Pro se motions from disgruntled EminiFX investors have swamped the CFTC case docket.

The papers ask the Judge to review a previous ruling authorizing EminiFX Receivership expenditures.

On August 4th, the designated EminiFX Receiver filed a motion seeking approval for fees and costs, as is typical procedure in MLM Ponzi cases.

The court granted the Receiver’s motion for fees and expenses totaling $990,777 in May and June 2022. On August 5th, the court’s letter endorsement authorizing the expenses was filed.

EminiFX investors bombarded the CFTC case docket with pro se letters from August 9th to August 16th, in what appears to be a concerted operation.

The letters appear to be template-based requests for reconsideration of the August 5th ruling.

I am before you to request that the Court approve my request to reconsider your acceptance of the receiver’s aforesaid expenditure request and to provide me fourteen days to analyze the receiver’s request with adequate legal help and demonstrate reason.

Fifty-two docketed letters were received from the following investors in a striking display of disdain for the court and judicial process;

Poulard, Chantale
Augustin, Anne
Augustin A. (duplicate)
Reverend Reverend Dr. F. Augustin Augustin N.
Pongnon, Sannecie
Alexandre Eddy (???)
Expresse Noel
Williams, Cheranne
Rose, Yves
Moisture Remedy
Remulus, M. (duplicate)
Louis-Pierre H.
Jean Anthenor, Richard
Cetoute, Lola
Parent, Jean A.
Sointelny, Edwin
Toussaint, J.
Joseph Victorin
Mareus, Ipolia
Jean-Baptiste Marie F. Delva, Paul
Townsand, Manpaline
Petithor Anthonius Sharon Dubrezil
Dubrezil, Annette
Pascal, Hermana
Milor Rodna
Mirtha Benjamin \sSchneidal Pierre \sAugusma Vixsama
Carine Jean Paul Derrick Coppin Jean Baptiste Sebastian Parent
Yves Cetoute
Wervel Mareus Eveline Saintel-Marius
Pascal, Valerie
Birlie Kettly, Celestie S. John Baptiste
Clotilde Nazaire, M.
Lesly Paul \sAnnerithe Lulianne Casimir Jean Pierre Shardly Obas
Belizaire, Monique
Honare, K.
Serge Louis Jean
Cadet Joseph
Gervedy Boyer and Luce Castor
On August 12th, the court sought to address the letter spam for the first time.

If the investors want to intervene in this case, they must refile their letters together with a Motion to Intervene outlining the basis for their intervention.

The Court does highlight, however, that the right way for investors to express their dissatisfaction with the Receiver’s activities is through the direct avenues of contact that were explicitly designed for EminiFX investors to connect with the Receiver.

Although the Receiver’s request for $990,777.86 in fees and $5,660.42 in expenses appears to be excessive, the Court granted the Receiver’s motion because the Court determined that the fee request was reasonable in light of the Court’s experience with the work done during the fee application period.

However, this did not halt the spam, necessitating a second order on August 17th.

Without Chambers’ approval, the Pro Se Department is directed to refrain from docketing any further form letters from pro se nonparties seeking reconsideration of the Court’s order granting the Receiver’s request for fees.

It is unknown how many letter spam files EminiFX investors have made. The 52 docketed cases were all ordered stricken as inappropriate filings.

Finally, everyone’s time was squandered.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *