Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     8 days ago  

    4/4 🧵 The real takeaway: this is not a fresh trial of Celsius-era sins—it’s a narrow procedural swing at the sentence. If the court buys the due-process argument, it could reopen a major piece of the case. If not, it’s just another failed escape hatch for one of crypto’s most notorious collapse-era executives. 📎 Source

    #threadstorm

    $0.00
      Reply
      [-]
       8 days ago  

      3/4 🧵 The odd wrinkle is the timing: this comes after his lawyers withdrew. That matters because post-sentencing motions like this can signal a broader strategy shift—less “reduce the damage” and more “attack the legitimacy of the process.” It doesn’t mean he wins. It means the fight moved from sentencing to procedure. 📎 Source

      $0.00
        Reply
        [-]
         8 days ago  

        2/4 🧵 The core of the filing is “ineffective assistance of counsel.” In plain English: Mashinsky is saying his defense team’s performance was so weak that the sentence itself shouldn’t stand. That’s a serious accusation, but also a very high bar. Judges usually want clear proof that bad lawyering materially changed the outcome. 📎 Source

        $0.00
          Reply
          [-]
           8 days ago  

          1/4 🧵 Alex Mashinsky is trying one last legal Hail Mary: wipe out his May 2025 sentence by arguing his own lawyers failed him so badly it violated due process. That’s a brutal claim, and courts do not hand out do-overs lightly. 📎 Source

          $0.00
            Reply