visits or inspections by the board or its agents to verify compliance with the stipulation and order. The statement of charges was irrelevant because it was merely assertions of wrongdoing. None of the matters in the statement of charges was either proved or disproved. And nothing in the stipulation and consent order amounted to an admission of wrongdoing. The stipulation and c 6, 767 (9th Cir.1982) (affirming exclusion of SEC consent decree in prior enforcement proceedings under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in which “consent decree involved no finding of culpability and no judgment of wrongdoing and contained a recitation that it did not constitute evidence of wrongdoing in the enforcement proceeding”); Beck v. Cantor, Fitzgerald & Co., 621 F.Supp. 1547, 1565, 1566 (N.D.Ill.1985) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Pinter v. Dahl,
holding that even if the sec succeeded in showing defendants violated the exchange act or sec rules the sec is not entitled to a permanent injunction or an officerdirector bar holding that all evidence of sec investigation sec opinion and defendants acquiescence in sec opinion was inadmissible as irrelevant and immaterial holding that sec interpretation of federal securities law is entitled to deference if it is reasonable holding that the sec may subpoena records in a securities investigation even if the persons involved are also subject to regulation by the department of agriculture under the commodity exchange act holding that section 21g operates as impenetrable wall to intervention by victim of fraudulent scheme in sec enforcement action