Follow me on Twitter: @moonlamboio
SIGN UP FOR A FREE 7 DAY TRIALGET YOUR .CRYPTO DOMAIN AT UNSTOPPABLE DOMAINS
TRADE CRYPTO ON BINANCE HERE "LOW FEES"
DISCLAIMER: I am not a financial adviser. None of what I have communicated verbally or in writing here should be considered financial advice; it is not. Do your own research before investing in any digital asset, and understand that investing in any cryptocurrency is inherently risky. If you do, you need to be prepared to lose your entire investment.
Hello this is Matt on the moon family Sedan Channel and I found this to be Rather fascinating and exciting attorney Jeremy Hogan found a hint that indicates Judge tours in the secv Ripple case may Believe that xrp is not a security I'm Going to break down exactly why that is And I got comments from both attorney Jeremy Hogan as well as Attorney John Deaton on this exact topic but before Going further I do and be clear I do not Have a legal or financial background of Any kind I am not offering legal or Financial advice and you definitely Should not buy or sell anything because Of anything I say or right I'm just an Enthusiast who enjoys making YouTube Videos about crypto related topics but Just as a hobby and just for fun all Right so here's a new tweet from Attorney Jeremy Hogan in which he writes The following in her recent order the Judge cited the Marine Bank V Weaver Case at least three times when Discussing what a reasonable xrp Purchaser believed when they brought xrp Issue or when they bought xrp issue It's a Supreme Court case which asks Whether the things sold commonly was Commonly thought of as a security and so I'll just say I am so thankful for all Of the attorneys within our community Who break this stuff down because even Reading this stuff
Um like just for most of us including Myself like most of us are not attorneys Reading through this stuff there's no Earthly way that we would understand the Implications of some of the stuff that's Cited here and here attorney Jeremy Hogan and attorney Jeremy Attorney John Deaton breaking this down and so Attorney Hogan shared the screen grab I'll make it full screen for a second Here which reads as follows The agreement in question is not the Type of instrument that comes to mind When the term security is used and does Not fall within the ordinary concept of A security and that's from secvwj howiko Case Um and then there and then uh oh and SEC Vcm Joiner leasing Corp uh distinguished The provision of the agreement giving Respondents a share of the company's Profits is not in itself sufficient to Make the agreement a security Now to Most of us who are not lawyers again it Might be like uh little gobbledygookey Sounding but thankfully they break it Down for us here and so check out what Attorney John Deaton says he jumps into The threat here and he says read the Language here a provision in an Agreement gave the investors a share of The company's profits yet the court said The provision itself is not a security That's a major focus of xrp holders
Amicus brief xrp itself is not a Security and neither are secondary sales So here so now you can see why this is So substantial so why might and this is The key question why might judge Torres Multiple times besiding this Supreme Court case Might it be because the decision that it Came to the conclusion of that case Directly relates to whether or not the Underlying asset is a security Rethinks the answer is yes And so And this is also why it's I think it's So highly consequential that attorney John Deaton has done what he's done and Why it's so consequential that all the Amicus briefs were filed noting hey uh Hey look at us over here with our hands Raised we are an entity that is using Xrp it's not about financial gain it's Not about expectation or profits we're Functionally using it you know just like Spin the bits or tap Jets name your Company Pretty damn obvious but again all of This seems to have seriously caught the Attention of of Judge Taurus highly Consequential this is gigantic and so Again it's just a hint but it's a big Hint it's a really big hit And then attorney Deaton says in our Brief I I highlighted the character in Commerce test and wrote quote
Considering the inherent characteristics Of the underlying asset xrp is critical Before conducting a Howie analysis and Then he cited the case that's relevant Glenn Arden Commodities Inc verse Costantino and that's from 1974. so Considering the characteristics of the Underlying asset again xrp is critical Before you even get to Howie and again How does that relate here because again You go back to this case that's cited by Attorney Jeremy Hogan here well by judge Torres and then attorney Hogan notes it Here again John Deaton said a provision In an agreement uh gave the investors a Share of the company's profits yet the Court said the provision itself is not a Security the provision itself the Underlying it's not Highly consequential And then um and then attorney Deaton Also shared this quote The test rather is what character the Instrument is given in Commerce by the Terms of the offer the plan of Distribution and the economic Inducements held out to the prospect end Quote and then he says bottom line is That quote and then he shares another One and this is Um this is a reference in a case United House found Inc versus Foreman from 1975 The quote is when a purchaser is Motivated by a desire to use or consume
The item purchased the Securities laws Do not apply end quote now that's Consequential so think about that Attorney Deaton literally shared that When a purchaser is motivated by a Desire to use or consume the item Purchase the Securities laws do not Apply and then you have here judge Torres having consumed that information Sharing the Supreme Court case which is Talking about the underlying asset Itself like what it act the instrument You could say instrument that's probably More precise but it's a functionally the Same argument That's a big deal so it's a hint into What judge Torres may be thinking here a Really big hint and attorney Hogan I Think agrees based on what he said in Response to attorney Deaton attorney Hogan in response to that said After reading the dalbert order and this Was positive again the dalbert order That's the the ruling a few days ago From Judge Torres in which she smacked Down a bunch of the SEC expert Witnesses And so attorney Hogan says after reading The dalbert order I think the xrp holders brief in Submissions may turn out to be critical Exactly and that's what I was getting at Just a couple minutes ago the fact that There were all of these amicus briefs All the xrp holders all the submissions
All of that people stating why they're Doing what they're doing with xrp well If you just look at existing law it's Very clear that those could not be Securities transactions this can't be by The definition of law and then attorney Deaton responded to Hogan and said I'm Confident the judge will deny the SEC Summary judgment motion as written slash Requested When they were forced to abandon their So-called xrp holder expert whether xrp Was acquired for consumptive use is a Material fact in issue that alone Requires denying the sec's motion and so Folks this is again attorney Deaton just Saying uh he doesn't see how judge Torres could possibly Grant the sec's Motion for summary judgment he just Doesn't see how they could SEC could Possibly win as written he just he Doesn't see that happening and then Attorney Dean says the real question is How aggressive does Judge Torres get in Trying to resolve the case without a Jury for example does she find the Instance when Ripple sent a brochure to 100 potential investors in 2014 an Unregistered Securities offering but Conclude today's sales are not Good question and so we we don't know Exactly how uh judge Torres is going to Break this all down but it's certainly Possible there still are possibilities
That Ripple It could be found to have engaged in Some sort of illegal unregistered Securities transactions but again for us As xrp holders even if that happens as Long as there's a path forward for xrp And xrp itself is not found to be a Security which is the would be the right Way to approach this then we're fine Anyway it's not that I want Ripple to go Down in flames absolutely not I think They're forced for good within the xrp Ecosystem but I'm just saying even if uh They they kind of get the shaft in some Ways or if they have to pay some sort of Fine this or that okay as long as they Can live to fight another day Um and then Attorney John Deaton also Shared this judge Torres allowed me to File a motion to intervene she could Have said no right out the gate many Experienced lawyers said she would deny My request she didn't she then granted Us Amicus status and ignored the sec's Personal attacks on me she wanted to Hear our perspective And so now you can see how big of an Impact it has had because and maybe you Could say okay maybe judge Torres would Have come to these conclusions on her Own anyway maybe but isn't it a lot more Likely that she did because of all of This I think the answer is yes because All this information all this data from
All these uh people the entities that File the amethyst freeze it's so Overwhelming there's there's no way she Would have noticed it but would she have Picked up on it otherwise maybe But it's it's impossible for her to not Notice it at this point right that's the Point I'm making And then Attorney Fred raspoli a member Of the xrp community Wrote The Following in response to Attorney Hogan he said this is another Reason why I'm not 100 that Ripple Cannot win outright I still think it's a Long shot 10 percent but judge Taurus Sprinkled a lot of warnings to SEC that A total loss for them at summary Judgment is Possible Oh the anticipation So there he thinks that the attorney Respond even if it's a smaller chance That Ripple could win at summary Judgment And so and outside of that an attorney Response also he's one of the Individuals and one of the attorneys Along with um you know including Attorney John Dean who think that it's More likely now as a result of what Happened with the the uh the dalbert Rulings That you're going to see a jury trial Actually and so we really still may see That it does seem like there's an Increased in increased odds of that but
Increased odds in conjunction with judge Torres seemingly understanding the Importance of recognizing that the Underlying asset itself is not a Security which means if that hint is What we think it is then in the end However messy this gets however long it Takes the ruling is going to include Something if we're taking this hint at The way I think it's reasonable to take It There's going to be Clarity for xrp to The positive there is going to be a path Forward that's why I want to make this Video that's what's so exciting about This there's no guarantees in any of This but that's a big ass hint that Really is that is truly substantial I'm not a financial advisor you should Not buy yourself anything because of Anything I say right that would be a Very very very bad idea until next time To the Moon family sedan
