In a recent development of the ongoing SEC vs. Ripple lawsuit, the defense lawyers have submitted a letter to the judge, arguing that the SEC is now rebuking the comments of its commissioners to turn the tables against its officials and in SEC’s favor. The defendants have called SEC’s attempt to re-emphasize and accentuate their end of the argument, lamentable.
Ripple’s response stated, “it goes on to publicly rebuke these two Commissioners’ considered views that merely acknowledge what is plain and obvious to all…The SEC then asserts that the Commissioners’ statements are legally “irrelevant” to their claims of aiding-and-abetting against Mr. Larsen and Mr. Garlinghouse. This gratuitous attempt to re-argue its flawed position by way of an unauthorized sur-reply is meritless.”
#XRPCommunity #SECGov v. #Ripple #XRP Individual Defendants respond to SEC’s letter regarding public statement by Commissioners Peirce and Roisman, describing SEC response as going “on to publicly rebuke these two Commissioners’ considered views” that there is no clarity. pic.twitter.com/sTVjbZpAHF
— James K. Filan 🇺🇸🇮🇪 (@FilanLaw) July 23, 2021
Upon Ripple’s plea for dismissal referring to the comments by two of SEC’s commissioners; the SEC wrote a letter to Judge Torres arguing the legal irrelevance of the statements. SEC stated that the former commissioners’ comments could not be used to request a dismissal.
“The Statement at issue is not a statement of the SEC itself or any sort of binding authority on this Court,” wrote SEC attorney Mark Sylvester in a letter to Judge Torres. “The SEC is correct when it points out that statements by individual Commissioners (or a couple of Commissioners), issued in a press release or otherwise made public, do not constitute the position of the SEC acting as a Commission — in other words, such statements carry no legal weight and are simply the individual opinions of the Commissioners who make them…It is hard to argue that the later statement by a couple of the Commissioners is an argument in favor of the defense to the lawsuit that Ripple is advancing, i.e., lack of ‘fair notice.’”, Sylvester added.
Where Ripple is arguing over SEC’s incapability of issuing a “fair notice” to the company, informing them of the XRP violation; SEC disagrees and states Ripple’s irresponsibility that they overlooked security breach.
The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.