163 karma · joined June 15, 2023
Sounds like what Trevor Milton got sent away for
Certain musicians/bands can be even more successful even if they're not at the top of the charts anymore, like multiple bands make more money now on tour than they did when they charted. I kind of disagree with the premise due to this in that you can be more successful not charting new songs, but touring with past hits to your now more-affluent fan base. The Rolling Stones for instance have a lifetime tour gross of over $2B. I think it's like the ultimate musician longevity plan where if you have one or more iconic songs that are part of culture, you can make a good living touring for as long as you're willing and able to tour, perhaps even making more touring your hits than when you were charting.
With your bridge example different countries and jurisdictions could have different requirements for the purchase of real estate or that you even were buying real estate rather than like an NFT, toy model, etc. A scam in the US might not be considered a scam in a foreign jurisdiction and even within the US it might not be considered a scam, like if someone offers you a quit claim deed for whatever interests they have in a bridge for $20 that could be considered legal depending on what representations were made. In fact a person buying a quit claim deed for way below market value could find themselves in hot water being investigated for like elder abuse with them being seen as the one trying to pull a scam on a potentially vulnerable property owner.
That sounds like they're concerned about money laundering/fraud/crime rather than the issue being crowdfunding itself. The basic statement of not being able to talk about it nor amend it is pretty much the banker code phrase for being dropped due to AML. This happens to people - including victims of crime - where Suspicious Activity Reports are sent to the Treasury by financial institutions and along with that being banned without the financial institution lawfully able to discuss the matter further with the owner of the banned account.
For example, it can mean that a founder’s vision for a private foundation may be modified after his or her death or incapacity despite all intentions to the contrary. We have seen situations where, upon a founder’s death, the charitable purpose of a foundation was changed in ways that were technically legal, but not in keeping with its original intent and perhaps would not have been possible in a state with more restrictive governance and oversight, or given more foresight and awareness at the time of organization.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/bu...
>The board was in charge, and it's not a coup if it fires a subordinate (the CEO). If anything, the coup was getting the board ousted.
The CEO was a member of the board and the ones that fired the CEO also fired the Chairman of the Board, so the board went from 6 to 4. So far there's been even less of an explanation for the firing of the Chairman of the Board - who they offered to let remain as a regular employee - than there has been for Altman, though I see the removal of the Chairman as potentially the most egregious and coup-like.
I loved it when the lawyers got busted for using a hallucinating LLM to write their briefs.
Now we know where that came from
She could be doing a move from The Expanse where she's Jim Holden and Sam is Camina Drummer (plus Adam is Chrisjen Avasarala).