Jump to content

The SEC has filed its Objections to Netburn's Ruling compelling the SEC to turn over the Hinman documents.


HAL1000
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

They're not getting turned over. Is my guess. 

Hinman is guilty and the SEC are guilty of organised crime and a cover up. These documents would help proof this, so the SEC will not want to send themselves or their fellow conspirators to jail, so settlement is inbound.

2 minutes ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

I skimmed most of it. Is my understanding that they are characterizing Netburn as essentially an idiot somewhat accurate?

Netburn is no idiot, she knows the importance of this case and has gone out of her way, so as to make it as appeal proof as she possibly could. The SEC have mishandled and misjudged at nearly every step, both the legal fight they have gotten themselves into, and the attention and public backlash THEY have caused. This case and the SEC's actions in the blockchain space, has finally brought about both the congressional and public scrutiny, this agency has so badly been lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly care little about the criminality involving the speech. I don't mind not seeing the speech documents, as long as whatever the Ripple lawyers are doing translates to the clarity of XRP in the secondary markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RipMcGillicuddy said:

They're not getting turned over. Is my guess. 

The issue I see with the SEC’s argument is this - they are claiming that the leaders of the SEC can provide what they would term as guidance to the market in lieu of regulations, but that if the market takes it as guidance, it’s their own fault. The SEC can change their mind and simply walk back that whole thing.

In this case, not only did the Director of Fin Corp give the speech, the SEC chair referred market participants to that speech as guidance. The chair also used this speech as an example when Congress asked about the lack of clarity in digital asset markets. I don’t know about others but I personally took this as guidance at the time. 

If the SEC wants to win on a technicality that there is a single PS at the end of the speech saying it’s not market guidance, there is no reason to give those speeches in the first place except to confuse market participants.

That said, you may well be right. Just because it sounds “obvious” doesn’t mean those notes are turned over. Legality has a different standard than common sense. I don’t expect Ripple’s case to rely on the FND. I think they can and do plan to win on Howey.  But if the SEC wins on this, I’m afraid they lose a generation’s public trust for a long long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Ripley said:

The issue I see with the SEC’s argument is this - they are claiming that the leaders of the SEC can provide what they would term as guidance to the market in lieu of regulations, but that if the market takes it as guidance, it’s their own fault. The SEC can change their mind and simply walk back that whole thing.

In this case, not only did the Director of Fin Corp give the speech, the SEC chair referred market participants to that speech as guidance. The chair also used this speech as an example when Congress asked about the lack of clarity in digital asset markets. I don’t know about others but I personally took this as guidance at the time. 

If the SEC wants to win on a technicality that there is a single PS at the end of the speech saying it’s not market guidance, there is no reason to give those speeches in the first place except to confuse market participants.

That said, you may well be right. Just because it sounds “obvious” doesn’t mean those notes are turned over. Legality has a different standard than common sense. I don’t expect Ripple’s case to rely on the FND. I think they can and do plan to win on Howey.  But if the SEC wins on this, I’m afraid they lose a generation’s public trust for a long long time.

Billy and J along with a whole host of conspirators decided to kill the competition and at the same time, why not pump their own stuff (ETH). These are supposed to be the top people at an agency, that is tasked with keeping orderly markets and spotting market manipulators... THEY knew exactly what THEY where doing and the effects it would have on the markets. This is conspiracy, crime and cover up, at the top, of the financial and political world. Make no mistake, there is a plan, by THEM, and that's why mainstream news is ignoring it for the most part.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, VanHasen said:

You think torres will grant it? Based on what? (didnt read it yet) 

I think they may have taken Netburn's own "you can't have it both ways" approach to them, and turned it directly back on her. That was my impression of what they were trying to do. 

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
 Share


×
×
  • 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.