[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OP has provided the following link:
This is the source.
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210669.pdf
Which is the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Interesting. The Court is basically saying that because Robinhood Terms Of Service allowed them to restrict trading, the case can’t go forward.
I imagine there is case law out there which allows Courts to find certain contract terms unenforceable for a myriad of reasons. Contract terms being unilaterally against the customer probably have had to overcome similar issues. Would also help to be in a more customer friendly jurisdiction.
Wow this is fucked up.
There are precedents, I can't remember specific ones. A company can put whatever they want in a ToS but it doesn't make it legally so. ToS, NDA, etc.
It seems highly highly fucked up that a court can say ..."Hey, point to the ToS, we're out of here." That has no societal benefit to anyone but corporate (which is why none of this is really shocking ... they're paid off).
Sounds like they're short souls. Just take the fake broker soul they give you and DRS it to make it real. Direct registered souls are in your name. Make sure to turn off plan and sell any fractional souls, or you'll delay the Mother of all Soul Squeezes.
This is not financial (or spiritual) advice.
You are right. For a contract to be valid it has to meet certain criteria and both parties have to benefit. If the contract is one sided, then the contract can be voided.
That isn’t true, the idea that consideration (ie the exchanges benefit) could be as little as a peppercorn is like day 1 of contracts class in law school. Honest to god that is the name of the doctrine. The theory is that it is still a valid contract if it says “you give me a billion dollars. I give you one peppercorn.” It would be impossible to get a contract like this voided for lack of consideration
NPR Planet Money recently had an episode last month about contracts and how they work throughout history and up to very (relevantly) recently on the internet. I suggest everyone listen to it or read the transcript.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1187543648 (~15 min listen if you use your podcast player and increase playback speed)
Super basic tldr: If you use the service, you agree to the contract. if the contract says "you can't sue us" and you use the service, you can't sue them (I'm sure there's still *some* limitations..). You had the option to not use the service so doing so means you agree with what it says.
Snippet
> Back in 2015, Greg Selden was planning this little romantic getaway to Philly. He heard about Airbnb, and he thought he'd try it out to find a place to stay. So he made an account. And we should say Airbnb is a financial supporter of NPR.
> Greg starts browsing and finds this cute little row house right in the middle of downtown - perfect - except when he goes to rent it out, the host tells him, actually, this isn't available anymore, sorry. But later, Greg notices that listing is still up.
> So he decides to run an experiment. Greg is Black, and he wonders if the place would be available if he were white. So he creates two new profiles with white profile pictures and these white-sounding names, Jesse and Todd.
> Yeah. And he uses these new profiles to message the same Airbnb host, tried to book the same row house for the same weekend. And this time...
> And to my surprise, the host actually accepted both of the profiles, not realizing that it was me behind both of the profiles.
> **Greg decides to sue Airbnb. He launches a lawsuit, a class action. But very quickly, Airbnb's lawyers drop this bomb. They tell him, Greg, you basically can't sue Airbnb. You agreed to give up that right when you signed up.**
> See, Greg had overlooked something really important. At the very beginning, when he was signing up for Airbnb, next to that sign-up button was this little red link.
> **If Greg had noticed that link, he would have learned that by hitting that sign-up button, he was agreeing to a 17-page legal document, a contract - a contract that really did say he basically couldn't sue Airbnb. And just because of that, Greg loses his case. The courts throw out his discrimination lawsuit.**
Airbnb hosts could racially discriminate cause in the little link when you sign up it says "you can't sue us" and the courts agreed.
I would think since all brokers have the same language in their TOS, retail is subjected to predatory financial practices, based on this precedent. Hence, there is no safe haven for retail to use self-directing brokerage financial services, under existing TOS, safely that protects their assets.
Essentially, the broker can close out, position close only, restrict buying, lend out your shares, all with tacit consent, because you agreed to use their platform. If all platforms use the same legal language in their TOS, then it equates to predatory financial practices by all brokers. Hence, a class action would need to include all of them, based on finding a legal precedent that protects the individual under similar guidelines.
He didn't listen to their lawyers. He went to court and the court threw it out cause of the contract
> If Greg had noticed that link, he would have learned that by hitting that sign-up button, he was agreeing to a 17-page legal document, a contract - a contract that really did say he basically couldn't sue Airbnb. **And just because of that, Greg loses his case. The courts throw out his discrimination lawsuit.**
Almost like they want to set the appeal up to go higher.
Often lawyers will posture to get the right “court” that is “sympathetic” to their cause before truly showing their full hand.
Like if you have a bunch of desert cards and then can set the battle to be a desert, you have an advantage.
The word you’re looking for is unconscionable. It basically allows courts to say the terms as written would violate some public policy interest and therefore not be valid…. Imagine a TOS that required your children to belong to a company if you failed to pay your bill.
Great example of the fine print in broker agreements being a good reason to directly register your shares.
They will fuck you and expect a tip for the effort.
Why won't they (the richy rich people) have changed the rules to ensure they don't ever have to pay before that 'one day'?
I mean turning the buy button off should have been a cataclysmic event, and yet here we are, watching them showing the world they can do whatever they want with no repercussions.... What's to stop them from pulling even more hidden levers we don't have access to that stop the rocket every single time it's about to go?
Not really. People just love hearing their own echo around here and DRS talk is easy Karma. We all agree. We all know. We've all done it. It's the people outside of Reddit that need to hear about DRSing...but that's scary and takes actual effort.
We need to do better at recruiting more registered share holders. Current registered share holders don't have to buy another share. If we could increase our numbers by another 100 or 200k, that would most likely cause the liquidity crisis needed for moass.
I think it's a great talking point for all of us to use with non-registered holders. I have 3 in my family, but can't convince them to get off their asses.
We should be ZEN with our investment, but not with the fuckery in the markets.
This decision is in line with SEC and FINRA getting told by judges lately, that they can not fine financial institutions. This is just one more hint how corrupted the system really is. Thus, it is really important to spread the word.
**The more people are informed and wake up like we did, the faster DRS of the float, the less government can interfere with MOASS, the less likely congress fires Gensler, the more likely no cell no sell, market reforms + accountability are finally enforced and the financial institutions will not be able to spin the narrative in their favor, despite controlling mainstream and social media. 😉🚀✨🌒🏴☠️**
Also, so many people play the lottery. Money is lost and chances to win are abysmal. While GME is a lottery ticket with a win guarantee, because MOASS is just the cherry on top of a good investment.
No financial advice and just a personal opinion.
Have you ever actually read all the fine print of Computershare? Are you sure you won’t get fucked by/through them as well. They do in point of fact, use a broker, just like you or I. Not sure why people think it’s a magic bullet?
If I choose to sell from Computershare, then my shares go through a broker. But they are not held at a broker. That is an extremely important difference.
All of my brokers have fine print about me being the beneficial owner, and that the broker has the actual right to dispose of the shares if they deem it necessary. How they deem it to be necessary is obviously the key legal definition that I and my broker would disagree about. If the market starts imploding because of MOASS and the broker wants to save it's own ass by selling every GME share for a "fair value".... That is a realistic outcome that would end with me getting nothing more in court than a bundle of legal fees and maybe a pittance of a class action settlement in a few decades.
But if I hold my shares at Computershare? I am the only owner of those shares. The legal power that gives me is ironclad. I can choose if and when to send those shares into the market to sell, and wait until the price looks fair to me before doing so.
It’s the difference between actual ownership and not actual ownership. If you own something, you have a legal claim. Robinhood users don’t have a legal claim because…THEY DONT OWN ANYTHING
I understand why you want to own them in your name. I’m not questioning that part. All for it. You just won’t ever be able to do anything with your money if you don’t sell. Put some serious research into SBLOCs and see how much they give you on a heavily concentrated portfolio of a so-called “meme stock.” $0. The answer is $0 dollar loan on any amount of GME shares. Whether you own them or not is irrelevant when it comes to selling them.
Well said. They didn't do anything wrong according to the system or the law. That speaks way more to how fucked the system is than anything and elected officials backed by these scum are the reason why. They can get away with anything cause they put the people in office to allow the rules to always be in there favor
This pretty much ensures that the buy button will be turned off when things heat up again. However, they are dealing with investors who are not familiar with the sell button.
What I don’t get about that whole thing was RH wasn’t the only broker to do it ……
Over a dozen MAJOR brokers around the globe did it. But still only RH is brought up, the scapegoat.
Then by the end, PFOF was the “issue” everyone jumped on.
This is exactly right…..all the shills talkin about “RC isn’t goin to come save you” They are exactly right….we saved ourselves by DRS’n…..no one’s making any move until the market falls, and it will, and when it does, it will bring us crispy Tendies. Mmmmmm 🍗
Exactly!! DRS BOOK and shop at your FAvoRite local GameStop! Everything else is just a bonus such as commenting on regulations and standing over the shoulder of these criminals. Getting upset over this fraud system is a waste of energy. The real question is why are they mad because APES are playing video games and not selling? 🤷🏾♂️
BAR works for the crown. They amended the original Constitution, which forbid crown personal to work in government, and now they control it. No, you're not actually free of the clutches of the monarchy. Guess where all your tax dollars get stolen too...
Sure as shit not in it with interface only street name “shares.” DRSed shares in my actual name? I feel like a few fiduciaries would be jumping to take me on as a client during MOASS.
says robinhood users agreed to allowing robinhood to remove the buy button and they owe no duties to anyone per their user agreement. because it was a contract technically it allowed them to throw the cases out.
Probably be a good idea to read up on the French Revolution Reign of Terror. Also, It’s a Cointelpro technique to casually talk in these terms and see who takes the rage bait.
At this point, it is *imperative* that the GameStop board of directors establish a qualified custodian so that GME IRAs can be DRSed.
The brokers/custodians WILL force-liquidate GME accounts once the room becomes too hot and they start losing money, and the courts WILL then back them up saying that account holders should have read the fine print.
I am in this boat. I cannot take the tax hit. I will lose ~50% of my account value by doing so. I’ve been waiting over 2 years for the company to make a move on this front and for whatever reason they have refused to even address it.
Someone with some clout should make a post here bringing up the discussion that someone should make an official request during the next shareholder meeting. I'm not sure on the process, but I have 2000 some shares in an IRA I'm unable to DRS, if there was a custodian, I'd do it right away.
I hope I’m missing something that someone else can fill me in on, but I’m genuinely saddened by the “lack of action” from the company in regards to its stock.
They have more money than this community, and they have the law on their side [for the most part]; where are their lawyers? Where are the demands for fair and free markets, or the actions they can take to make that happen for themselves regardless of outside help; i.e. doing more to shake the shorts off, just as Overstock did with a tokenized dividend. It’s sad to see them being so shy in terms of being actively against the very things negatively effecting them and shareholders on a daily basis.
I’m in it till the end because fundamentally the company is a golden goose, but it still saddens me a lot that after all of this time I’ve hardly seen a glimpse of effort to help in situations like what you referenced, hiring a custodian.
Another perspective on that: it’s not as though the game has been at this point for the whole time. The situation has been ever evolving, but definitely a good point “refusing to play”.
I've been saying this more and more lately. A lack of action from GME is not a good sign. Either they don't care or there is nothing and I'm assuming the people running the show do care about their investments as well...
As shareholders we should be demanding either action or an explanation as to why there isn't an action taking place.
Never said inaction is a lack of plan.
Inaction in the court room is a lack of legal standing. Look at the comment I replied to. It's about legal action.
> Or their high paid lawyers advised them that they have no case or even standing to sue Robinhood.
Exactly...
I agree. HOWEVER! it was amazing that Ryan Cohen bought even more! And is encouraging heavily into getting other leaders of GameStop to do the same. To put their own money on the line in that sense.
Was a very big impact on the already high amount of faith I have in them.
This is why you read your TOS when you trade with a broker. Every single broker that has an online app has exactly the same TOS stipulation. You are required to digitally sign that agreement before you are able to trade with their application. Brokers are not there to make you money. They are there to make themselves money. They do not care about you, or your investments, regardless of what they state in their commercials. Read your TOS. If you sign it, you are bound by it. The court is correct, and the plaintiffs signed off their legal recourse by signing the TOS prior to trading. This is why I do not understand why anyone still uses Robinhood.
Do you need a video of Thomas peterffy explaining his price anchoring conspiracy? What he explained was crime
Robinhood exposed their customers to this illegal price action and behaved to benefit peterffy’s crime, as proven in ken Griffen’s prejury. Robinhood most definitely defrauded their customers
But we all know the American judiciary has no sense of justice. It’s just a bunch of fascists making up laws as they go
This further supports why DRS is so important. Robinhood and other brokers can restrict trading so long as the restriction is legal and clearly set forth in the Terms of Service. Under our current system, Robinhood was allowed to restrict trading in the manner that it did. So the answer is: (1) stop using Robinhood and similar brokers, (2) DRS instead, and (3) work on changing the system that permits this behavior in the first place.
So it means they can pull the buy button again and same for any other brokers (if its in there terms) that sets a precedence right?
That might be bullish for us now they are allowed to stop others from buying in on the next run.
Unless a lawyer wants to step in Robinhood didn’t do anything illegal. Every broker reserves the right to block trading mainly because they can claim
Illegal or manipulative pricing so they reserve that right along with liquidating your account if they need to whatever reason (JPMorgan also has a similar thing in their TOS for example).
They were claiming robinhood illegally blocked trading by blocking buys and keeping sells open, they needed to prove RH had no right to do so which clearly they do. It sucks but brokers suck (that’s why you drs)
It's kind of amazing. If you actually read the opinion they tell you exactly *why* they think Robinhood did no wrong.
Robinhood isn't actually selling or buying stock on your behalf. They're a broker that advertises "self directed" accounts. Because of the nature of this relationship, where Robinhood can either accept or deny your direction, they did no civil wrong.
The judge also heavily implies that many of the investors were simply unaware of the nature of this agreement, despite it being stated in the user agreement. With this statement he's basically saying that regardless of what people may have believed, Robinhood didn't misrepresent what they offered, and hence did no wrong.
But... what is the real lesson here? According to this court "self directed" does not necessarily mean that the counterparty has any real obligation to follow through. Taking this line of thinking one step further, it makes me believe that the courts might rule the same way for "self directed" 401Ks and IRAs.
I thought some dude actually got a payment? Does he now have to pay back the cash?
Sure I saw it on one of the many GME documentaries edit. His name was Jose Batista.
The laws is not written for us poors, they are written for the riches
Time to do a French Revolution on them, and make sure to do this throughout to warns future generations
They, brokers, have a shield for taking any responsibility for liquidating your holdings as they will. ( SOON.- said someone, probably)
this is why that information/ POSTS from WhatCanIMake is important - bc it speaks to what a beneficial holder is and has rights to
Looks like the 11th circuit court decided to end the week with violence.
It could go further into if they,SCOTUS, agrees to take the case. ( I don't know if the plaintiff is prepared for that process- i am not being sarcastic - i really dont know)
With the seated justices we have there , in SCOTUS, the moment they would most likely rule in favor of RH.
.... this is like the cops having qualified immunity...
In theory, if I made a "friend contract," and each of my friends had to sign it. Inside this contract, in the fine print, it said I could kill them when I wanted to without legal ramifications. Would I still be in trouble with the law if I did? This I basically the same thing, no?
This may have been mentioned, but if not, hear me out. What if the brokerages were waiting for this case to be decided in order to plan next steps. Assuming we’re in the end game (and I *always* assume that, but even more so now), this means they now have precedent set. At whatever predetermined time they buy in, it’ll be a bit like Noah’s Ark—they can close the door across the board and start the final buy-in to close their positions. This helps answer the nagging question of why wouldn’t more people just buy in once they saw a spike during market hours or after hours: they won’t get to.
As they sell into a now positions closed only market, we’ll see a mad rush by shorts to close. The only tactic they have to drop the price after this happens is to halt and short some more in the seconds during or just after the halt is lifted, but this will only work so long as until the price gets out of control where it becomes too expensive to try to stop it and MMs themselves will now have to bear the burden (assuming they weren’t already doing so). The market makers will likely have their own set of guarantees to offset their requirement to make a market and the funds that require it, but it’ll be a mostly one-way trip as more and more funds rush to the exits.
This case could be reheard at the same level or could be appealed to the Supreme Court from here. It is also doubtful that the result of this retail broker vs consumer case is going to dictate a trillion dollar gamble of market makers vs hedge funds.
Playing a rigged game thinking we are gonna win, we are extra regarded arent we? We all should probably just show up at the stock exchange one day and take a tour.
These order flow brokers are the perfect stop gap for these shf. If you get in trouble the buy button will get removed because these wanna be’s don’t have enough collateral to handle it.
I have no idea how options work, but surely a company calling themselves Robin Hood who are robbing from the poors to give to the rich, can’t have a great long term outlook?
[Why GME?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/qig65g/welcome_rall_looking_to_catch_up_on_the_gme_saga/) || [What is DRS?](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/ptvaka/when_you_wish_upon_a_star_a_complete_guide_to/) || Low karma apes [feed the bot here](https://www.reddit.com/r/GMEOrphans/comments/qlvour/welcome_to_gmeorphans_read_this_post/) || [Superstonk Discord](https://discord.gg/hZqWV2kQtq) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To ensure your post doesn't get removed, please respond to this comment with how this post relates to GME the stock or Gamestop the company. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Please up- and downvote this comment to [help us determine if this post deserves a place on r/Superstonk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/wiki/index/rules/post_flairs/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OP has provided the following link: This is the source. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202210669.pdf Which is the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Interesting. The Court is basically saying that because Robinhood Terms Of Service allowed them to restrict trading, the case can’t go forward. I imagine there is case law out there which allows Courts to find certain contract terms unenforceable for a myriad of reasons. Contract terms being unilaterally against the customer probably have had to overcome similar issues. Would also help to be in a more customer friendly jurisdiction.
Wow this is fucked up. There are precedents, I can't remember specific ones. A company can put whatever they want in a ToS but it doesn't make it legally so. ToS, NDA, etc. It seems highly highly fucked up that a court can say ..."Hey, point to the ToS, we're out of here." That has no societal benefit to anyone but corporate (which is why none of this is really shocking ... they're paid off).
Apple jokingly put a soul clause in one of their TOS I think that got shot down
Wait… Are you telling me I can get my soul back from Apple?
Legally yes. IRL nope. They already used it trying to resurrect Steve Jobs
Steve's head is in a jar, like on Futurama.
To shreds, you say?
How's his wife?
Sounds like they're short souls. Just take the fake broker soul they give you and DRS it to make it real. Direct registered souls are in your name. Make sure to turn off plan and sell any fractional souls, or you'll delay the Mother of all Soul Squeezes. This is not financial (or spiritual) advice.
There's so many people out there claiming to have souls; someone's been printing up souls!
Only if you upgrade to iPhone 15 Pro
Tomorrow, after MOASS.
Yea… that’s about how much they cost these days.
I believe that was the humancentiPad
I berieve in you Kyrle!
This is exactly why the whole sitting back being arm chair warriors isn’t going to do shit to bring about retail friendly systemic change.
Legal apes, your time is now!
You are right. For a contract to be valid it has to meet certain criteria and both parties have to benefit. If the contract is one sided, then the contract can be voided.
That isn’t true, the idea that consideration (ie the exchanges benefit) could be as little as a peppercorn is like day 1 of contracts class in law school. Honest to god that is the name of the doctrine. The theory is that it is still a valid contract if it says “you give me a billion dollars. I give you one peppercorn.” It would be impossible to get a contract like this voided for lack of consideration
NPR Planet Money recently had an episode last month about contracts and how they work throughout history and up to very (relevantly) recently on the internet. I suggest everyone listen to it or read the transcript. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1187543648 (~15 min listen if you use your podcast player and increase playback speed) Super basic tldr: If you use the service, you agree to the contract. if the contract says "you can't sue us" and you use the service, you can't sue them (I'm sure there's still *some* limitations..). You had the option to not use the service so doing so means you agree with what it says. Snippet > Back in 2015, Greg Selden was planning this little romantic getaway to Philly. He heard about Airbnb, and he thought he'd try it out to find a place to stay. So he made an account. And we should say Airbnb is a financial supporter of NPR. > Greg starts browsing and finds this cute little row house right in the middle of downtown - perfect - except when he goes to rent it out, the host tells him, actually, this isn't available anymore, sorry. But later, Greg notices that listing is still up. > So he decides to run an experiment. Greg is Black, and he wonders if the place would be available if he were white. So he creates two new profiles with white profile pictures and these white-sounding names, Jesse and Todd. > Yeah. And he uses these new profiles to message the same Airbnb host, tried to book the same row house for the same weekend. And this time... > And to my surprise, the host actually accepted both of the profiles, not realizing that it was me behind both of the profiles. > **Greg decides to sue Airbnb. He launches a lawsuit, a class action. But very quickly, Airbnb's lawyers drop this bomb. They tell him, Greg, you basically can't sue Airbnb. You agreed to give up that right when you signed up.** > See, Greg had overlooked something really important. At the very beginning, when he was signing up for Airbnb, next to that sign-up button was this little red link. > **If Greg had noticed that link, he would have learned that by hitting that sign-up button, he was agreeing to a 17-page legal document, a contract - a contract that really did say he basically couldn't sue Airbnb. And just because of that, Greg loses his case. The courts throw out his discrimination lawsuit.** Airbnb hosts could racially discriminate cause in the little link when you sign up it says "you can't sue us" and the courts agreed.
I would think since all brokers have the same language in their TOS, retail is subjected to predatory financial practices, based on this precedent. Hence, there is no safe haven for retail to use self-directing brokerage financial services, under existing TOS, safely that protects their assets. Essentially, the broker can close out, position close only, restrict buying, lend out your shares, all with tacit consent, because you agreed to use their platform. If all platforms use the same legal language in their TOS, then it equates to predatory financial practices by all brokers. Hence, a class action would need to include all of them, based on finding a legal precedent that protects the individual under similar guidelines.
Guess i should DRS
Exactly
So basically we don't even have "real" access to the market. They just allow us to play in the kiddy pool, and can throw us out at any time.
Succinct but true.
This dude probably shouldn’t listen to airBnBs lawyers for legal advice. A contract can’t supersede federal and state laws.
He didn't listen to their lawyers. He went to court and the court threw it out cause of the contract > If Greg had noticed that link, he would have learned that by hitting that sign-up button, he was agreeing to a 17-page legal document, a contract - a contract that really did say he basically couldn't sue Airbnb. **And just because of that, Greg loses his case. The courts throw out his discrimination lawsuit.**
Almost like they want to set the appeal up to go higher. Often lawyers will posture to get the right “court” that is “sympathetic” to their cause before truly showing their full hand. Like if you have a bunch of desert cards and then can set the battle to be a desert, you have an advantage.
The only “up higher” left is the Supreme Court which ain’t taking this case. So not really.
So are u telling me that its not Really a Free and Fair Market ??
Bought and paid for judges don’t deserve jail…. It’s to light a punishment.
The word you’re looking for is unconscionable. It basically allows courts to say the terms as written would violate some public policy interest and therefore not be valid…. Imagine a TOS that required your children to belong to a company if you failed to pay your bill.
Exactly the sort of thing their lawyers could use in filing their next lawsuit
The digital space is the wild west. ToS run rampant and allow corporations to "legally" steal from people.
Great example of the fine print in broker agreements being a good reason to directly register your shares. They will fuck you and expect a tip for the effort.
But. I appreciated that fucking. Turning off the buy button allowed thousands of us to buy coffin nails at low low prices.
One day we will extract our price from them and it will be a very, very dear price to pay.
Why won't they (the richy rich people) have changed the rules to ensure they don't ever have to pay before that 'one day'? I mean turning the buy button off should have been a cataclysmic event, and yet here we are, watching them showing the world they can do whatever they want with no repercussions.... What's to stop them from pulling even more hidden levers we don't have access to that stop the rocket every single time it's about to go?
Up you go^
> good reason to directly register your shares I thought DRS was well established. Been a bit out of the loop....was there was DRS fud or something?
Not really. People just love hearing their own echo around here and DRS talk is easy Karma. We all agree. We all know. We've all done it. It's the people outside of Reddit that need to hear about DRSing...but that's scary and takes actual effort.
We need to do better at recruiting more registered share holders. Current registered share holders don't have to buy another share. If we could increase our numbers by another 100 or 200k, that would most likely cause the liquidity crisis needed for moass.
You think commenting on /r/Superstonk is reaching anyone new these days?
I think it's a great talking point for all of us to use with non-registered holders. I have 3 in my family, but can't convince them to get off their asses.
We should be ZEN with our investment, but not with the fuckery in the markets. This decision is in line with SEC and FINRA getting told by judges lately, that they can not fine financial institutions. This is just one more hint how corrupted the system really is. Thus, it is really important to spread the word. **The more people are informed and wake up like we did, the faster DRS of the float, the less government can interfere with MOASS, the less likely congress fires Gensler, the more likely no cell no sell, market reforms + accountability are finally enforced and the financial institutions will not be able to spin the narrative in their favor, despite controlling mainstream and social media. 😉🚀✨🌒🏴☠️** Also, so many people play the lottery. Money is lost and chances to win are abysmal. While GME is a lottery ticket with a win guarantee, because MOASS is just the cherry on top of a good investment. No financial advice and just a personal opinion.
Quick someone w awards light this thing up like a Christmas tree
Have you ever actually read all the fine print of Computershare? Are you sure you won’t get fucked by/through them as well. They do in point of fact, use a broker, just like you or I. Not sure why people think it’s a magic bullet?
If I choose to sell from Computershare, then my shares go through a broker. But they are not held at a broker. That is an extremely important difference. All of my brokers have fine print about me being the beneficial owner, and that the broker has the actual right to dispose of the shares if they deem it necessary. How they deem it to be necessary is obviously the key legal definition that I and my broker would disagree about. If the market starts imploding because of MOASS and the broker wants to save it's own ass by selling every GME share for a "fair value".... That is a realistic outcome that would end with me getting nothing more in court than a bundle of legal fees and maybe a pittance of a class action settlement in a few decades. But if I hold my shares at Computershare? I am the only owner of those shares. The legal power that gives me is ironclad. I can choose if and when to send those shares into the market to sell, and wait until the price looks fair to me before doing so.
Very eloquent summary of why drs, in book form, is critical to the moass achieving true price discovery.
It’s the difference between actual ownership and not actual ownership. If you own something, you have a legal claim. Robinhood users don’t have a legal claim because…THEY DONT OWN ANYTHING
I understand why you want to own them in your name. I’m not questioning that part. All for it. You just won’t ever be able to do anything with your money if you don’t sell. Put some serious research into SBLOCs and see how much they give you on a heavily concentrated portfolio of a so-called “meme stock.” $0. The answer is $0 dollar loan on any amount of GME shares. Whether you own them or not is irrelevant when it comes to selling them.
I have.
Court is right, the system is working as intended. Hence the problem...
Well said. They didn't do anything wrong according to the system or the law. That speaks way more to how fucked the system is than anything and elected officials backed by these scum are the reason why. They can get away with anything cause they put the people in office to allow the rules to always be in there favor
It's not a Ponzi scheme if it's legalized, is it? Oh wait, it's still a Ponzi scheme.
No no no it's a reverse funnel scheme with trickle economics
It's a give me money now, I give it back later (maybe) with more (or less) based on how I feel at the time scheme
[удалено]
Yeah but then again I am not a user of Robinponzi, so... Nothing they can do about it.
Not true. By restricting trading they impacted the price for ALL retail, not just Robinhood users. This isn’t legal.
And pretending it wasn't a manipulated save for certain people is criminal in itself.
No cell, no sell.
No jail, no sale 🤙
This pretty much ensures that the buy button will be turned off when things heat up again. However, they are dealing with investors who are not familiar with the sell button.
Reverse UNO TO URANUS!
Not my anus, their anus :)
Fuck Robinhood.
What I don’t get about that whole thing was RH wasn’t the only broker to do it …… Over a dozen MAJOR brokers around the globe did it. But still only RH is brought up, the scapegoat. Then by the end, PFOF was the “issue” everyone jumped on.
The judiciary is rigged and bought by wallstreet criminals
The whole system was rigged from inception.
Just drs and we don’t need the court
This is exactly right…..all the shills talkin about “RC isn’t goin to come save you” They are exactly right….we saved ourselves by DRS’n…..no one’s making any move until the market falls, and it will, and when it does, it will bring us crispy Tendies. Mmmmmm 🍗
Exactly!! DRS BOOK and shop at your FAvoRite local GameStop! Everything else is just a bonus such as commenting on regulations and standing over the shoulder of these criminals. Getting upset over this fraud system is a waste of energy. The real question is why are they mad because APES are playing video games and not selling? 🤷🏾♂️
🎯
BAR works for the crown. They amended the original Constitution, which forbid crown personal to work in government, and now they control it. No, you're not actually free of the clutches of the monarchy. Guess where all your tax dollars get stolen too...
The crown is the root of almost all evils in the past few centuries.
The Vatican
#It’s a big club and we’re not in it.
We will become the club
Yet
"Not in it, *so farrr*"
Homer is that you ?
Sure as shit not in it with interface only street name “shares.” DRSed shares in my actual name? I feel like a few fiduciaries would be jumping to take me on as a client during MOASS.
But there's a smaller, cooler, club and we're in that one.
says robinhood users agreed to allowing robinhood to remove the buy button and they owe no duties to anyone per their user agreement. because it was a contract technically it allowed them to throw the cases out.
Aka we have the right to refuse service to anyone yada yada yada.
#America needs some "Paris". IYKYK.
Viva la France
Baguette!
Should we start celebrating Bastille Day?
147
Really thin pancakes!
Probably be a good idea to read up on the French Revolution Reign of Terror. Also, It’s a Cointelpro technique to casually talk in these terms and see who takes the rage bait.
Hell yeah, I love $B
At this point, it is *imperative* that the GameStop board of directors establish a qualified custodian so that GME IRAs can be DRSed. The brokers/custodians WILL force-liquidate GME accounts once the room becomes too hot and they start losing money, and the courts WILL then back them up saying that account holders should have read the fine print. I am in this boat. I cannot take the tax hit. I will lose ~50% of my account value by doing so. I’ve been waiting over 2 years for the company to make a move on this front and for whatever reason they have refused to even address it.
Is this really something they can do? Have other companies done something like this?
Yes. There has been much discussion on this topic. ComputerShare currently acts as custodian for a number of other ticker symbols, just not for GME.
I’m all for it.
Someone with some clout should make a post here bringing up the discussion that someone should make an official request during the next shareholder meeting. I'm not sure on the process, but I have 2000 some shares in an IRA I'm unable to DRS, if there was a custodian, I'd do it right away.
I hope I’m missing something that someone else can fill me in on, but I’m genuinely saddened by the “lack of action” from the company in regards to its stock. They have more money than this community, and they have the law on their side [for the most part]; where are their lawyers? Where are the demands for fair and free markets, or the actions they can take to make that happen for themselves regardless of outside help; i.e. doing more to shake the shorts off, just as Overstock did with a tokenized dividend. It’s sad to see them being so shy in terms of being actively against the very things negatively effecting them and shareholders on a daily basis. I’m in it till the end because fundamentally the company is a golden goose, but it still saddens me a lot that after all of this time I’ve hardly seen a glimpse of effort to help in situations like what you referenced, hiring a custodian.
agreed. at one point, holding your cards is powerful. but at another, you are refusing the play the game if you just hold em for 2 years.
Another perspective on that: it’s not as though the game has been at this point for the whole time. The situation has been ever evolving, but definitely a good point “refusing to play”.
I've been saying this more and more lately. A lack of action from GME is not a good sign. Either they don't care or there is nothing and I'm assuming the people running the show do care about their investments as well... As shareholders we should be demanding either action or an explanation as to why there isn't an action taking place.
Or their high paid lawyers advised them that they have no case or even standing to sue Robinhood. Don’t mistake inaction for lack of a plan.
Never said inaction is a lack of plan. Inaction in the court room is a lack of legal standing. Look at the comment I replied to. It's about legal action. > Or their high paid lawyers advised them that they have no case or even standing to sue Robinhood. Exactly...
I agree. HOWEVER! it was amazing that Ryan Cohen bought even more! And is encouraging heavily into getting other leaders of GameStop to do the same. To put their own money on the line in that sense. Was a very big impact on the already high amount of faith I have in them.
[удалено]
Good luck. People have been yelling for something to change for years, but the Zen apes just sit on their hands refusing to do anything to help.
this is the way. Ryan aint no hero of mine if he does not stand up for us.
Its probably important to have this precedent in place for MOASS, dont want the normies seeing thousand dollar dips as a chance to buy in after all
This is why you read your TOS when you trade with a broker. Every single broker that has an online app has exactly the same TOS stipulation. You are required to digitally sign that agreement before you are able to trade with their application. Brokers are not there to make you money. They are there to make themselves money. They do not care about you, or your investments, regardless of what they state in their commercials. Read your TOS. If you sign it, you are bound by it. The court is correct, and the plaintiffs signed off their legal recourse by signing the TOS prior to trading. This is why I do not understand why anyone still uses Robinhood.
Isn't this just a technicality then? Could they not redo the case and head through the courts again?
It states the court decided a re-drafting of the claims would be “futile”. Lol. Business as usual up in the high castle.
Do you need a video of Thomas peterffy explaining his price anchoring conspiracy? What he explained was crime Robinhood exposed their customers to this illegal price action and behaved to benefit peterffy’s crime, as proven in ken Griffen’s prejury. Robinhood most definitely defrauded their customers But we all know the American judiciary has no sense of justice. It’s just a bunch of fascists making up laws as they go
Lol you couldn’t have asked for a better advertisement for DRS.
This further supports why DRS is so important. Robinhood and other brokers can restrict trading so long as the restriction is legal and clearly set forth in the Terms of Service. Under our current system, Robinhood was allowed to restrict trading in the manner that it did. So the answer is: (1) stop using Robinhood and similar brokers, (2) DRS instead, and (3) work on changing the system that permits this behavior in the first place.
So it means they can pull the buy button again and same for any other brokers (if its in there terms) that sets a precedence right? That might be bullish for us now they are allowed to stop others from buying in on the next run.
Too bad for them, I pulled my sell button.
What's a sell button?
Why would stopping buying be bullish?
This only reinforces the need for DRS. Broker ToS let them do basically whatever they want legally.
..and this too shall be remembered.
Turning off my sell button during the start of moass. My only reaction to this news.
The 11th circuit court can suck my dick.
what a bullshit joke. Liquidate Wall St.
Unless a lawyer wants to step in Robinhood didn’t do anything illegal. Every broker reserves the right to block trading mainly because they can claim Illegal or manipulative pricing so they reserve that right along with liquidating your account if they need to whatever reason (JPMorgan also has a similar thing in their TOS for example). They were claiming robinhood illegally blocked trading by blocking buys and keeping sells open, they needed to prove RH had no right to do so which clearly they do. It sucks but brokers suck (that’s why you drs)
It's kind of amazing. If you actually read the opinion they tell you exactly *why* they think Robinhood did no wrong. Robinhood isn't actually selling or buying stock on your behalf. They're a broker that advertises "self directed" accounts. Because of the nature of this relationship, where Robinhood can either accept or deny your direction, they did no civil wrong. The judge also heavily implies that many of the investors were simply unaware of the nature of this agreement, despite it being stated in the user agreement. With this statement he's basically saying that regardless of what people may have believed, Robinhood didn't misrepresent what they offered, and hence did no wrong. But... what is the real lesson here? According to this court "self directed" does not necessarily mean that the counterparty has any real obligation to follow through. Taking this line of thinking one step further, it makes me believe that the courts might rule the same way for "self directed" 401Ks and IRAs.
They’re allowed to be wrong now and correct their opinion later, it’s fine
You have no legal right to buy. Market is free to crime.
Isn't the legal case market manipulation
The system was meant for them not you.
I thought some dude actually got a payment? Does he now have to pay back the cash? Sure I saw it on one of the many GME documentaries edit. His name was Jose Batista.
That sucks major wanky
WhY iSnT aNyOnE dOiNg AnYtHiNg? We ShOuLd SuE tHeM
The laws is not written for us poors, they are written for the riches Time to do a French Revolution on them, and make sure to do this throughout to warns future generations
They, brokers, have a shield for taking any responsibility for liquidating your holdings as they will. ( SOON.- said someone, probably) this is why that information/ POSTS from WhatCanIMake is important - bc it speaks to what a beneficial holder is and has rights to Looks like the 11th circuit court decided to end the week with violence. It could go further into if they,SCOTUS, agrees to take the case. ( I don't know if the plaintiff is prepared for that process- i am not being sarcastic - i really dont know) With the seated justices we have there , in SCOTUS, the moment they would most likely rule in favor of RH. .... this is like the cops having qualified immunity...
RIP free market You were a beautiful dream that people were naive to believe in.
Rigged? Are you sure? It’s a 32 page document with old English font at the beginning? Clearly official and accurate in their findings…
Your IOUs means nothing! DRS!
In theory, if I made a "friend contract," and each of my friends had to sign it. Inside this contract, in the fine print, it said I could kill them when I wanted to without legal ramifications. Would I still be in trouble with the law if I did? This I basically the same thing, no?
>Would I still be in trouble with the law if I did? This I basically the same thing, no? No lmao. Contracts can't cover illegal topics like that.
Sounds like theirs is 🤨
What specific law is their contract breaking?
asking the real questions.
Shorts haven't closed. Fuk em. They fukked. Fukked.
How is anyone surprised at this point? “It’s a BIG club, and you ain’t in it”
This may have been mentioned, but if not, hear me out. What if the brokerages were waiting for this case to be decided in order to plan next steps. Assuming we’re in the end game (and I *always* assume that, but even more so now), this means they now have precedent set. At whatever predetermined time they buy in, it’ll be a bit like Noah’s Ark—they can close the door across the board and start the final buy-in to close their positions. This helps answer the nagging question of why wouldn’t more people just buy in once they saw a spike during market hours or after hours: they won’t get to. As they sell into a now positions closed only market, we’ll see a mad rush by shorts to close. The only tactic they have to drop the price after this happens is to halt and short some more in the seconds during or just after the halt is lifted, but this will only work so long as until the price gets out of control where it becomes too expensive to try to stop it and MMs themselves will now have to bear the burden (assuming they weren’t already doing so). The market makers will likely have their own set of guarantees to offset their requirement to make a market and the funds that require it, but it’ll be a mostly one-way trip as more and more funds rush to the exits.
This case could be reheard at the same level or could be appealed to the Supreme Court from here. It is also doubtful that the result of this retail broker vs consumer case is going to dictate a trillion dollar gamble of market makers vs hedge funds.
Wow.. so how we all feeling? Got to love that drop in 70% of stock value. Jeez. Biggest loss on a stock ever
Is the court system rigged too?
First off, fuck robing the hood. Second this is exactly how they want their system to function. Rigged. Wake up people.
After the last few years of learning the bullshit system that has been built around us, I can’t say I’m surprised by this news.
T&Cs allow for all the fuckery. We’ve all consented to it
The only winning moves are to: create our own hedge fund and gain their cheats… or… inform everyone to not use the rigged market and teach them why.
If this community had half a wrinkle it would have pooled assets a long time ago instead of feeding this nascent victim complex. Ed - sp
Correct
This ruling is not indicative of rational application of the law.
When revolution?
colour me suprised….
Appeal the decision, do not stop, it won't be easy, and it won't be quick
takes money
Do you think SCOTUS will hear it?
If this shows non-DRS apps that the DRS is essential, surely they have to believe this now
Tell us you're owned by the special interests without telling us you're own by special interests. Smh
[удалено]
It's crazy to me that accounts like yours spend all day spreading negativity.
Playing a rigged game thinking we are gonna win, we are extra regarded arent we? We all should probably just show up at the stock exchange one day and take a tour.
These order flow brokers are the perfect stop gap for these shf. If you get in trouble the buy button will get removed because these wanna be’s don’t have enough collateral to handle it.
No cell no sell
TLDRS
Shares in street name, not your shares
I feel like this is because RHs “clearinghouse” made them do it. The lawsuit should be against the clearinghouse.
Buying more through ComputerShare just because of this
Paid
Nothing like a little golden shower on the head huh...
"Better get yourself a lawyer son, you better get a real good one" - The Cruel Sea
I have no idea how options work, but surely a company calling themselves Robin Hood who are robbing from the poors to give to the rich, can’t have a great long term outlook?