Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

An @SEC_Enforcement 🆚 @Ripple Thread:

The most important decision a prosecutor makes is at the very beginning when he decides who to charge and what to charge.

@MrFreshTime showed us the video of Clayton favoring going after the individual executives and not just the company.

https://twitter.com/MrFreshTime/status/1376974704683143179

I called it a bullying tactic.
When I was @on_the_chain recently and weeks ago I said charging @bgarlinghouse and @chrislarsensf would prove to be a mistake.

If the @SEC had sued only #Ripple, then it would be a strict liability case and all the @SEC would need to prove is

that #XRP was a security when #Ripple sold it. No need to prove any level of intent or state of mind. But by alleging that Brad and Chris aided and abetted Ripple in selling unregistered securities, the @SEC must prove:

“they knew or recklessly disregarded” that Ripple’s sales

of #XRP required registration. Both me and @attorneyjeremy have stated that because of this higher burden on the @SEC it improves the likelihood that the Judge might order the @SEC to turn over evidence related to #BTC and #ETH.

The question of whether Brad or Chris knew or

https://twitter.com/jacky52103808/status/1377396426099974147

were reckless is a question for the jury - not the Judge.

Because the government has charged the two executives then statements made by the CFTC Chairman in January of 2020 (see above) should be allowed into evidence. Also, the statements of @giancarloMKTS should come into

evidence. Giancarlo had authored an article stating that #XRP IS NOT a security and is, in fact, a commodity.

And for the wannabe legal experts out there, it’s not hearsay because it’s not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted (that it’s not a security) but it’s

being offered, instead, to show that Brad and Chris relied on those statements in believing that #XRP was not a security.

Statements by the U.S. Government’s own experts in commodities (two former Chairmen) might be persuasive to a jury or even a judge.

Not only did former

Chairman Giancarlo - the guy helping the U.S. Government with the Digital Dollar 😂 - say #XRP was NOT a security, but less than a year before the @SEC filed the case against #Ripple, CFTC Chairman Heath Tarbert said (Jan. 2020) that its not clear YET whether #XRP is a security

or a commodity.

“It’s unclear. Stay tuned I’d say,”

said Tarbert to news outlet Cheddar.

But 11 months later the @SEC claims that Brad and Chris knew #XRP was a security WHILE THE @CFTC & THE @SEC_News were still trying to figure it out between the two agencies.

And why is #Bitcoin and #ETH so relevant?

First, Hinman and Clayton said both were not securities in 2018. Second, In January 2020 Tarbert also said:

“We’ve been very clear on bitcoin: bitcoin is a commodity. We haven’t said anything about ether – until now. It is my view as

chairman of the CFTC that ether is a commodity.”

If the former CFTC chairman
stated affirmatively that #XRP is a commodity and the then current CFTC chairman said officially #ETH is a commodity, its certainly reasonable to assume that #XRP is not a security.

Because Clayton and his crew were arrogant bureaucratic bullies that wanted to “send a message” or for other personal reasons - chose to sue the two executives - the @SEC completely overplayed and overcharged this case.

Either there was fraud or there wasn’t. And clearly,

there was no fraud. Hence, the @SEC should have just alleged the case in the only way that they can prove a case; and that’s over sales in the early years.

This case isn’t fun for #Ripple or these two executives, and it’s definitely not fun for the hostages in this case:

#XRPHolders.

But, I will admit, as a trial lawyer, it would be fun to try this case against the @SEC_Enforcement.