Jump to content

John Deaton New Video

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RobertHarpool said:

But I think the "limiting-a-chance-at-an-appeal" is a weak talking point.  


Because it will get appealed regardless of who loses. 

I think you may have missed the actual argument.  It’s not to reduce the chance of an appeal (as you say, that’s nearly a dead set cert) but rather to limit the chance of a successful  appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BillyOckham ... yeah, you're right, there is definitely a distinction there. 

But to get more granular, you're actually talking about limiting the grounds for an appeal ... The success or failure of an appeal will still rest on the same facts of the case. Not about the length of discovery. 

Even if the grounds for appeal are reduced to nothing (reasonable), it will still be appealed. The losing side will simply identify some niche procedural issue and go at it again ... In the interim, Netburn/Torres should end this ASAP and pass the buck to an appellate court .. for all of our sakes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Alluvial said:

What that often means, however, is that the arbitrators have pretty much decided to rule in favor of our client, and they bend over backwards to allow the other side to present their case fully and in some ways even restrict our side from presenting certain evidence if the other side objects.  They do that so that the losing side doesn't have an argument on appeal that the arbitrators were unfair to the losing party, which can cause the final ruling to be vacated.

Funny as I thought about this, a kind of hunch, when some of these decisions started going against Ripple/XRP and I didn't grasp the reasoning. Now I'm a just a schmuck on legal matters – but I was thinking from the devil's advocate view of, well, *if* the judge is competent (she seems to be), and *if* she sees through the utter nonsense the SEC is spewing (surely she does), then *why* would she keep ruling in their favor on key (if arguably minor) points? And I also thought (with zero legal training)... yeah, maybe she's doing this so when the case is inevitably studied and analyzed with a fine-toothed comb in future (she knows how big a deal this all is), it won't seem like she was unfair to the SEC and gave them every chance to put forward their (sh*tty) case. 

We can hope anyway.

Edited by thinlyspread
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.