XRP Lawsuit: Pro-Ripple Lawyer gets permission to question Individual Movants

The latest update in the XRP lawsuit saw the court grant amici curiae status to Attorney John E Deaton who has been vocal about his support for the defendants in the lawsuit. Along with the six Movants who filed Motion to Intervene as defendants in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The six Movants are, Jordan Deaton, James Lamonte, Tyler Lamonte, Mya Lamonte, Mitchell Mckenna, and Kristiana Warner.

??BREAKING: Judge Torres grants amici status to @JohnEDeaton1 and Movants, and Denies Motion to Intervene in @Ripple v. @SECGov

ADDED to our Document Library:

?Text of the Order from Judge Torres ??https://t.co/4YLiv5V0kL

— CryptoLaw (@CryptoLawUS) October 4, 2021

With the help of the Amici curiae status, Attorney John E Deaton will be permitted to put forward brief legal questions and concerns on behalf of Individual Movants. Furthermore, the court denied Movants’ Motion to Intervene, however, it reinstates that the exclusive amici curiae status will prove beneficial to the court during the briefing on dispositive motions.

“Movants, in their individual capacities, shall be permitted to act as amici curiae in this action.  As such, Movants shall be allowed to assist the Court by briefing legal issues relevant to the case as approved in advance by the Court. The Court contemplates that such assistance will be most beneficial during the briefing on dispositive motions but may exercise its discretion to request or deny further applications as appropriate.”, stated the court.

Movants make compelling arguments

The court’s recent order has raised speculations of the final verdict gravitating towards the defendant’s favor as the interests of the Individual Movants and the XRP Community are aligned. The SEC claims securities status for XRP and alleges the violation of the Securities Act by the defendants in lieu of selling these digital assets. The Movants argue otherwise, contending the plaintiff’s complaint, asserting that if XRP sales are marked as illegal, then the list of culprits extends far beyond the defendants.

Individual Movants assert that the SEC complaint “directly attack[s] XRP Holders” through mischaracterizations of XRP Holders’ use of XRP and XRP’s connection to Defendants. Movants argue that the SEC’s claim that “the very ‘nature of XRP itself’ makes it a security,” leads to the conclusion that “‘every individual in the world who is selling XRP would be committing a Section 5 violation,’” and so the XRP Holders’ XRP will be affected by the outcome of this litigation.