- John E Deaton tweeted that the court would bring the SEC-Ripple case clarity.
- Deaton added that he is prepared to fight for the lawsuit’s clarity in court.
- The lawyer’s tweet was in response to Terrett’s post in which she highlighted the SEC’s budget proposal.
John E Deaton, the defense lawyer, and popular commentator of the ongoing SEC-Ripple lawsuit, tweeted today morning, reiterating what he has been affirming for the previous 2 years that “clarity comes from court” and neither from the Congress nor the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). He added that the case could be heard by the Supreme Court and that he is prepared to “fight in the court”.
Notably, on March 14, Deaton shared a thread on his official Twitter page citing the recent updates on the SEC-Ripple lawsuit and his comments on it:
Significantly, his tweet was in response to the Twitter post of Eleanor Terrett, the journalist at the American media company Fox Business. Terrett, in her post, mentioned the SEC’s Congressional Budget Proposal, highlighting the agency’s attempts to “ramp up crypto enforcement”.
Corroborating her comment, Terrett added a screenshot of the budget proposal, focusing on the area where the agency narrates about their plans to implement more strategies to ensure proper compliance in the crypto space, quoting:
While we ensure that the issuers, intermediaries, and tokens properly come into compliance, we will not hesitate to use every tool in our toolbox to root out non-compliance such as through investigations and enforcement actions.
In a recent post by the US lawyer Jeremy Hogan, it is stated that the presiding judge Analisa Torres might have already decided whether XRP is a security, to which Deaton responded that the court approves that the “provision itself is not a security”.
While in his latest thread, Deaton commented that “it’s not the way it should be but it’s the way it is and the way it’s going to be”, the community responded with several queries. There were some who raised questions on the possibilities of the court being compromised, while some asked if the court would decide the “guidelines for crypto”.