Ripple vs SEC: SEC Filed Another Memo Against XRP Holders Citing Evidence of Physical Violence

0
58
Ripple vs SEC: SEC Filed Another Memo Against XRP Holders Citing Evidence of Physical Violence

The US Securities and Exchange Commission has filed another memorandum against the intervention of XRP holders in the Ripple case citing evidence of physical violence.

SEC Claims XRP Holders Are Too Biased

The regulators said they could not act as amici curiae (friends of the court) because they were “too biased” and their interests were in line with those of the defendant.

Defendants Lawyer John Deaton was also accused of attacking the SEC:

“And Movants’ lawyers used profanity and mentioned physical violence to publicly criticize the SEC and its employees.”

In the first response, the SEC mentioned two cases where Deaton relied on physical violence:

“For example, in response to a report about a discovery dispute in this matter, Deaton tweeted on March 12, 2021: “[T]here is only one way to deal with a bully. PUNCH THAT MF IN HIS FACE . . . I’m up at 3 am for a reason [profanity] See you soon @ SEC_News.” On March 3, 2021, Deaton posted a video that he described as a “mock cross-examination” of Chairman Clayton containing many inflammatory statements, including about supposed drug use, and that Deaton “might have to walk over and slap the [profanity] out of Chairman Clayton.”

The SEC also noted that after mentioning interventions earlier, the defendant company was trying to “inappropriately” exacerbate the problems in the Ripple case.

Ripple Denies Promoting of Violence from its Lawyer

In turn, Ripple claimed that the SEC is attacking its lawyer by portraying Deaton as an “unhinged conspiracy theorist crusader.”

The lawyer denies incitement to violence and downplays his comments above as sarcasm and humour:

“For the SEC to use the above scenario and imply or suggest that lawyer Deaton was promoting violence or drug use is sad and pathetic. It is a clear attempt to cast Attorney Deaton in the most unfavourable light, hoping that it will have a negative impact on the motion to intervene.”

Additionally, the XRP holders reiterated that they have identifiable interests in this case, but Ripple did not adequately represent them.