XRP Lawsuit: S.E.C. Claims Withheld Hinman Documents Are Protected• December 10, 2021 10:33 am • Comments
The S.E.C. appears to be obfuscating.
This agency has failed to protect investors numerous times including but not limited to: Enron, the Madoff scandal, and the dot.com bubble of the late 90’s.
Now they claim to be the stalwart protectors of investors from ‘shadowy’ cryptocurrency firms, but in reality all they are doing is potentially destroying the investments of tens of thousands of hardworking people.
Trending: JUST IN: Binance Exits Russia
The fact that they are choosing now of all times to grandstand, and Ripple Labs of all firms to grandstand against only shows their age, and the idea that the time may be now to completely dissolve The Securities and Exchange Commission.
According to the latest court proceedings in the ongoing Ripple vs S.E.C. lawsuit, The S.E.C. is attempting to claim that records of the now infamous Hinman speech are protected under a provision known as “deliberative process privilege”.
This provision is meant to protect organizations and corporations from having to divulge critical information related to a process or procedure.
Obviously, one can see the value in this as this protects patents, processes, and sensitive information which gives value and a competitive edge to our businesses and organizations.
That being said, The S.E.C. provides nothing of value, nor do they hold any patents, nor have they created any products or processes which further the human race, or even profit motives for investors.
There is a precedent behind their request, but a complete lack of faith and trust in all government institutions at this point should supersede any previous precedent in a system which is broken, and only seems to be getting worse.
This provision should not apply to them because they are a government bureaucratic agency, and The United States is a country which purportedly prides itself on transparency.
Here are the latest developments in the Ripple vs S.E.C. case:
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Judge Netburn orders the parties to file supplemental briefing on Deliberative Process Privilege in light on recent Second Circuit case. https://t.co/KojVb9SOQZ pic.twitter.com/HCYJYAtwuW
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) December 3, 2021
The @SECGov knew that they had miss led EVERYONE with the “Hinman Speech” yet never bothered to correct the narrative they started. Instead of correcting, Hinman jokes about it. @CGasparino @JohnEDeaton1 #XRP @BrianBrooksUS @Ripple pic.twitter.com/vooLrSbxcG
— Jeff (@ISO_XRP) December 9, 2021
According to AMB Crypto, The S.E.C claims that documents relating to the Hinman speech are protected under ‘deliberative process privilege’:
Now, the SEC is using this reading to defend the right to protect its communication regarding the Hinman Speech, which has been a source of debate during the lawsuit. About these “protected messaging records,” the SEC further said,
“These documents consist of draft talking points and Q&A for future speeches by the then-SEC Chair and the then-Director of the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance, Bill Hinman, as well as a draft of Director Hinman’s June 2018 speech rearding, among other things, offers and sales of Ether.”
👀 Former @SECGov commissioner Troy A. Paredes and securities attorney Scott H. Kimpel viewed Hinman's speech as the view of the staff and not his personal opinion. 👀 @_XRpizza @digitalassetbuy @BakkupBradley @JohnEDeaton1 @CryptoLawUS @BlackberryXRP pic.twitter.com/8jA2QRi9jE
— TAIG (@TAIGxrp) December 10, 2021
Att'y Solomon spitting fire once again:
"The SEC cannot have it both ways: If the Hinman speech was not a communication of agency policy then any deliberation regarding the speech is not entitled to any DPP protection…"
And THAT may be the phrase that wins the day for Ripple. https://t.co/JMrDAKBIG7
— Jeremy Hogan (@attorneyjeremy1) December 8, 2021
U Today states:
At the same time, attorney Jeremy Hogan shares that this extraordinary document (“law change”) favors the position of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
However, commentators should wait for the release of new briefs, Mr. Hogan concludes. He compared the court order to the behavior of a “daddy” who changes his child’s bedtime.
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.