A FEW OBSERVATIONS:
1) I was wrong before when I said there were 52 Drafts of the Hinman Speech.
The judge writes: “as evidenced by the 68 Drafts and associated commentary in the SEC’s privilege logs.”
68 drafts w/ lots of commentary. There’s a strong chance #XRP is mentioned!
1) I was wrong before when I said there were 52 Drafts of the Hinman Speech.
The judge writes: “as evidenced by the 68 Drafts and associated commentary in the SEC’s privilege logs.”
68 drafts w/ lots of commentary. There’s a strong chance #XRP is mentioned!
https://twitter.com/filanlaw/status/1513647538074800130
2) Judge Netburn added a bullet proof section for any appeal to the 2nd Circuit. She could’ve flat out denied the motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 6.3 (can’t raise new arguments you didn’t the first time). Instead, she recognized how important the DPP Doctrine is. 👇 
She didn’t just summarily deny the motion but analyzed the SEC’s substantive DPP argument and then rejected it. I ❤️ IT!What she did was take away any argument on appeal based on how important DPP is and that this judge didn’t consider it like she should!!
Can you say Brillaint!
Can you say Brillaint!
3) She called out the SEC for its inconsistent positions related to the speech. She said you don’t get to change your position just b/c you didn’t like the Court’s conclusion. She highlighted the inconsistency by drawing specific attention to Hinman’s “under oath” testimony.
4) She threw a 🦴 to the SEC by clarifying the SEC could “seek leave to redact those communications from its production” that implicates other, separate agency deliberations - not deliberations about the content of the speech.” 👇
On one hand this is good b/c it also makes this Order bullet proof. Any appellate court will see that the judge is honoring all privileges under the law. There is no way, IMO, Judge Torres or the 2nd Circuit disturbs Judge Netburn’s ruling.
On the other hand, what exactly does “separate agency deliberations” mean? We would know what she means if we had access to “comment 12 on page 6 of the Speech draft in Document J.”
In other words, she gave a specific example of what can be redacted by the SEC.
In other words, she gave a specific example of what can be redacted by the SEC.
SEC is NOT allowed to redact “agency staff communications about edits to the Speech” and the “edits themselves” can’t be redacted.
The judge will review the proposed redactions.
If #XRP was referenced in the 68 Drafts and/or in the commentary - @Ripple gets it and #XRPWins.
The judge will review the proposed redactions.
If #XRP was referenced in the 68 Drafts and/or in the commentary - @Ripple gets it and #XRPWins.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
