Well, in my opinion...yes--basically it does.
Facts are generally defined as what is universally accepted as information (that a majority of individuals happen to agree with)---but often times what is generally accepted as "fact" may be totally incorrect. The arguments against Matt and the others are poised as "facts"---but nothing is considered to be "TRUE" unless a court of law gets a chance to hear the "other side of the story" and rule accordingly (via jury/judge verdict).
Anyone could allege something as being "true"--but the allegations are typically one sided until the defendants have an opportunity to explain their sides of the story. Matt Brown, IMO, won't state his side of the story until he gets to court (unless he is allowed to say something prior to that date).
Matt Brown and the others are, IMO, innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (unless they strike a deal before going to trial). What we post here are just our opinions based (partly, at least) on the allegations the SEC/DOJ indicated in their respect court dockets. Therefore, those that advocate "wait to make an opinion until the other side of the story is heard" are absolutely WARRANTED with their comments.
As for me? I just happen to think the government has a strong case against those that stand accused. It doesn't mean that I'm out to LYNCH anyone---conversely---it doesn't mean that folks who speak out in support of Matt and the others are necessarily "ignoring" the possibility of wrongdoing either!
IMO
Ordinary
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
