https://austinprivatewealth.com/news-and-events
"Statement on Incorrect Filing with the SEC
7/17/2024
The SEC filing which showed that Austin Private Wealth shorted a large number of shares of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp (DJT) was incorrect and we immediately amended it as soon as we learned of the error.
No client of APW holds, or has ever held, a put on DJT in the quantity initially reported. The correct holding amount was 12 contracts, or 1,200 shares — not 12 million shares, as was filed in error. In submitting the required report for the second quarter of 2024, a multiplier was applied by a third-party vendor that increased the number of the shares by a multiple of 10,000 for all options contracts (not just DJT). We did not catch the error before approving the filing.
We filed the report on July 12 to reflect our positions on June 28. We amended it on July 16.
We deeply regret this error and the concern it has caused, especially at such a fraught moment for our nation. We are committed to full transparency and maintaining the trust of our clients. As such, we are reviewing our internal procedures and our processes with the third-party vendor that assists with SEC filings to better understand how this happened and avoid similar issues moving forward. "
https://austinprivatewealth.com/news-and-events
"Statement on Incorrect Filing with the SEC
7/17/2024
The SEC filing which showed that Austin Private Wealth shorted a large number of shares of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp (DJT) was incorrect and we immediately amended it as soon as we learned of the error.
No client of APW holds, or has ever held, a put on DJT in the quantity initially reported. The correct holding amount was 12 contracts, or 1,200 shares — not 12 million shares, as was filed in error. In submitting the required report for the second quarter of 2024, a multiplier was applied by a third-party vendor that increased the number of the shares by a multiple of 10,000 for all options contracts (not just DJT). We did not catch the error before approving the filing.
We filed the report on July 12 to reflect our positions on June 28. We amended it on July 16.
We deeply regret this error and the concern it has caused, especially at such a fraught moment for our nation. We are committed to full transparency and maintaining the trust of our clients. As such, we are reviewing our internal procedures and our processes with the third-party vendor that assists with SEC filings to better understand how this happened and avoid similar issues moving forward. "
https://austinprivatewealth.com/news-and-events
"Statement on Incorrect Filing with the SEC
7/17/2024
The SEC filing which showed that Austin Private Wealth shorted a large number of shares of Trump Media & Technology Group Corp (DJT) was incorrect and we immediately amended it as soon as we learned of the error.
No client of APW holds, or has ever held, a put on DJT in the quantity initially reported. The correct holding amount was 12 contracts, or 1,200 shares — not 12 million shares, as was filed in error. In submitting the required report for the second quarter of 2024, a multiplier was applied by a third-party vendor that increased the number of the shares by a multiple of 10,000 for all options contracts (not just DJT). We did not catch the error before approving the filing.
We filed the report on July 12 to reflect our positions on June 28. We amended it on July 16.
We deeply regret this error and the concern it has caused, especially at such a fraught moment for our nation. We are committed to full transparency and maintaining the trust of our clients. As such, we are reviewing our internal procedures and our processes with the third-party vendor that assists with SEC filings to better understand how this happened and avoid similar issues moving forward. "
Key Quote: "The irony! By bringing all these silly, creative claims against President Trump for keeping a few boxes of “classified documents,” and because his bookkeeper wrote the wrong thing on a check stub, the Supreme Court got an unprecedented opportunity to end forever the silent, implicit protection previously enjoyed by every other previous President. That de facto absolute immunity is gone, never to return.
And now it’s open season on serious crimes committed by Presidents."
"We begin with the UK Independent’s alarming headline from this morning: “Biden warns Trump can do ‘whatever he pleases’ if elected as Republicans relish Supreme Court immunity ruling.” Tellingly, that was a modified headline. Earlier in the day, it more simply said, “Supreme Court awards Trump some immunity from prosecution.” Biden did say that though, even though the Supremes ended none of the Trump cases. Biden is cognitively functioning on par with an above-average boiled turnip. But Biden and his handlers have no idea how good the decision really was, or they would be crying much, much harder.
image.png How good was it? It was so good I actually started wondering if the QAnon people have been right all along. It was that good. It was that much of a game-changer. Just not for any of the reasons in the headlines.
Let’s begin with what yesterday’s decision didn’t do. Trump v. United States did not “totally immunize” the President. Instead, it created a three-tier test (the Supreme Court loves three-tiered tests), which explains why the Independent’s first headline said it provided Trump with “some” immunity.
But Democrats desperately hope for some distraction from Biden’s terrible Debate, and they are thinking maybe this could be it.
Joe made a short, sleepy, mumbly announcement last night that was just a feeble tantrum about the Immunity decision. While reading the three-minute blurb off a teleprompter, Joe recited, “For all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do. This is a fundamentally new principle. And it’s a dangerous precedent.”
The three liberal Justices were equally unhinged, with Justice Sotomayor going so far as to say the majority decision transformed the Office of the President into “a king above the law.” I blame the public schools for Justice Sotomayor not knowing what a king is. She was probably thinking about a royal personage more like Burger King.
image 2.png Let’s cut through all the noise right now. I’ll tell you what it actually said, and then I will explain why it changes everything. And after explaining how it doesn’t help Trump much, I’ll tell you how the Supreme Court sneakily helped Trump anyway, even though this decision largely ignored his actual cases. Stick with me for a minute, it will be worth it.
Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
I know that’s a lot of legal mumbo jumbo. But stick with me. This is where it gets really good.
🔥🔥 Over-reacting Democrats —and there are plenty of those— are really only mad because the decision helped Trump indirectly, with timing. Judge Chutkan now must order more briefing and hold more hearings to satisfy the new 3-Tier Immunity Test. That will probably result in more appeals arguing she applied the test wrong, and so forth, and before you know it, Bob’s your uncle, the election will have come and gone and Trump will be walking around free as a bluebird with only an ankle monitor from his other conviction.
Democrats are also peeved because it gives Trump a small second bite at his “check stub” conviction. Yesterday, his lawyers filed a letter motion to delay sentencing —scheduled for next week— and asked Judge Merchan to reconsider the verdict under the new test. It’s a long shot, because they never argued presidential immunity as a defense in that case. But still, it annoyed Democrats.
But all of this political wrangling misses the point. Let’s jump into the C&C time machine and travel back in time to 2020, before the Trump cases were filed. (Cue wacky time-travel music.)
image 3.png 🔥🔥 Clueless, low-information Democrats are wailing that the Judges anointed a Presidential King by creating a three-tier test under which —wait for it— Presidents can be prosecuted for crimes. Democrats are acting like this is a revolutionary improvement of the Presidential position. But that, like nearly everything else partisan Democrats say, is a lie.
What was the rule before the Supreme Court issued its decision? Well, before Trump, no president was ever prosecuted for a crime. Not for droning an Iraqi wedding. Not for illegal wars. Not even for jaywalking or running lawn sprinklers on a Tuesday.
Presidential prosecutions never ever happened.
Don’t miss this: before Trump, presidents obviously enjoyed de facto total immunity. The unspoken rule that everyone followed was that nobody can prosecute the President, or even a former President.
During the period the de facto total immunity rule reigned, the Supreme Court never had to address Presidential immunity. There were no cases; that’s how absolute the immunity was. But now that the Court has crafted a de jure (legal) rubric, Presidents who do illegal things can be prosecuted. They can now be prosecuted much more easily, in fact. Just not for nuisance claims, like the creative, trumped-up claims brought against President Trump, such as for notating his check stubs wrong.
Let’s do a little thought experiment. Evidence shows President Obama was involved in the now-discredited Russia Dossier matter, which was used as a false predicate to spy on the Trump campaign for partisan political purposes. Evidence suggests Obama knew the Dossier was fake, purchased by the Clinton campaign. Yesterday’s new 3-tier test provides a clear procedure for prosecuting Obama for those very serious allegations.
In other words, the High Court incinerated de facto Presidential immunity, and replaced it with a clear de jure prosecutorial process. Former and future Presidents susceptible to more serious crimes than Trump’s are now fair game. I even got a very reluctant AI chatbot to agree:
image 4.png The irony! By bringing all these silly, creative claims against President Trump for keeping a few boxes of “classified documents,” and because his bookkeeper wrote the wrong thing on a check stub, the Supreme Court got an unprecedented opportunity to end forever the silent, implicit protection previously enjoyed by every other previous President. That de facto absolute immunity is gone, never to return.
And now it’s open season on serious crimes committed by Presidents.
If President Trump wins the election, this decision provides exactly the right tool his DOJ needs to prosecute the last twenty years of Presidential malfeasance and abuses of authority. It almost seems like Trump planned it this way. In hindsight, it couldn’t have gone any better for Trump in the big picture. When Trump’s DOJ brings its first charges against Biden and Obama, the media cannot wail about it being “unprecedented.” He’ll just be following the law.
Beyond those long-term benefits for President Trump, the decision also placed a massive granite capstone on out-of-control Presidential authority. All future Presidents, Trump included, must now consider potential criminal liability under the new Trump v. US standard. The new rule will make Presidents much more careful when acting outside their Constitutional authority, like when they mandate vaccine shots or something, just as a random example.
So … it’s not even so much that Trump won. The American People won.
But the good news doesn’t stop there! Justice Thomas’s concurrence slid an assassin’s knife into Trump’s two most dangerous criminal cases."...
"The court ruled that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for actions they take within their constitutional authority, as opposed to a private capacity. The ruling marked the first time since the nation's 18th century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance."
yep