Thread by @freddyriz

Here we go on my thoughts on the RFA motion! TLDR is that SEC has nothing--NOTHING--to defeat FN defense which will play right into SEC losing on the security issue. 1/15
@Belisarius2020 @attorneyjeremy1 @JohnEDeaton1 @XRPArmyNews1 @JayVTheGreat @JTXRP_AGWJames

There are 3 types of written discovery: RFAs, NUIs and RFPs. RFAs (requests for admission) are important because admissions become undisputed facts—and failure to answer is deemed an admission. A party uses RFAs to force the other side to take a position. 2/15

No surprise, SEC trying to have it both ways. Not answering (not stating its position) by objecting. But its objections are ridiculous. SEC doesn’t know what the terms “market participant” “digital asset” “policy” “ether” and “bitcoin” mean? Give me an effing break. 3/15

SEC admitted (268-69) as of 1/16/18, its guidance had no opinion as to whether XRP (or any digital asset) was a security. Admits it told market participants XRP was not viewed as a security (322-37, 345). Absolute deadly daggers to SEC winning FN. 4/15

RFAs 322-37 weren’t even part of the dispute. Makes me think this was an Easter egg by counsel to the #XRPcommunity. Nice job, Lisa! 5/15

RFA 560: “the Commission admits that prior to the filing of this Enforcement action on December 22, 2020, the Commission never publicly stated that it considered transactions in XRP to involve securities.” Nuff said. 6/15

Also, the lies by the SEC about the XRP on the Watch List (294) adds yet another blow to SEC credibility. How many times will the judges allow these *cough* errors to continue? Read 339 & 340 for yourself. What a ******* joke. 7/15

SEC essentially says “We created FinHub to fake out everyone that asked for help. Gotcha, b****ez!” It’s basically confirmed (278) SEC made no effort to restrict SEC employees from trading XRP. Can't argue FN if SEC is letting its own employees trade unregistered securities. 8/15

Who was the blacked-out name on RFA 347? Also, if case does go to trial, take heart knowing Jay Clayton will look like an ABSOLUTE CLOWN on the stand. Not definitive, but looks like he got several direct requests on XRP (360 forward). No one said XRP was a security (362). 9/15

SEC employee Amy Starr gets direct email from ConsenSys on Coinbase’s securities law framework. Man, Lubin has one hand in the SEC and the other in his pocket, clutching his little piece of paper, don’t he? 10/15

SEC's responses are a clear, unambiguous example of flagrant discovery abuse. J. Netburn has all the ammo she needs to slam SEC for insane discovery violations. Every SEC atty that signed off on these responses should be sanctioned. 11/15

I’ll go on record stating I will be deeply disappointed in J. Netburn if she does not seriously admonish SEC for its gamesmanship on these RFAs. @johndedeaton1 mentioned a few examples already. 12/15

Others include SEC not knowing if it attended CL’s Oct. 2013 presentation (493) yet produced an email from the SEC employee that attended?!? Pathetic. It will be telling to see what J. Netburn does here. 13/15

Finally, this filing is another reason why I think SEC will not settle. The SEC has nothing. NOTHING! Its extreme, embarrassing delay tactics get worse with each one we see. Good news is Ripple will win IMO, but bad news is that win isn’t likely coming until sometime...14/15

...in Dec. 2022-Mar. 2023 (absent the 3 settlement options I've previously mentioned).

PS-New Rule. You cannot read or say Robert “Action” Jackson’s name without doing your own best impression of his signature head bob. 15/15