In comparison, a handful of publicly known asset managers are a much easier target. According to Belton, this raises a simple question: “Are we going after these guys who are anon and making these new legal arguments, or are we prosecuting this identifiable person who is actively calling his case a PSPC that we already regulate?” The bizarre and eye-catching nature of the Wonderland incident could also “boost the political will to enforce it,” said Ross Campbell, a legal engineer at LexDAO, which could ultimately accelerate the SEC`s timeline. In fact, over the past year, the SEC has threatened to take a more active stance on regulating DeFi protocols, but has yet to take meaningful action — perhaps in part because of the legal confusion created by decentralized decision-making. According to a number of legal experts, however, this could also be exactly the case the SEC was looking for. “The reason there has been a reluctance to do more than send requests for information to DeFi companies is that part of the challenge is that they need to develop a legal theory that allows them to do so despite the fact that these people are not actually taking positive steps to facilitate or execute transactions. and that they do not exercise discretionary or management decisions. they should always be accountable and obligated to the users of these platforms — it`s actually very difficult in the US,” Campbell said. Belton also pointed out that some legal observers have argued that when a case has been challenged in higher courts, including the Supreme Court, the court`s current composition is “radically pro-business” and “radically voiceless,” which could make it difficult to adopt arguments against a more completely decentralized entity. Lewis Carroll`s 1865 scene of an unruly Alice in the courtroom challenging the court`s authority as she grows (literally) into a prominent and menacing presence dramatizes what has become an increasingly common Victorian spectacle: a woman questioning and criticizing the law and claiming a place for herself in its institutions. Women have played an important (but much overlooked) role in the history of law, and in this article I argue for the importance of examining various narratives from the past (including literary narratives) that have examined women`s relationship to the law.
In the context of several legal cases in which women have sought to enter law and politics, I focus on portraits of two surprising nineteenth-century characters – female judges, one fictional and the other real: She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, or Ayesha, from the novel She; and the true missionary Mary Slessor, who was the first woman to be appointed a judge in the British Empire. Using a theoretical approach I call cross-examination, I analyze representations of these women in sources of direct testimony, including fictional descriptions of Ayesha in her capacity as judge and written accounts of the person in the Slessor courtroom by the Calabar Chief Magistrate. These texts, like court cases, reveal cultural fears about women in the public sphere and in the powerful field of law. In my analysis, I discuss negotiations at the narrative level to keep these nineteenth-century portias in their appropriate female roles. In addition, both Ayesha and Slessor exercised legal power in Africa, a place where, in the context of the Empire, traditional notions of gender were complicated and disrupted by racial politics. Reading these texts that cross continents, I explore the intersections of gender and race and highlight the differences in perceptions of women and power when these women were white women judging indigenous peoples in Africa. This article examines the paradoxical world of Article V – the constitutional power to amend – in light of the recent ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). It examines whether Article V issues are justiciable, what role federal and state courts play in determining Article V procedures, and who has jurisdiction to assess the legal sufficiency of state ratifications. This is a confusing area of law, and with some precedents, some textualist and originalist arguments, and reliance on logic and science, I conclude that the ERA is validly the Twenty-eighth Amendment. I provide a detailed analysis of the congressional deadline and resignation issues currently before the courts, and examine the unique role of states in exercising their Article V powers to make constitutional amendments.
One of the strangest stories in the history of decentralized finance (DeFi) may soon be among the most legally significant, experts told CoinDesk in a series of interviews. According to several lawyers, recent events could provide the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other agencies with a long-awaited foothold in the largely unregulated $211 billion DeFi industry. “The SEC or other similar regulators in other jurisdictions might say, `This is a lot like a centralized company because the controls are actually not enforced by the code. “They have soft power over instant signal voting, but hard power is held by multi-sig,” he said. Andrew Thurman was a technical reporter at CoinDesk specializing in DeFi. It was a largely euphoric phase in which “everyone lost sight of core values such as decentralization and resistance to censorship,” he said. Frontispiece of “Alice” from Lewis Carroll`s “Alice`s Adventures in Wonderland,” color illustration by Arthur Rackham. London: William Heinemann (1907). Simpson v. State, 442 Md. 446 (App.
Md., 2015) [“Simply put, this was not what the prosecutor meant by her words,” but the remark “the accused will tell you” by referring to the accused`s written confession to the police was likely to allow the jury to conclude that it should consider the accused`s silence as an indication of guilt. and the error was not trivial.] “Often they look, `Are there people we can clearly refer to to do the essential management efforts to increase profits, manage risks that would be in possession of a kind of information asymmetry that they could use only in relation to the public,`” Belton said.