Well, in fairness, I exaggerate slightly for the sake of effect, but not by much - judge for yourself:
My favorite post on the subject:
"Can anyone tell me what a person or a company accused of market manipulation would ask the court to record the hearing????? With what purpose???, if you know you are guilty and you know is going to be proved on court , why would you ask to have it recorded??? does anyone have a though about this that can share with me, because I cant figure out yet why someone is asking to record the hearings. Well I have my own opinion but would like to hear someone's else."
""it just says that it was requested to be recorded"
No, it doesn't. It says just the opposite, in fact.
Google Translate is letting you down here, I'm afraid.
The original French:
"Requête visant l’émission de diverses ordonnances de sauvegarde incluant un huis clos et une ordonnance de non-publication"
translates as
"Request for the issuance of various orders including an in camera hearing and an order banning publication"
"In camera" in this context is Latin for "a closed or private hearing".
In other words, one or more of the parties under investigation have requested a private, closed hearing, with no publication of the transcript of proceedings.
This is the exact opposite of the way it was mis-interpreted; it is not a request for transparency.
They want precisely no public record of the hearing. They must have something to hide, as Earnest and Lexit have already highlighted.
I have a feeling that many of those supporting WDRP have a similarly poor grasp of the French language, and by relying on the Google translate feature, fail to realise the strength of the AMF case against the various parties( including WDRP itself) they accuse of manipulating the pps for nefarious purposes."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
