Ripple's letter of response re SEC Client Privilege Claims

[Julian_Williams]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ps7z3pihn6ex4kq/Ripple Response re SEC Attorney Client Claims.pdf?dl=0

 

Edited Friday at 11:38 PM by Julian_Williams

[HAL1000]

 

[retryW]

**** that's a good read.

This lawyer is a beast. Being ex-SEC do we think he's seen some of the corruption there and as such has a bone to pick?

The sharpness in his tone seems almost personal at times in the best way possible.

[Julian_Williams]

 

[HAL1000]

Jeremy Hogan

Solomon also plays a veteran move in responding to the SEC and argues that ONLY Hinman has the standing to even raise the privilege (and not the SEC). It's good legal work to take an issue down to a basic premise - is this even the proper party to object? Hence, King Solomon.

-------------------

Do you know how much it costs to consult with legal experts, especially considering how many are now involved according to the SEC's privilege assertions? Who was paying for their time, oh yeah, that would be taxpayers.

Seem's like a lot of time and money was wasted on a speech, that had no merit or use, beyond confusing the crypto markets and filling the pockets of some insiders, who knew in advance what effect it would have!

Mind you, I guess if you and your friends run the very agency that is supposed to go after people, who manipulate markets etc, then you would probably be thinking, my friends will protect me, if this ever gets out, especially if some of them are in on it, after all some of them may have as much to lose as I have.

Makes you wonder why the SEC are protecting Bill and these emails, doesn't it!

Edited Saturday at 01:51 AM by HAL1000

[VanHasen]

 

 

[Julian_Williams]

So many good lawyers on our side giving us their opinions/commentary - Deaton, Filan, Hogan, Bill, Rispoli......they all agree SEC are up a tree.

Edited Saturday at 11:33 AM by Julian_Williams

[RobertHarpool]

My favorite line:

"The attorney-client privilege does extend to a confidential communication from an attorney to a client, but only if that communication is based on confidential information provided by the client." 

Edited Saturday at 11:30 PM by RobertHarpool

[panmores]

Every law student would fail exams with the SEC reasonings. It has become too embarrassing to even attempt to explain the juggernaut of twisted SEC rationales that have absolutely no basis in law.

[brianwalden]

19 hours ago, RobertHarpool said:

My favorite line:

"The attorney-client privilege does extend to a confidential communication from an attorney to a client, but only if that communication is based on confidential information provided by the client." 

I haven't read anything, but this kind of ties in to how Ripple lost the ruling to keep some of its legal advice out of the trial. Because they had shared it with other parties, it was no longer confidential.

If Hinman was receiving personal legal advice and he shared it with the SEC, then it's no longer confidential.

If the legal advice was to the SEC as a whole and not Hinman in particular, then they can't legitimately claim that this was Hinman's personal opinion.

They've kind of worked their way into tight spot.

[JASCoder]

ICYMI: Here’s Fox’s Eleanor with her summary