Subpoenas are court-ordered requests for documents. If you disagree with them, you fight them in court.
This is not an unusual state of affairs; something like ~300 federal enforcement missions can independently issue subpeonas.
Plea deals are the overwhelming number of convictions in the US, something like 90%. Most people do not have access to legal recourse and trusting any US court to operate sanely is a bad idea. Best to avoid it if you can.
This is a red herring. Telegram have access to lawyers.
It's all about how much money you can spend on lawyers and experts, not whether you're right or not.
Hell, the government doesn't even know what the laws they write say, and they rarely agree on what they mean.
It's almost always about money. On the defensive side, there are enough ways to stall that you can almost always outspend someone to win. On the offensive side, you can spend more time investigating and almost assuredly turn something indictable up. Have you really never heard of this?
As someone who as gone through a fair deal of litigation and arbitration, this is wrong (or at the very least, inapplicable). It’s a common armchair lawyer’s myth.
If your opponent has more than $100,000 the tables are fairly even; more than $1 million, totally even. There is a ceiling to court costs, and a finite amount of time before judges issue rulings. (Spending to try and get an outcome predictably pisses off judges.) Getting to a judge costs money; once you’re there, American courts are robust.
At an individual level, these thresholds are prohibitive. At a corporate level, they’re not. Exhibit A for you should be the SEC’s win-loss record, even against individuals. (It’s mixed.)
It should be obvious that time/money spent and outcome correlate by looking at the reverse. Spending no time would assuredly prepare an inadequate case. What is unusual is the almost unbounded positive direction correlation.
You need to divorce "following the law" and "following the law that was intended or that may result in the most freedom for the most people." Many high level cases are the former, not the latter.
I have a friend who went to prison for a crime someone else committed, almost solely because the defense did not have the financial resources to fight the charges effectively.
The Telegram token may increase in price but there's no profit sharing directly from Telegram. It's as if you funded a kickstarter for a limited edition trading card and the company was going to soon start printing more.
Nobody is actually commenting on this argument. It just seems like there's a team of people following me around downvoting me.
But the SEC does, so tough luck?
>The Telegram token may increase in price but there's no profit sharing directly from Telegram
Sounds like a weasely attempt to skirt the rules. Look up the Howey test
>The leading case on the definition of an investment contract is the U.S. Supreme Court case, SEC v. W.J. Howey Co. Under the Howey test, an investment contract is “a contract, transaction or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise[1] and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.”