In about 30min from this post, the 10th Circuit will hear oral arguments in the Custodia v. Federal Reserve case. Link is to the 10th Circuit YouTube Channel.
Case will be in Courtroom #1.
pull down to refresh
110 sats \ 1 reply \ @Arceris OP 19h
Wow, that was amazing. I was in the room for that, and had the advantage of seeing the body language & facial expressions.
Custodia’s attorney was masterful, and made the Fed’s attorneys look unprepared—especially the first one.
The “pound sand” line was great, as was the fact that Judge Rossman picked up on the Fed changing the rules on Custodia while their application was in process.
There was a ton of technical discussion on mandamus, which was not really necessary since the parties basically agreed on those points.
Overall, it seemed more positive for Custodia than the Fed.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Wumbo 19h
What was the body language of the judges on the hypothetical question about refusing master account because of being part of a protected group (race,gender,etc..)?
From the audio I thought the judges let the Fed lawyers of the hook with their answer. I was hoping they would poke harder at the issue. But maybe the judges saw the answer as a dodge and moved on to the next question.
reply
31 sats \ 5 replies \ @Wumbo 21h
Lawyer for Custodia just said "and the Fed said pound sand" in oral arguments.
This could get interesting. :)
reply
10 sats \ 4 replies \ @xz 21h
Please post any other highlights like
'.. and the Fed said, "Pound Sand!" Your Honor.'
reply
20 sats \ 3 replies \ @Wumbo 20h
Only other highlight that I found interesting was: one of the judge proposed the hypothetical question to Fed Reserve Layers if the KC Fed could refuse a master account to a legally protected group (race,gender,etc..)
The lawyer sounded to me to kind of blow off the question. Something like, we would never do that and it would be wrong for us to do it but didn't address why it would be ok to refuse Custodia's request for master account.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @xz 18h
That's interesting. Sounds like the implication is just that. An insinuation that there is no justifiable reason to do so.
I could imagine the next line of questioning would be, would you ever refuse a master account to someone because they do not have any personal association with a member of the Fed?
I appreciate your picks, unfortunately the YT link required signing into Google. So, happy to just get the gist.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Wumbo 18h
I was able to watch with out login in to google.
Click watch on youtube link in the video thumbnail.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @xz 18h
Not working for me, even if i turn off ad blockers on most browsers.
Probably my network settings. No worries
reply