On Wednesday, Ripple Labs, Brad Garlinghouse and Chris Larsen, the defendants indicted by XRP, filed a letter boycotting the request of foreign SEC supporters. This trend of situation takes place at a time when we have been waiting for a simple verdict of proximity for a long time.

The waves want to make the small details public.

The latest court documents show that the defendant resisted the letter motion from the "investment banker declarant". The whistleblower is seeking to write its statement to ensure that its small details are hidden in the XRP lawsuit. This detail contains her name, position and information about his employer.

The waves mentioned that the applicant himself had submitted a statement applicable to the simple ruling motion of SEC. The defendant claimed that the move made it impossible for the applicant to require the court to conceal his name, position and other minor details.

The defendant ordered the court to publish a statement of supporters who filled out the SEC. However, there is no doubt that the statement was landed in the Justice Department document. Although it has the right to make strong decisions on website visits in accordance with the common law and the first Amendment.

The declarant submitted the declaration on September 8, 2022, and the SEC submitted a simple ruling motion five days later, referring to the same statement. Waves claim that the actual investigation report, in which small details cannot be dealt with, is preserved for reasons that prove persuasive.

Why did the defendant explicitly raise a dispute case?

Ripple and the defendant subsequently noted that they had not earlier explicitly expressed all negative views on the editorial proposal explicitly put forward by the declarant. It mainly includes an e-mail address for 2019, which mainly contains the large-scale e-mail addresses of financial bank staff and Ripple employees.

However, the Ripple document notes that there are many convincing reasons that are lacking. The key is to closely revolve around the factual status of this statement, which supports its publication and submission. Second, the point of view of "disturbing risk" put forward by the informant. This is too ambiguous for the defendant.