SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Ashton Technology (ASTN)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: peter michaelson who wrote (4439)9/9/2003 1:00:03 PM
From: Arcane Lore  Read Replies (1) of 4443
 
Truth, the use of the word "I" is is very odd language from that link. Just an oddity - wondered if you have seen that before. ...

While one doesn't see "I" used frequently in summaries of SEC administrative proceedings, that is probably because most of these are either unsigned (often notices that an action has been initiated) or are summaries of commission findings signed on behalf of the commission by Jonathan G. Katz, secretary to the commission. Clearly in the latter case, it would usually be inappropriate for Mr. Katz to use "I".

The summary you cited was an order by an administrative law judge, Brenda P. Murray. Since she was describing an action that she (and she alone) took, use of "I" in this context is appropriate.

Out of curiosity, I reviewed the last three administrative proceedings which were administrative law judges' orders, other than the cited one. In two of the three instances, "I" was used:

"... I find the following allegations in the OIP to be true: ..."

sec.gov
=====
No occurrence:

sec.gov
=====
"... I find the following allegations in the OIP to be true: ..."

sec.gov
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext