Thread by @freddyriz

Second, very heartwarming to see some of you help defend against the trolls. While appreciated, please don't feel obligated. I am a litigator, and I've been through much, much worse battles than Twitter hate.

Third, HOMER and WILLY. Biggest VALID criticism to date. Let me say that those two names were much, much worse in the original draft! The names HOMER and WILLY match the respect level these two deserve, but I am going to amend the complaint to revert to CLAYTON and HINMAN...

...no sense walking into an easy motion to strike. The purpose of HOMER and WILLY has been conveyed. Keep emotions more in check--lesson learned. Fourth, this will be a major battle. If I were defense counsel, I would file a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state...

...a claim. The claim of "tortious interference with a business expectancy" is not easy. Key issue is whether blockchain network users have a "business expectancy" in the network such that UNFAIR and IMPROPER interference violates a duty (note I didn't say regular competition...

...which is just normal competitive business activity and wouldn't justify a tort claim). From my review, the application of this claim to blockchain network users has never been tested legally. And this isn't like Web1 where one company owned the protocol. Every...

...blockchain user owns a piece of the network in addition to the many utility factors. @JohnEDeaton1's motion to intervene was never tried before either, but the uniqueness of the situation and the momentous impact to everyday people got XRP holders a seat at the table in SDNY.

Fifth, our case should not have any legal impact on #SECvsRipple whatsoever. Purposefully, @Ripple is not even mentioned in the complaint. Our case is against two people acting totally outside their governmental roles and authority. If we lose on a motion to dismiss...

...it will most likely be because the court finds either (1) plaintiffs don't have a "business expectancy" in a decentralized blockchain network or (2) Defendants Clayton and Hinman will be afforded some type of governmental immunity. With (2) happening, then the next hope is...

...suing the SEC, which I will not be doing, as others are already filling that role. To summarize, any early loss in our case will be very limited to the SPECIFIC circumstances--again, this was done with intent. Lastly, this is #decentralizedjustice baby! So how about some help?

We don't need to have every factual allegation in the complaint, but if you think there is something major missing, (or typos and spelling issues which some have already found, ty) tweet me so I can review before filing the amended complaint on this format:

#reviewandrevisecomplaint
[reference paragraph number, i.e. "para. 32" or "after para. 107"]
[what to add, subtract, modify, i.e. "On [DATE], at the [LOCATION], HINMAN again said and/or intentionally gave the impression THE SPEECH was SEC guidance."]

Again, the support has been amazing. I still am updating the intake process so give me a few more days. And don't worry if this avenue is shut down, as there are many lanes that lead to justice! And I have many, many more phases in store for #XRPArmyStrikesBack!