freejazz

They do. Sometimes courts, when they want a proposed order, demand it in a Word format it so they can more easily edit it themselves.

Geez, people here really struggle with the law. You have to read that whole thing.

That's only for documents that are required to be "submitted to the court in word processing format." It's an unusual circumstance when that is the case. 99.999% of all court documents are submitted as PDFs.

>I doubt this blog post is intended for the benefit of his clients.

Well it is to their benefit to know this is what's going on, to that other poster's point.

There is no secret sauce in what is known the ex-big law attorneys they already hire. It's the same thing known by Harvey's customers. And it's always been the case that any of Big Law clients can go anywhere cheaper. Especially as the price goes up each year.

The software doesn't solve the issue, they sell services to lawyers. They don't sell legal services to the public.

It's an absurd proposition. Come up with words that capture every single possibility and what should be done about it? That's not possible. Even in programming, you capture the exceptions categorically, not necessarily individually. Building nets to catch errors, not rules to deal with every single scenario that could EVER be possible.

And then they rant about patents! Like it should be easy to come up with a pithy statement that is meant to delineate what should be protectable from what shouldn't for EVERYTHING that has yet to be invented! Like that's a trivial task!

I pointed out how you did not seem to understand any of the judicial opinions at issue here and you took your ball home because I have the nerve to disagree with the 3rd circuit (so did the 9th circuit! and the 2nd is about to as well!). I'm following up on all your posts in this thread because you are incredibly rude to everyone while doing the same exact things you accuse them of.

Edit: 2nd circuit denied Kalshi's request for an injunction against NY's enforcement. So yeah... I think I'm within pretty good grounds to reasonably disagree with the 3rd circuit.

The question isn't whether or not the commerce clause could regulate gambling. There's no debate that it could. The issue is that the CFTC does not regulate gambling. The question is what was the CFTC intended to regulate, not "what powers does congress have?". There's no dispute that congress could regulate gambling if they wanted to. They didn't.

They have nothing to do with each other, at all, and you are grasping at straws.

Anyone is free to criticize, I guess that's why you also pay the 9th circuit no mind too. Get a grip. Or as you put it in the same thread below, congratulation on "declaring yourself the winner."

Edit: 2nd circuit denied Kalshi's request for an injunction against NY's enforcement. So yeah... I think I'm within pretty good grounds to reasonably disagree with the 3rd circuit. You really just come off like a buffoon.

Being rude an accusatory doesn't make you correct when someone doesn't want to participate in the charade.

>Probably without intending it you've gotten right to the heart of what's at dispute here.

Awfully rude.

>The common language meaning of gambling is too broad and captures things that aren't legally regulated as gambling such as gambling (again common meaning of the word) with futures contracts.

No it doesn't. No one argues that state gambling laws actually regulate the trade of securities, options, or anything actually covered by the CFTC, so this is a completely sham argument.

>The other is the debate for the value of the truth discovery. Some folks buy it and others don't. SCOTUS will likely take the case to resolve the split between the circuits and we'll if the value of this even enters into the decision or it just comes down interpretation of the statutes.

The value of truth discovery is completely irrelevant to these cases. Either congress intended to regulate sports gambling under the CFTC, or it didn't. The executive branch can't get around that.

> The reference to bingo was something that New Jersey and the dissent brought up

That the holding opinion addresses, quoting the same exact section you did and then going on to say that "[i]n such far-fetched scenarios, Congress’s express delegation to the CTFC and the Securities and Exchange Commission to 'further define' swaps would prove useful." So yeah, that exact point stands.

>The 3rd circuit literally said they are '"swaps" subject to the CFTC's jusridiction' which is literally the opposite of what the 9th circuit said.

No, the 3rd circuit literally said that the CFTC designated Kalshi a DCM, so therefore it must be the case that its sports events contracts fall under DCM event contracts regulated by the CFTC. This is much more limited than my construction of the 9th circuit holding, which you insisted this is the opposite of it.It's literally not. The 9th Circuit's holding goes much further than to say they aren't a DCM. It says that a sports event can't be an event contract under the CFTC, so it does not even matter if it is a DCM or not.

You had me thinking you read the opinions when you came with the quotes, but it seems like at the same kind of superficial level the 3rd circuit is playing around at here. The 9th Circuit's holding is much broader and addresses the fact that the DCM designation is basically a sham, and clearly well beyond whatever congress could have intended with the statute.

And it's funny that you act informed about this but are playing ignorant the politics of the Trump admin's cronyism with Kalshi and its sudden and unprecedented designation of it as a DCM. Resting in the shallow depth of the 3rd circuit's opinion isn't a good place to be when you really think about what that court represents. And do you really think the supreme court is going to say that the executive branch can decide what congress intended by making designations like that? Fat chance. There's nothing in the congressional record that could ever indicate an intent to give the CFTC power to preempt state sports gambling laws on an individual corporate basis by special designation.

I feel like you're just interested in this for the culture war politics of it and take up the law as a barb. You're just being rude up and down this thread with your intuitive arguments which are really just legal non sequiturs but you don't get that because you don't do actual legal analysis (which is fine, I see all sorts of analyses on this site that I can't do, I just read in those circumstances).

A bit dramatic, no?

Yeah I'm an attorney and I post here a bit and it's always shocking to me that a lot of people here don't realize this. The idea that society would be better off banning insurance because it's like gambling is a severely incomplete thought. Really getting caught up in the broadest view possible, while disregarding all of the key details. It's entirely opposite to the approach taken by the law, which is to examine the key details to determine what actually is happening, and not get too caught up in labels.

No, lol, their opinion did not reach that. The third circuit's opinion stated that we need clarity from congress as to whether or not sports gambling, and also "bingo" (not making that up) are actually covered by the CFTC. They just said that the statute preempts whatever state law could be on this issue, which is not the same thing as what you said would be ruling "the opposite" which would be that the outcome of a sports game is a financial event. That's obviously not true outside of the context of gambling. Unlike, say, everything that is actually regulated by the CFTC.

And this is what I've been trying to get at here... who can actually say with a straight face that congress intended to regulate sports gambling with the CFTC? It's a ridiculous proposition to which there are no actual facts that support it. Nothing in the congressional record, nothing in the statute. Just a broad reading of the language while keeping one's head in the sand.

9th circuit was pretty clear that a sports game was not what a "financial event" is under the statute.

Yeah, crazy how there was no financial incentive behind accurately predicting the future before Polymarket /s

Did you read the legislation? It's fairly plain language. The idea that something plain language will somehow end debates is pretty funny IMO.

Are you familiar with these cases at all? Gambling regulation is left basically entirely to the states.

Weird how your response to me asking you if there was an argument with actual merit is to decry my inability to engage in nuance in a legal discussion (ps I'm an attorney)... Also, it's worth pointing out that it seems like you completely made up the vast majority of your previous post. I guess that's just "nuance?"

>I was trying to have a conversation about the gray areas and why we don't just send people straight to jail for trying out a new, novel, (and potentially illegal), business model.

Actually we do. If a court finds your activity was illegal, you get the according punishment. The court doesn't say "oh gee golly, you're guilty but we'll let you off for this one because who could see it coming!"

>The courts are figuring it out.

The courts figured it out. It does not matter in Utah state court, what the 3rd circuit thinks. It is not binding precedent in Utah state courts.

I don't think there are "numerous lawsuits" which have had "mixed rulings" it's really only a subset of the cases that have had anything remotely construable as positive to these companies. And again, that doesn't excuse their behavior. Bold of you to point to one court saying "I'm not sure" when the vast majorities of the others have said "this is perfectly clear, and here's why the other court is wrong"

Like, do you have any actual argument as to why it's not gambling, or are you just going to hang it on this plausible deniability? It's not like they knew the 3rd circuit would decide in their favor anyway, so I don't really think your point is the slam dunk you're acting like it is. They knowingly engaged in activities that most states consider to be gambling. They aren't even really denying that. They are just saying it falls under federal regulation, but the argument for that is so shockingly poor, it's hard to imagine how the 3rd circuit's decision could stand, but its only on a preliminary injunction anyway, so it's still not quite a merits decision. The third circuit said that by its own logic, Congress must weigh in on whether or not "bingo" is a swap regulated by the CFTC. If you can't understand how facially stupid that is, I don't know what to say.

Yeah thats what drug traffickers who are also facing murder charges say...

Not really. I can recall countless threads where everyone said that this improves information availability. Do you want me to go through my post history to find them?

This would be a great post for Kalshi's lawyers to make. Hard to believe it though. To be clear it is a not a fundamental proposition of the legal system that every illegal activity be tested before it "actually" becomes illegal. It is a business' obligation to not violate the law, not the other way around.

Who cares about being conspicuous anymore? The president openly takes crypto bribes...

So you're saying it might actually be news??

The issue of whether or not "forced" arbitration agreements are binding is different, but in this context I don't see it being something an employee can get out of. Some states have laws, for example, that destroy arbitration agreements in employment contexts for sexual harassment claims. If you have anything to offer, I'm more than happy to consider it. Short of that, I don't really see what point you're actually making besides "Maybe? I don't know!"

Collecting a jury doesn't cost the participants of a lawsuit anything. And the vast majority of civil cases do not make it to trial.

>And it's less variable because juries are variable. Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

The vast majority of civil cases do not go to a jury, so again, I don't think this is good reasoning. The difference is mostly in discovery, which in an arbitration is stacked against any plaintiff bringing their claims compared to what they'd be entitled to in state or federal courts. That's probably the biggest reason they are less variable, in my experience.

>It is definitely possible that arbitrators interact with the company repeatedly and so there is gravity towards deciding in their favor, but I have no idea on the size of that effect.

Well according to you, you don't really have any idea of any of this, you are just reflecting your understandings which are based on what?

> Neither really requires a specific bias to exist for it to be true.

But that doesn't mean those biases are not present.

DoorDash is pretty much scum, stealing $130m in wages from their own "contractors"