XRP Lawsuit: Ripple Claims That SEC Is Trying To Hide Its Flaws From Public Criticism• June 16, 2022 3:06 pm • Comments
In the latest development of the Ripple vs SEC lawsuit, Ripple just filed a new three letter response to the SEC’s submission of its proposed redactions to its letter that opposes the Movants’ motion.
The contents of what was contained in Ripple’s response has already been shared publicly on Twitter by defense attorney James Filan.
The letter states that the SEC is essentially trying to conceal the remainder of its opposition letter that it filed most likely due to the fact that there are contents within the letter that would show the agency’s lack of competency.
However, there needs to be good reason for the redactions to actually take place and Ripple is explaining why the SEC should not be able to do so.
XRP Lawsuit: Ripple Claims SEC Is Attempting to Conceal Its Flaws from Public Criticism https://t.co/9zXBKFOV0I
— Martin Valk ☀️ (@martincpvalk) June 16, 2022
As stated in a brief shared by defense lawyer, James K. Filan, the Ripple defendants stated no objection to the SEC’s move to seal off some exhibits in their entirety, including those identifying information about the expert.
It states that the SEC decided to seal the remainder of the exhibits and its proposed redactions to the opposition letter it filed. Ripple feels that the SEC “has not satisfied the standards in sealing off the documents.”
Further, “the SEC has requested redactions of passages that demonstrate the weakness of the expert’s analysis.” These passages do not pose any safety risk but instead appear to be targeting information that would reflect weakness in the SEC’s case.”
In previous updates, the agency filed a letter requesting that the court seal a portion of Exhibit A to the Ripple defendants’ latest filing regarding the insufficiency of the SEC’s responses to the Fourth Set of Requests for Admission, to which Ripple did not object.
Last month, the SEC witness Patrick Doody had also claimed to know that he understands what motivated XRP investors to buy the asset.
Of course, such a notion was challenged by John Deaton who filed an amicus brief to participate in a Daubert challenge relating to the opinion of expert SEC witness Patrick Doody.
Obviously, there should be no one that can better represent the XRP holders than the holders themselves which makes it strange as to why the SEC would be opposed to that.
Instead, it prefers to use a witness that the agency “hand selected” themselves which was much opposed by the Ripple legal team.
Additional updates include the fact that the court has recently ordered the SEC to provide 10 additional documents for in-camera review to assist with the attorney-client privilege decision.
#XRPCommunity #XRP #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP The Ripple Defendants have filed their response to the SEC’s submission of proposed redactions to the SEC’s letter opposing Movants’ motion to file an amicus brief regarding one of the SEC’s experts. pic.twitter.com/6w8Cr5m0u9
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪103k+ (beware of imposters) (@FilanLaw) June 15, 2022
In another update shared by James K. Filan, the court has ordered the SEC to provide to the court, by June 16, 10 additional documents for in-camera review to assist the court with its decision regarding the SEC’s claims of attorney-client privilege in connection with the Hinman speech.
Meanwhile, the XRP community continues to keep its fingers crossed regarding the Hinman email issue.
XRP-friendly attorney Fred Rispoli continues to maintain optimism regarding this and the case in general.
Ultimately, the odds continue to tilt in Ripple’s favor against the SEC as the case continues to progress and gets closer to conclusion.
SEC’s winning potential decreases. There would be 10 less documents in the evidentiary record for Torres (or 2nd Cir) to review, while Ripple would hammer that SEC had yet another chance to produce more docs to support its contention yet passed on the opportunity.
— Fred Rispoli (@freddyriz) June 16, 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.