[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Amicus Curiae attorney and CryptoLaw US founder John E. Deaton had this to say<\/a>,<\/p>\n \u201cHere\u2019s Clayton lighting the American people. Dude\u2019s a total fraud. He VOTED. Of course it\u2019s his decision. As Chairman, he controlled the money and the agenda. If he didn\u2019t want to file the case against Ripple & XRP, on his very last day, before leaving the SEC to go advise One River on its $1B bet on BTC & ETH, he wouldn\u2019t have.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Deaton went on to say,<\/p>\n \u201cHe had the ability to say that since Consensys was represented by his law firm and was brokering the Quorum JPMCoin deal, due to the mere appearance of impropriety and inherent conflicts of interest, he shouldn\u2019t vote for an enforcement action against his law firm\u2019s client\u2019s biggest competitor, and thus, recuse himself. It was his last day at the SEC after-all. Why file the most significant non-fraud enforcement action in modern history and walk out the door to leave for the new Chairman. Why you might ask indeed?\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n On Saturday, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse shared<\/a> his views on a Jay Clayton interview on the Squawk Box, stirring the XRP Community.<\/p>\n Deaton responded to the Garlinghouse reaction, saying<\/a>,<\/p>\n \u201cYou have to remember Clayton, Hinman, and Marc Berger were the driving forces behind filing the cast against Ripple. Clayton was clearly the one who pushed to sue Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen, as he is on video with Joe Grundfest saying that even in non-fraud cases he likes to sue the executives because it changes the dynamics of the lawsuit.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The timing of the focus on Clayton, Hinman, and the SEC coincides with the SEC and Ripple moving toward a briefing schedule.<\/p>\n In the ongoing SEC v Ripple case<\/a>, Judge Analisa Torres ordered<\/a> both parties to jointly propose a briefing schedule concerning remedies for the remaining charges against Ripple.<\/p>\n Some members of the crypto community believe Ripple has the upper hand in settlement talks. The infamous William Hinman speech and Hinman speech-related documents<\/a> are a focal point in the SEC v Ripple case. Significantly, the SEC attempted<\/a>, on at least six occasions, to shield the Hinman-speech-related documents under attorney-client privilege.<\/p>\n Progress to trial would place the documents into public scrutiny.<\/p>\n As background, former SEC Director of the Division of Corporation Finance William Hinman said that Bitcoin (BTC<\/a>) and Ethereum (ETH<\/a>) are not securities. Hinman\u2019s connection with Simpson Thacher was a contentious issue. Simpson Tacher is part of a group that promotes Enterprise Ethereum. After leaving the SEC, Hinman returned to Simpson Thacher.<\/p>\n The Hinman speech-related documents could feature in any settlement discussions. However, there is concern that the SEC will appeal the Programmatic Sales of XRP ruling<\/a>. The consensus is that the SEC is expediting the SEC v Ripple case to appeal the Programmatic sales ruling.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
SEC v Ripple: November 9 Deadline Approaching<\/h2>\n