Noted as far back as May, BitClub Network defendant Joby Weeks has been flooding his criminal case docket with motions and notices.

Most of the motions aren’t worth reporting in one of the motions Weeks sought to withdraw his guilty plea.

Twenty-four motions filed by Weeks were denied in an October 8th omnibus order.

Specific to withdraw his guilty plea, Weeks (right) argued:

  1. he wasn’t guilty of trading unregistered securities because bitcoin and bitcoin mining equipment are not securities;
  2. he did not have notice that his activities were securities transactions;
  3. he is not aware of any BitClub Network victims;
  4. BitClub Network was a “private membership association” exempt from US financial law; and
  5. because he was living overseas he wasn’t required to pay taxes (specific to tax evasion)

On argument one the court found;

Defendant is not charged with conspiring to trade computer equipment or Bitcoin; he is charged with, and pleaded guilty to, conspiring to promote and sell shares in BCN mining pools.

As an aside, I frequently see this argument from fraudulent investment schemes BehindMLM reports on. Typically the argument is “but our token is a utility token”, or some variation of “how can our scam be committing securities fraud, is bitcoin a security?”

Like Weeks in this instance, there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what is and isn’t a security. It’s the MLM investment scheme as a whole that is the security. Whatever token or coin the security is offered through is irrelevant.

Unfortunately this never seems to sink in for crypto scammers.

Getting back to the court’s findings;

BCN shares are securities as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1) and SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946) (the “Howey test”).

BCN shareholders

(i) invested money;

(ii) in a common enterprise (BCN) in which BCN funded its mining operations with shareholders’ investments;

(iii) shareholders had a reasonable expectation of profits based on the representations of BCN;

(iv) to be derived solely from the efforts of the BCN mining program.

Another tactic Weeks tried on was the also common “it’s not an investment if we don’t call it an investment” argument.

Defendant also appears to argue that BCN shares are not securities because investors bought shares in exchange for Bitcoin, not money, and so there was no “investment of money,” as the Howey test requires.

Courts have found that an investment of Bitcoin, rather than money, satisfies the “investment of money” prong of the Howey test.

This Court agrees, and finds that shares of BCN are securities even if investors purchased them with Bitcoin.

On Weeks’ “I didn’t receive notice” argument;

This position fails for two reasons. First, as discussed in detail above, Defendant was not indicted based on a novel theory of securities law; he was charged with conspiring to offer and sell unregistered shares of BCN, which are securities as defined by the Howey test.

Second, Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933—the statute underlying Count Two that prohibits the offering or sale of unregistered securities—“imposes strict liability.”

Therefore, Defendant’s argument that he had no notice of the illegality of his conduct is unavailing.

On Weeks’ pretending there are no BitClub Network victims;

Section 5 liability does not hinge on proof of harm, loss, or victimization—the mere offer or sale of unregistered securities is sufficient.

Accordingly, whether Defendant’s conduct caused harm to any victims is irrelevant to his innocence.

On Weeks’ “private membership association” sovereign citizen pseudo-compliance;

Defendant argues that BCN “was a Private Membership Association (PMA) that handles its own legal affairs and doesn’t burden this court,” and that the “SEC/Government has no right to dictate what private membership organizations do with private men and women.”

Defendant cites no legal authority that supports this assertion.

Indeed, “it is immaterial whether a person consents to federal law; the laws of the United States apply to all persons within its border.” United States v. Reilly, No. 15-196, 2016 WL 7335680.

On Weeks living abroad and not guilty of tax evasion as a result;

Defendant stated in his plea colloquy that he is a U.S. citizen and the Information states that Defendant was a resident of Colorado at the time of the charged conduct, and Defendant provides the Court with no evidence to presume otherwise.

Additionally, at the plea colloquy, Defendant agreed that he “willfully attempt[ed] to evade and defeat income taxes due and owing by you to the United States of America for the calendar years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.”

For these reasons, Defendant fails to make a credible showing of innocence supported by a factual record.

Most of the other arguments Weeks brought up aren’t worth mentioning, but there are a few sovereign citizen nuggets we’ll reproduce below;

Defendant repeatedly contends that the Court does not have jurisdiction over him because he is a “living man” named “Jobadiah-Sinclair of the family Weeks,” and is not the Defendant, who is purportedly a “commercial vessel” called “JOBADIAH SINCLAIR WEEKS.”

Defendant stated he “made a mistake by autographing ‘Jobadiah Weeks’ in the stead of a person listed on the document by the name of JOBADIAH SINCLAIR WEEKS who he was/is not.”

Defendant has not articulated any basis for this contention under the United States Constitution, any federal statute, case law, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or any other binding legal authority.

Courts are familiar with arguments that the court lacks jurisdiction over an individual because he is not the defendant, but is instead the “living man,” and routinely find them to be meritless and “patently frivolous.”

Therefore, to the extent Defendant’s submissions are understood as a challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction over him, they are rejected.

Courts destroying sovereign citizen arguments will always be funny to me.

Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is denied, which consequently renders most of his other motions moot.

As previously stated and reiterated above, the rest of Weeks’ motions were denied.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby denies Defendant’s pending motions.

Accordingly, IT IS on this 8th day of October, 2025:

This was a combination of the motions either being moot or meritless.

In the same order denying Weeks’ motions, the court directed the parties to file a joint letter by October 31st,

outlining any outstanding issues before the Court and/or among the parties that must be resolved before sentencing.

A joint letter was not filed. Instead Weeks filed a solo letter on October 28th. In his letter, Weeks requested the court three motions seeking to unseal previous filings.

On October 30th, Weeks filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the October 8th omnibus denial order.

On October 31st, the DOJ filed a solo letter to the court, stating

The Government agrees that all of the sealed docket entries identified by the Court in its October 8 Opinion and Order at page 22 may be unsealed.

Other than unsealing of the docket entries … the Government disagrees with the other relief requested in Defendant’s “Annex,” however.

In particular, the parties disagree about whether Defendant may seek further disclosures from the Government. Defendant appears to interpret the Court’s October 8 Opinion and Order as inviting briefing regarding “unsealing” of “sealed” documents such as search warrant inventories and other documents that have never been docketed.

The Government’s position is that the Court’s October 8 Opinion and Order was correct in ruling that Defendant has no further right to seek discovery now that he has pleaded guilty and his motion to withdraw his guilty plea has been denied.

The Defendant entered a guilty plea knowingly and voluntarily, and he waived his right to trial in the process.

As a result, he forfeited his right to additional discovery related to his guilt.

Thus, to the extent Defendant’s motions to unseal are in reality motions to compel further disclosures by the Government, such as search warrant inventories, the Government opposes the motions for the reasons stated in its prior submissions and in the Court’s October 8 Opinion and Order.

Accordingly, as stated in its letter dated October 21, 2025 addressed to Your Honor, the Government opposes Defendant’s requests to renew his previously denied motions and believes that there are no further impediments to proceeding to sentencing (other than Defendant’s motion for reconsideration).

The DOJ’s position is Weeks is stalling. And this stalling is the only impediment preventing a sentencing date being set.

Pending further orders from the court, stay tuned.