Ripple (XRP) Attorney Speaks Up: SEC’s Misjudgment Exposed!

• John Deaton, Ripple’s lawyer, criticized the SEC’s logic regarding XRP secondary sales.
• Deaton challenged the SEC to provide evidence of an investment contract between a buyer and seller or supporter without any confidentiality or contact.
• Deaton argued that the SEC lacks evidence to support its claim that secondary market sales are securities.

John Deaton, Ripple’s lawyer, has expressed his disagreement with the SEC’s claims about XRP secondary sales. He challenged the SEC to provide evidence of an investment contract without any confidentiality or contact between parties. According to Deaton, the SEC lacks evidence to support its theory that secondary market sales are securities. He also disagrees with the notion that the SEC has the right to pursue unsupported new theories. Deaton believes that if the SEC is presenting new and unsupported theories, then the Fair Notice Defense should be applied. He further suggests that the judge in the Ripple-SEC case will likely address the issue of secondary market sales and may provide more information on the matter.

Ripple’s Lawyer Disagrees with SEC’s Claims on XRP Secondary Sales

Ripple’s lawyer, John Deaton, took to Twitter to express his disagreement with the SEC’s claims about XRP secondary sales. He challenged the SEC to provide a single example that proves the existence of an investment contract without any confidentiality or contact between a buyer and seller or supporter. According to Deaton, the SEC has failed to provide evidence to support its claims.

Deaton argues that there is no evidence to support the SEC’s theory that secondary market sales are securities when considering all the laws. He also disagrees with those who claim that the SEC has the right to pursue unsupported new theories. According to Deaton, if the SEC is presenting new and unsupported theories, then the Fair Notice Defense should be applied.

Deaton believes that the judge in the Ripple-SEC case will likely address the issue of secondary market sales. He suggests that the judge may not remain silent, especially considering the various amicus briefs submitted in the Ripple dispute, which could provide more information about secondary market sales.