John Deaton Gives Brilliant Breakdown of SEC/Ripple Case!
•
February 23, 2022 7:55 pm
•
Comments
John Deaton joined the Digital Asset Investor today for a killer interview.
If you haven’t seen this yet, you need to check it out.
I have the clips for you below, but it was his Tweet thread the night before that set up the interview.
On Tuesday night, Deaton went on brilliant Twitter rant, which I have for you below:
My next 🧵 will prove how the case against Garlinghouse and Larsen was dead upon filing. I might also discuss why Brad & Chris might owe a thank you to Jay Clayton.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
Last year @RoslynLayton brilliantly wrote:
“Put two and two together, and the SEC is saying that Ripple and its two top executives had to have reasonable knowledge of something seven years ago that the agency itself wasn’t sure about last Friday.”https://t.co/5iFZmoERDS
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
We all recently learned just how poetically accurate Dr. Layton was when she wrote that sentence last year.
Two pieces of critical evidence demonstrate her accuracy:
1) The October 2012 Perkins Coie Memo; and
2) The SEC’s June 13, 2018 legal analysis of #XRP.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
The Perkins Coie Opinion Memo concluded #XRP was not a security. Although we do not know exactly what the #XRP Memo says, we know what it doesn’t say. Judge Netburn ruled the SEC’s analysis of w/r #XRP is a security is privileged so the public and @Ripple do not get to read it.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
But we don’t need to know what it says b/c what it doesn’t say says:
EVERYTHING.
Judge Netburn stated that the memo DOES NOT make a recommendation.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
What that means is that the SEC enforcement lawyers conducted an in-depth analysis of w/r #XRP was a security, but didn’t recommend an enforcement action.
It is obvious that in June 2018, SEC enforcement lawyers did not definitively conclude that #XRP was a security.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
If it was clear and obvious that Ripple violated securities laws, there’s no doubt there would’ve been a recommendation to enforce those securities laws. There wasn’t.
It doesn’t matter what the memo says. If it found #XRP met 3 out of 4 Howey factors, so what! You need all 4.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
As Dr. Layton stated over a year ago, how could @chrislarsensf be reckless in not knowing #XRP was a security in 2013 when SEC enforcement lawyers couldn’t make the case in 2018?
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
The fact that Larsen and @bgarlinghouse have an opinion, from the same law firm that helped Hinman write his speech, and it concludes #XRP is not a security – 6 years BEFORE that speech – demonstrates the SEC can’t prove Brad and Chris actually believed #XRP was or is a security.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
The fact that SEC enforcement lawyers couldn’t conclude #XRP was a security in 2018 destroys the SEC’s ability to prove Larsen and Garlinghouse were reckless. To prove recklessness it must show it was obvious to anyone under those circumstances that #XRP was a security.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
If it wasn’t obvious to the experts themselves (the SEC) then it can’t be so obvious to be reckless.
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 22, 2022
After seeing this thread, DAI invited Deaton on his show to really break it down.
It’s a fantastic interview where Deaton goes year-by-year explaining the complete hypocrisy of the SEC’s case.
Multiple times over multiple years even up to right before the lawsuit was filed, the SEC continued to project the message that it had not made any determination about XRP’s status.
So how then were Ripple and Ripple execs supposed to “know” it was a security six years earlier?
Question asked and answered.
Please enjoy this one and if you know anyone who needs to get brought up to speed on the Ripple case, this interview should do it.
Part 1:
Game Over For SEC vs. @ripple Case Closed With @JohnEDeaton1 Part 1 pic.twitter.com/i3uAnzN6Vo
— Digital Asset Investor (@digitalassetbuy) February 23, 2022
And Part 2:
Game Over For SEC vs. @ripple Case Closed With @JohnEDeaton1 Part 2 pic.twitter.com/uBcOABux5Y
— Digital Asset Investor (@digitalassetbuy) February 23, 2022
Then we have a bit of breaking news…
The SEC just asked the judge to file a “sur-sur-reply” (no joke).
I absolutely love this next Tweet and the Judge’s reply:
🚨BREAKING: Judge Analisa Torres responded quickly to the @SECGov’s petition to submit a sur-sur-reply, using one word: “DENIED.” 👇🏻 pic.twitter.com/Kil6Xd3SvC
— CryptoLaw (@CryptoLawUS) February 23, 2022
One word: DENIED.
Oh how beautiful!
You think this judge gets it?
I’m starting to think so.
The SEC asked to file a Sur Sur-Reply to cite a fellow District Court Judge’s ruling from a different circuit striking an entirely different defense while not striking the substantially similar defense that’s in question. The SEC should apologize to her for having to type Denied. https://t.co/sRAjPqP8mS
— John E Deaton (@JohnEDeaton1) February 23, 2022
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.