Thread by @JohnEDeaton1

Voyager is another example of a federal judge deciding the SEC’s arguments are 💯 w/o merit.

Recent examples:

1) The @Ripple case: a federal judge, in a written ruling, literally stated SEC lawyers were being hypocrites and that they lacked faithful allegiance to the law.

https://twitter.com/autismcapital/status/1633226857306021890

In Ripple, the judge said SEC lawyers are more interested in advancing their own agenda than adhering to the law. Think about how significant that is. How do SEC lawyers enforce the law if they don’t themselves honor the law. As a former federal prosecutor, I’d be ashamed.

2) @LBRYcom case: soon I will be able to publish on @CryptoLawUS the transcripts of the last two hearings in the LBRY case. When you read them, you will see how the Judge pleaded with the SEC to provide clarity for the users of the platform and the secondary market.

The SEC basically told the judge it doesn’t do that - it doesn’t provide clarity. That’s why I and #ICAN filed amicus briefs to, at a minimum, make sure the judge’s order doesn’t apply to secondary market transactions. You will see just how frustrated the Judge got with the SEC.

3) Voyager Bankruptcy: The SEC objected to @binance’s purchase for the SOLE purpose of pushing its anti-crypto agenda.

Read what the judge said to the SEC: 👇

https://twitter.com/VGX_Heroes/status/1632766365864960006

4) @Grayscale 🆚 SEC hearing:

Months ago - before the hearing - I predicted Grayscale would win b/c the denial of a spot #BTC ETF while allowing futures and short #BTC ETFs was arbitrary and capricious under the law. The judges were troubled by the SEC’s arguments.

One judge said to the SEC attorney: “you say they must provide you with more data but you won’t identify what type of additional data they need to provide” or words to that effect.

Another judge stated that the SEC objects but offers no argument whatsoever that Grayscale’s position and analysis is wrong or flawed.

The judge said based on the SEC’s own argument, it should not have approved a futures ETF because the same analysis applies to a spot ETF.

The 4 examples above demonstrate that just because a regulator like @GaryGensler says something it doesn’t make it so. When Clayton was Chairman, the SEC declared #Bitcoin and #ETH non-securities. Hinman’s speech stating #ETH isn’t a security is still on the SEC website.

Hinman’s speech was 2018. In 2019, Clayton sent a letter to @SenTedBuddNC agreeing with Hinman’s speech. But 3 1/2 years later, Gensler says only #Bitcoin is a non-security.🤦🤯

How are our financial markets supposed to function in such a schizophrenic regulatory environment?

The point is that the Courts are the check on the SEC. The SEC admitted in its reply to my Writ of Mandamus that THE SEC DOESN’T DECIDE IF SOMETHING IS A SECURITY - THE COURT DOES.

The SEC stated “the Court will test the validity “ of the SEC’s claims.

The more judges that scrutinize the SEC’s behavior/conduct the more success we will have. Until Congress acts, which is 2-4 years away, the battle is in Court. The good news is that Gensler won’t be Chairman forever.