SEC files motion requesting until February 17, 2022 to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the DPP Ruling

[HAL1000]

 

[CryptoPitbull]

Wow what a F***ing joke this has become. 

They really don't want those emails out there. 

This is a kick in the balls after a day like today.

What are the chances of this actually being granted?

[Guest]

Ugh. The judge ruled on this and the SEC is asking for an extension? 

First they say it's Hinman's personal opinion not SEC affiliated, and now they are saying it is? 

I really hope the judge sticks to her decision. Put the pressure and have these clowns settle or be exposed. 

[JASCoder]

Does anyone know if the judge was reviewed all this material that so terrify the SEC ?

[HAL1000]

To sum up - we are the SEC, and we can do what we like, even defy the court and stonewall and BS anybody and everybody!

Ripple and the judge, hand over the documents, NO, NO, NO, NO, good luck you F'ing banking crony crooks. This is turning into a complete mockery of the so-called American justice system.

Ripple + all of us + most of crypto, along with the court and now mainstream media is showing up the SEC for the extremely corrupt agency it has always been. GG and his puppet masters had better get the message, keep this up and THEY will be removed via a very large scale, global democratic process.

Crypto Law - International Connect to Congress:-

https://www.crypto-law.us/connect-to-congress/

[elias]

2 minutes ago, CryptoPitbull said:

Wow what a F***ing joke this has become. 

They really don't want those emails out there. 

This is a kick in the balls after a day like today.

What are the chances of this actually being granted?

Sounds like they want to release *more* emails.

Quote

The SEC respectfully submits that these additional documents clarify the truly deliberative nature of the discussions surrounding the speech across the SEC, and show that the speech was not "merely peripheral to actual policy formation," but was in fact an "'essential link' in the SEC's deliberative process with respect to Ether" and other digital assets.

Sounds like they are saying they haven't decided whether Eth is a security or not yet but making public speeches saying it isn't is just an "essential link" of their "deliberative process".

[HAL1000]

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, elias said:

Sounds like they want to release *more* emails.

Sounds like they are saying they haven't decided whether Eth is a security or not yet but making public speeches saying it isn't is just an "essential link" of their "deliberative process".

I would think that is a key point. First, it's Hinman's personal opinion. Second, because it is his personal opinion, the Defendants want to understand how it came to be in relation to ether. That's fair game because ether is not in a legal battle. Hinman declared and signed an affidavit that this speech is his personal opinion. 

Part of discovery is to find out why and how. The SEC more than likely have the Ethereum Alliance involved, or perhaps there is language in the emails that prove that NO determination on any asset has been made as of that date and they are trying to clarify themselves, which will essentially provide the what the Defendants need for the FND. I'm just speculating here. 

Why would they continually stall? Stalling justice is denying justice, right Gary? So why not be clear with the market? The SEC protecting us? How? This is unbelievable. They have made a joke out of our country. 

[HAL1000]

 

[HAL1000]

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Cambridge said:

Ugh. The judge ruled on this and the SEC is asking for an extension? 

First they say it's Hinman's personal opinion not SEC affiliated, and now they are saying it is? 

I really hope the judge sticks to her decision. Put the pressure and have these clowns settle or be exposed. 

They did much worse. They first asked Judge Netburn for an extension to file the request to review the decision.

Then they filed another request to Judge Torres to give 21 days *after* Judge Netburn’s decision on the motion to file an appeal.

Effectively here is what they are saying -

• SEC will file an additional motion (by but really on) Feb 17.
• Judge Netburn will need to do an in-camera review and give a decision. Say that takes end of Feb to mid-March.
• If Judge Netburn once again rules that DPP doesn’t apply, then they *will* appeal to Torres and they want another 3 weeks for that. So end of March to mid-April for them to file an appeal.
• Then Judge Torres will need to rule. Probably end of April.

And just like that they added up to three month delay to the case.

Or Judge Netburn agrees with them and they will have added 1.5 months to the lawsuit.

Here’s the pinch. They said this won’t add any delay because there are no more deadlines after expert discovery anyway

Edited January 22, 2022 by Ripley

[GrumpyDon]

1 hour ago, elias said:

Sounds like they want to release *more* emails.

Not quite. They want to provide more documents to the judge to review in camera which they believe provide context/ justification that the documents she has already reviewed and declared as not covered by DPP, should in fact be covered by DPP and therefore withheld from the defendants.

[HAL1000]

 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Ripley said:

They did much worse. They first asked Judge Netburn for an extension to file the request to review the decision.

Then they filed another request to Judge Torres to give 21 days *after* Judge Netburn’s decision on the motion to file an appeal.

Effectively here is what they are saying -

• SEC will file an additional motion (by but really on) Feb 17.
• Judge Netburn will need to do an in-camera review and give a decision. Say that takes end of Feb to mid-March.
• If Judge Netburn once again rules that DPP doesn’t apply, then they *will* appeal to Torres and they want another 3 weeks for that. So end of March to mid-April for them to file an appeal.
• Then Judge Torres will need to rule. Probably end of April.

And just like that they added up to three month delay to the case.

Or Judge Netburn agrees with them and they will have added 1.5 months to the lawsuit.

Here’s the pinch. They said this won’t add any delay because there are no more deadlines after expert discovery anyway

Thanks for the additional info.

I hope Judge Netburn denies this SEC request. 

How do you know they filed a request to Judge Torres?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Cambridge said:

Thanks for the additional info.

I hope Judge Netburn denies this SEC request. 

How do you know they filed a request to Judge Torres?

This is the second letter to Judge Torres - 

https://www.crypto-law.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/01212022-SEC-Letter-Requesting-Extention-to-File-Objections-on-DPP-Order.pdf