approval, paints a compelling picture of Ethereum's journey towards mainstream acceptance and recognition.

[petervintonjr]

April 2025: As an unasked-for service to the U.S. Department Of Defense (for whom I used to work, briefly, back in the very late 1980s, and so am therefore obligated to help out where I can); I am hereby supplying the next month's worth of military #blackhistory biographies, that seem to have been inexplicably misplaced on a handful of public-facing DoD websites. Having been both an HTML instructor and a web developer, I totally get how these kinds of errors can happen --certainly it's nothing sinister or deliberate. But until such time as the DoD can get its ducks back in a row, I humbly offer this space as a substitute repository of such information.

Accordingly we begin with the life of Henry Ossian Flipper, the first Black man to be commissioned in the U.S. Army and also the first Black cadet to graduate from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, in 1877.

Born enslaved in 1856 Georgia, Flipper's earliest years were working in a wood shop with his father, himself a skilled shoemaker and carriage-trimmer. After the Civil War he pursued his education, first at Missionary Schools and then at Atlanta University (today known as Clark Atlanta University) in 1869. His dream, however, was to attend West Point. Determined to make every conceivable effort, he wrote to his state Congressman, James C. Freeman, asking for an appointment. After some back-and-forth exchange of correspondence with Rep. Freeman, to his great surprise, he secured his appointment and was inducted in 1873, along with four other African Americans. He was the first to graduate as a member of the Class of 1877, though his time at West Point was of near-total social isolation due to his race. One of his first posts as a newly-commissioned second lieutenant was with the 10th Cavalry (the famed "Buffalo Soldiers") at Fort Sill, Oklahoma --this was also significant as Flipper was the first-ever Black officer to command regular troops. (Previously the all-black regiments such as the Buffalo Soldiers had been commanded by white officers.) The unit later served with distinction (if one may call it that!) in 1880, against Chief Victorio and his Apache warriors.

Unfortunately Flipper's career later took a downward turn in 1881, while he served as quartermaster in Fort Conchon, Texas: a nearly $2,000 discrepancy was discovered in disbursed commissary funds, and Flipper attempted to pay the shortfall out of his own pocket. Despite this ill-advised effort (and even with his fellow troops contributing their own funds to what smelled like a setup), the discrepancy was still discovered by his superiors and Flipper was court-martialed, receiving a Dishonorable Discharge in 1882. He remained in the region and established himself as an Indian translator and also as a surveyor, working for the Department of Justice's Court of Private Land Claims, even providing expert testimony in several land grant court cases. He later became special assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, from 1921 to 1923. He pursued a brief mining career in Venezuela, but returned to the U.S. in 1930. Over the course of his life he published two memoirs, "The Colored Cadet at West Point (1878)" and "Negro Frontiersman: The Western Memoirs of Henry O. Flipper" (published posthumously in 1963). Both publications are regarded as definitive, indispensable accounts of life on the frontier from the vantage point of a Black man.

The U.S. Army reviewed and corrected Flipper's case to an Honorable Discharge in 1976, concluding that his 1882 discharge was unnecessarily harsh. President Bill Clinton formally pardoned Flipper in 1999.

[saywhat-politics]

Three more federal prosecutors who had been involved in the now-dismissed corruption case against Mayor Eric Adams resigned on Tuesday, saying they felt pressured into admitting wrongdoing or regret as a condition for being reinstated to their jobs.

“We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none,” Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach and Derek Wikstrom wrote in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The three assistant U.S. attorneys had been placed on leave after a number of prosecutors in New York and Washington refused to follow orders to end the case against Adams, a Democrat.

The letter was published by several news outlets. Its authenticity was confirmed to The Associated Press by a person who received the letter.

The resignations came the same day that Jay Clayton, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was sworn in as the New York office’s new top prosecutor.

[leohtttbriar]

Energy Transfer is one of the Fortune 500 companies headquartered in Texas, and Warren is its extremely politically connected co-founder. Warren is also one of the most generous donors in the Texas (and national) conservative political scene, and has funneled huge donations to politicians like Governor Greg Abbott, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, and Attorney General Ken Paxton. Warren’s investments, unfortunately, seem to have paid off. In 2021, Energy Transfer and its execs profiteered $2.4 billion off of the February collapse of Texas’ electric grid, which resulted in the deaths of at least 246 Texans. Governor Abbott subsequently, and successfully, steered scrutiny away from Energy Transfer and other energy companies who were either responsible for or profited from the crash. Mere months later, Warren sent Abbott’s campaign a million-dollar check.

Warren and other Energy Transfer leaders and lawyers now seem poised to manipulate the system in favor of the pipeline company once again, this time in the federal courts. 

Prior to the recent raging pipeline fire in Texas, Energy Transfer was behind a very different disaster unfolding at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that often acts as a watchdog for labor unions and regularly fields and reviews complaints from union members nationwide. In 2022, an unidentified employee of Energy Transfer’s subsidiary La Grange Acquisition filed an unfair labor practice charge against the company, alleging that it had retaliated against him for complaining about unsafe working conditions, including “radioactive material and hazardous dust in work areas.” The NLRB opened an administrative case, investigating those claims and the subsequent allegation that he was fired in part for filing the complaint.

In 2024, Energy Transfer sued the NLRB, seeking to halt the administrative proceedings and joining SpaceX, Amazon, and other corporations in basically arguing that the board’s foundational structure is unconstitutional. That argument threatens the basic function of the NLRB (and other agencies like it) and could have sweeping consequences for its ability to conduct investigations or engage in basic enforcement actions for violations of labor rules and regulations. 

That suit ultimately landed in front of Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the Southern District of Texas—a Trump appointee—who issued a preliminary injunction against the NLRB’s investigation into Energy Transfer in order to allow the company’s suit against the NLRB to proceed. 

Though the NLRB has nearly 90 years of case law supporting its structure and administrative court reviews, Brown’s ruling cited instead a recent Fifth Circuit ruling, Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which held that the SEC’s structure and enforcement procedures were unconstitutional. In July of this year, the Supreme Court partially affirmed Jarkesy, but remained silent on the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on the (un)constitutionality of the SEC’s administrative law judges, a structure that the commission shares with the NLRB—and many other federal agencies. 

When the Supreme Court does not affirm nor reject an aspect of a ruling issued by a lower court, the lower court’s ruling is functionally left in place, which now poses a serious threat to the basic functionality of the SEC and other federal regulatory agencies that are mandated to act as watchdogs over unscrupulous corporations and in defense of the public interest. Contradictory rulings on the issue from other federal judges have highlighted the conflicting precedents that have allowed the Fifth Circuit to activate an issue that had been deemed settled for decades. 

[...]

An NPR investigation just this year found that he, along with two other Southern District of Texas judges, had failed to file a required form disclosing his attendance of a privately funded seminar. 

The case is far from settled, and it will now be heard by the Fifth Circuit with the NLRB’s appeal of Brown’s earlier ruling. What happens next is yet to be seen, but with the foundation of the government agency that historically has protected labor union members’ rights in the hands of a notoriously partisan court that previously attacked it, the outlook is not promising.