@SEC_News @Ripple

As a former federal prosecutor I can tell you that what governs the case is the Complaint (not a statement on the record (unless it’s a stipulation) or a statement made in a motion.

That’s why the SEC filed an Amended Complaint - to cure deficiencies.

The SEC states in its opposition that it is not alleging secondary market sales as violations. That simply means they aren’t alleging it IN THIS CASE. If XRP itself is deemed a security as the SEC alleges, then they could claim violations in future cases.

That is why the exchanges would permanently delist XRP.

People can continue to misstate the truth all they want. All the SEC had to do was stipulate that they are only claiming that XRP when sold by Ripple is a security. They refuse.

John Deaton didn’t write the Complaint.

I have attached just a few of the allegations in the Complaint that demonstrate the SEC’s theory.

“The nature of XRP itself”

“The very nature of XRP in the market”

That’s why Judge Netburn (not John Deaton) said to the SEC, ON THE RECORD, that based on the SEC’s Complaint and

theory of the case:

“every individual in the world who is selling XRP is committing a Section 5 violation.”

That was the Judge, not me. I know - it’s absurd. I’m sure some people find it hard to believe the SEC would make this argument. But they claim XRP has no utility.

They claim XRP has no utility even today. They just said it again in their Opposition papers.

So if anyone claims the SEC is only arguing that when Ripple sells XRP it’s a violation, is ignoring the Complaint (which governs the case) and the Judge.

I’m fair game. People can

ignore me or criticize me. I’m not perfect and I’ll be the first person to agree that I’m a flawed human being just like everyone else.

@HesterPeirce said in an interview with on @ThinkingCrypto1 she is trying to get the SEC away from viewing the Token as a security.

So am I