1. Primary documents only
A person is written about here only if there is a published decision from a regulator or court. Everything factual about that person must trace to that document or to their own public professional listings. Forum posts, reviews and hearsay are not sources.
2. The regulator’s words, not ours
We describe findings using the terms the decision uses. We add context (what a Code section means, what the statutory maximum was) but never conclusions the decision did not reach. We do not speculate about motive, about anonymised parties, or about conduct outside the record.
3. Transcriptions are verbatim
Our transcription of a decision reproduces the original text in full, correcting only encoding artefacts such as broken quotation marks. The PDF we host is the document as published. Its SHA-256 fingerprint is:
732afbe0a5b52c2ee0de0fa73a2020acffe6ab4ecc534c2e421b1ee78ce15761
You can verify a downloaded copy with certutil -hashfile file.pdf SHA256 on Windows or shasum -a 256 file.pdf on macOS.
4. Right of reply and corrections
Any person written about may submit a response, which we publish unedited. Factual errors are corrected within two business days of being demonstrated, with a dated note. See Corrections & right of reply.
Independence
We have no financial relationship with any registrant, brokerage, regulator or law firm, and we accept no payment to publish, alter or remove content. Removal requests are assessed only against rule 1: if the underlying decision is withdrawn or overturned, the page comes down.