Ripple Lab strongly protested that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shielded the direct evidence of the third party from the regulatory authorities and the disputes mentioned.

According to the relevant evidence obtained by James K. Filan, the criminal defense lawyer, Ripple recently wrote a letter to the chief judge, Analisa Torres, saying that the Securities and Exchange Federation of the United States raised an objection to the third scheme submitted by I-Remit and TapJets, and then carried out an incorrect description of the laws and regulations.

"When the American Securities and Exchange Federation claimed that the friendly briefs submitted by I-Remit and TapJets constituted an attempt by Movants to use improper means, and tried to give direct evidence beyond the limitations, evidentiary provisions and the prior order of the Court, it made incorrect statements about the briefs and laws

I-Remit and TapJets are independent third parties, otherwise they are irrelevant to this lawsuit. They sought approval to submit the briefs of the case, and gave the students key insights to the court to understand whether the industry participants had turned to XRP, whether they expected to make profits from the defendant's unremitting efforts, and how the SEC's theory on the case (once adopted by the court) should have a negative impact on the business process.

They gave the court data about their business operations and industries to apply the students' views. There is nothing wrong with that. "

TapJets, a private plane ride sharing platform, and I-Remit, a money transfer enterprise, were initially defined as "friends of the court" or "good friends of the court" on October 4.

The amicus curiae may submit to the court what is called the amicus curiae briefs, provided that such documents contain relevant information about the case and are accepted by the court in advance.

TapJets said that it was interested in the case because it applied XRP as the loan currency, while I-Remit said that it applied Ripple's cross-border payment system.

Just a few days later, the SEC resisted these enterprises from participating in the case, saying that it was also an attempt to introduce direct evidence for the case beyond the traditional limit of direct evidence discovery.

According to Ripple, if he is unable to resolve the assessment of the summary of the "Friends" case that tries to refute his claim, the SEC has no reason to file a lawsuit against them first.

"The Securities and Exchange Association of the United States (SEC) looks for a simple distinction based on the fact that it has inappropriately claimed that there is no doubt that every purchase of XRP is a" project investment ", and every XRP consumer hopes to profit from Ripple's struggle. Nothing is more pertinent than these two friendly newsletters to refute (or at least refute) these two opinions.

If the American Securities and Exchange Federation cannot assess the authenticity of such claims information, it has no right to file a lawsuit first. "

The SEC filed a lawsuit against Ripple for the first time at the end of 2020, claiming that the payment system sold XRP as unregistered securities.

Don't miss the rhythm – read the data encryption email prompt and send it to the outbox immediately

Check the actual operation of the price

Follow yourself on Twitter, Facebook and Telegram

Swimming daily match