- Justin Keener seeks to present evidence in SEC v. Ripple, challenging outdated interpretations of investment contracts.
- Keener argues that 1930s securities laws are misapplied today, aligning his past SEC case with Ripple’s legal battle.
- Despite offering support, Keener’s controversial past and vague evidence cast doubt on the impact of his emergency filing.
The long-running SEC v. Ripple legal battle has had a new turn with an unexpected emergency motion filed by Justin W. Keener. Keener, a non-party to the case, submitted a letter to Judge Analisa Torres, requesting to present what he claims is crucial evidence.
According to a post by JackTheRippler on X, Keener’s urgent filing includes a plea to introduce documents supporting Ripple and seeks compensation for the American public. This sudden move comes as the case edges toward its conclusion, raising questions among legal experts about both the motive and the timing behind the submission.
Claims on Obsolete Investment Contracts
Keener’s letter suggests that his evidence is to the nature of investment contracts. He states these materials were compiled over time and show that earlier interpretations of such contracts no longer apply today.
According to Keener, these documents show that the rules created under the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 have become outdated. He argues that regulatory bodies apply old classifications, despite the structural changes in how modern investment contracts work.
This argument, if acknowledged, could influence how XRP is categorized under securities law. However, Keener’s filing does not detail the evidence he wishes to present, leaving its substance and relevance uncertain.
Keener’s Past Legal Troubles Resurface
While Keener claims his material could impact the ongoing Ripple case, his personal history raises concerns. He was previously fined over $10 million by a court after the SEC sued him for acting as an unregistered broker in the penny stock market.
In his letter, Keener states that he has already spent more than $15 million on legal costs due to what he describes as flawed regulatory enforcement. He links his own case to Ripple’s, suggesting both stem from misapplied securities laws. However, legal experts remain cautious and question whether his situation aligns with Ripple’s.
Legal Expenses and Court’s Pending Decision
The emergency filing also cites Ripple’s reported $225 million legal costs since the lawsuit began. This figure shows the scale of resources put into defending the case. Keener’s attempt to align his case with Ripple’s could be seen as part of a broader criticism of SEC enforcement practices.
However, Judge Torres has yet to decide whether Keener’s filing will be accepted or reviewed. With the lawsuit in its final stages, the court must determine whether this late evidence adds value or introduces further delay.
