Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

Remember immediately after the @LBRYcom decision what I said. I said it was a total victory for the SEC and that SEC attorneys couldn’t have written a better decision for them. I also said the SEC and many other people would make a BIG deal about it.

https://twitter.com/utoday_en/status/1600406037474967557

I also said that if Judge Torres followed the LBRY Judge’s reasoning, Ripple would outright lose. I said that reasoning would cause a lot of “Ripple will lose” comments. Its expected b/c holding a lot of #LBC was a big deal to the judge and Ripple holds 1/2 the #XRP.

Personally, I believe the SEC snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in this case because it chose to go with an all or nothing theory (unless the judge decides to split the baby).

Remember, the Judge in LBRY is in the 1st Circuit and has to follow the SG case. Judge Torres is in the 2nd Circuit and must follow Revak and other cases. Also, remember LBRY didn’t challenge 2 out of 3 Howey factors. The common enterprise factor is a REAL problem for the SEC.

When someone says the SEC is going to win, respectfully ask what that “win” looks like. Are they saying the Judge is going to Rule: GRANTED to the SEC’s summary judgment, as written?

For ex, a ruling in favor of the SEC that Ripple offered an unregistered security in 2014 to the approximate 100 people it sent a brochure to but present day sales are not a security is a complete Ripple victory.

If Judge Torres agrees with this:

“The Howey test must be applied to each transaction and examined as of the time that the transaction took place.” S.E.C. v. Aqua–Sonic Prods. Corp., 524 F. Supp. 866, 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1981).

Then the SEC has a real problem.

The SEC’s specific evidence are things like a brochure to 100 people in 2014, a 2013 Tweet, an email to an investor in 2015, a list of exchanges trading XRP in 2017 on Ripple’s website.

The SEC offering these examples from almost a decade ago to present day might be a problem.