How does the SEC lose an sj motion against a pro se defendant?
It's like shooting fraudulent fish in a barrel!
Actually it's not, as Judge Marra explains:
[CENSORED]I'm sorry I'd like to quote from the opinion but I see it makes repeated reference to the "risk-enhancing" features of an "Inverse Floater" -- which apparently is a defined term(!).
Ahh, thanks but no thanks.
(No wonder this guy had to proceed pro se.)