3) Suing @bgarlinghouse & @chrislarsensf individually, even though fraud or misrepresentation ISN’T alleged, forcing the SEC to meet a much higher burden of proof to establish the executives were reckless in not knowing #XRP was a security (despite the SEC itself not knowing);
4) Worried about @Ripple’s fair notice defense, the SEC tried to be cute and called Hinman’s speech his personal opinion only, which waived any invocation of the deliberative process privilege.
Why were these rookie and glaring prosecutorial mistakes made by such smart lawyers?
Go to Crypto-Law.us and select video library and watch and read our indisputable fact timeline. To be candid, Joseph Grundfest alluded to the reasons why before any of us.
These gross mistakes were made b/c the lawsuit itself served as both the means and the end.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I wasn’t privy to the talks between Ripple and the SEC. I assume the SEC made it clear it intends to appeal to J. Torres and attempt to appeal to the 2nd Circuit. I’ve maintained that this case has hurt Ripple’s business more than people think b/c of its international success.
Ripple does not want to place this case on hold while the Hinman emails are being litigated. Ripple likely wants certain motions to move forward with an ability to supplement the legal briefs with relevant and probative information ascertained from the Hinman emails, later.
I would anticipate Ripple wants to file a Daubert motion on one or more of the SEC’s 8 experts. A Daubert motion is when you challenge the testimony and opinions of an expert witness b/c the opinion is ultimately unreliable (ie b/c of flawed methodology, lack of foundation, etc).
One of the alternative motives I raised in the Writ of Mandamus, filed only 9 days after the @Ripple lawsuit, was about Clayton’s personal gain. Immediately after the case against #XRP was filed, I wrote the lawsuit appeared to be used as a weapon.
Many of you may recall, I wrote the Ethereum Free Pass memo and the original undisputed facts timeline 🧵 that has 6 million impressions. 👇
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!
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!!
I need the internet sleuths to start digging. As bad as it already looks for Hinman, I firmly believe his involvement and his conflicts are even greater than presently known. I also believe the SEC has been in full cover up mode.
The SEC made a false statement when it originally stated there were no responsive documents relevant to the @EMPOWR_us FOIA requests. Only after @JsnFostr and Empower filed suit in federal court did they “realize” the error and correct the falsehood (b/c Empower didn’t fold).
Likewise, the SEC initially informed me the Hinman Calendar was not used for official government reasons and denied my FOIA request. I appealed and its on remand. But I fully expect to sue them for violating FOIA before they turn over his calendar. Why are they fighting so hard?
@EricLiptonNYT
is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who wrote a great story on this case some time ago. To his credit, in the story, he acknowledged claims related to conflicts of interest. I remember discussing the $15M paid to Hinman in “retirement benefits.”
I responded that its very easy to classify ongoing payments as “retirement” and skirt the rules. We now have clear proof that that is exactly what occurred.
Hinman had a financial interest in the ongoing success of his law firm WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING EMPLOYED BY THE @SECGov.
As Chairman, Clayton blessed the plan to bypass the ethics rules. It is now well settled that Clayton and Hinman’s law firms were directly tied to Ethereum.
Is it a coincidence that Clayton was the ONLY Commissioner to receive and give input in the #Ether free pass speech?
This article and the comments of @GaryGensler highlight the danger of allowing the SEC to continue its destructive practice of Regulation by Enforcement.
According to the article, @GaryGensler stated, once again, that he believes most cryptocurrencies are securities. In fact, he refuses to even declare #ETH a non-security. How hard is that?