Disorder

About Disorder

Navarro told Rashid she doubted his claims of rehabilitation, saying she was “very disappointed” and “not sure I believe” he is a changed person.

Navarro noted during Thursday’s hearing that she had not presided over Rashid’s original plea agreement and had previously expressed concern that the deal did not fully reflect the severity of his conduct.

At his 2021 sentencing, she described Rashid’s past behavior as “monstrous” and said his victims endured conditions resembling imprisonment.

About Disorder

Judge Kennedy explained in her ruling, “The court finds that Hasselback’s statements that continued representation in this matter would cause him to violate several ethical obligations trigger mandatory withdrawal under Model Rule 1.16(a) and is sufficient for granting his motion.” She added, “Hasselback need not be required to provide details, beyond his written motion, to establish that mandatory withdrawal is warranted,” and stated that requiring him “to specify the basis for his mandatory withdrawal could create the untenable situation of an attorney having to choose between his obligation of candor to the court and his obligation to maintain his client’s confidences.”

Unfortunately, because of that attorney-client privilege, it is difficult to know what types of ethical dilemmas Hasselback is facing. However, it’s likely just the mere hint at issues will be enough for IPI to find itself, once again, being more closely scrutinized. Where that leads is anyone’s guess, given gaming regulators’ reluctance to hold the company accountable for its actions.

IPI now has until this Friday to find a new lawyer to carry the six-case workload Hasselback had, but will most likely use this as an excuse to delay the ongoing legal battles. It won’t get very far with that, though, and perhaps Judge Kennedy expected IPI to try something. She added in her ruling that the attorney’s exit “may cause some delay, [but] that delay is not so much so that it would cause significant prejudice or adversely and materially affect the plaintiff.”

How to play Disorder

He was also fined $71,356.

Kalshi’s compliance department uncovered a series of large trades made by Santos throughout February 2026 involving contracts that would pay out based on whether he attended the State of the Union address on 24 February. 

The exchange reported that Santos then issued public statements regarding his attendance, some deemed false or misleading, that were deliberately aimed at influencing the price of “Yes” or “No” contracts connected to his attendance.