Disgruntled EminiFX investors have flooded the CFTC case docket with pro se motions.

The motions demand the Judge reconsider an earlier order approving EminiFX Receivership expenses.

As is standard procedure in MLM Ponzi cases, the appointed EminiFX Receiver filed a motion seeking approval for fees and expenses on August 4th.

The court approved the Receiver’s request for $990,777 in fees and $5,660 in expenses over May and June 2022. The court’s memo endorsement approving the costs was filed on August 5th.

In what appears to be a coordinated effort, EminiFX investors flooded the CFTC case docket with pro se letters across August 9th to 16th.

The letters appear to be based on a template seeking reconsideration of the August 5th decision.

I come before you to request that the Court grant my request to reconsider your approval of the foregoing expense request submitted by the receiver and to grant me fourteen days to allow me sufficient time to review the receiver’s request with proper legal assistance and show cause.

In a remarkable show of disrespect towards the court and judicial process, fifty-two docketed letters were received from the following investors;

  1. Chantale Poulard
  2. Anne Augustin
  3. A. Augustin (duplicate)
  4. Reverend Dr. F. Augustin
  5. Reverend N. Augustin
  6. Sannecie Pongnon
  7. Eddy Alexandre (???)
  8. Expresse Noel
  9. Cheranne Williams
  10. Yves Rose
  11. Moise Remulus
  12. M. Remulus (duplicate)
  13. H. Louis-Pierre
  14. Jean Richard Anthenor
  15. Lola Cetoute
  16. Jean A. Parent
  17. Edwine Sointelny
  18. J. Toussaint
  19. Joseph Victorin
  20. Ipolia Mareus
  21. F. Jean-Baptiste
  22. Marie Paul Delva
  23. Manpaline Townsand
  24. Sharon Dubrezil
  25. Petithor Anthonius
  26. Annette Dubrezil
  27. Hermana Pascal
  28. Rodna Milor
  29. Mirtha Benjamin
  30. Schneidal Pierre
  31. Augusma Vixsama
  32. Carine Jean Baptiste
  33. Sebastian Parent
  34. Jean Paul
  35. Derrick Coppin
  36. Yvette Cetoute
  37. Eveline Saintel-Marius
  38. Wervel Mareus
  39. Valerie Pascal
  40. Birlie Celestie S B
  41. Kettly Jean Baptiste
  42. M. Clotilde Nazaire
  43. Lesly Paul
  44. Annerithe Jean Pierre
  45. Shardly Obas
  46. Lulianne Casimir
  47. Monique Belizaire
  48. K. Honare
  49. Serge Jean Louis
  50. Joseph Cadet
  51. Luce Castor and
  52. Gervedy Boyer

The court first attempted to address the letter spam on August 12th;

If the investors wish to intervene in this matter, they must refile their letters with a Motion to Intervene stating the grounds on which they wish to intervene.

The Court notes, however, that the proper method for the investors to air their grievances with the Receiver’s actions is through the direct methods of communication that were specifically created for EminiFX investors to communicate with the Receiver.

Although the Receiver’s request for $990,777.86 in fees and $5,660.42 in expenses may appear high, the Court granted the Receiver’s motion because the Court found that the fee request was reasonable in light of the Court’s experience with the work that was done during the period covered by the fee application.

This didn’t stop the spam though, prompting a second order on August 17th.

The Pro Se Department is respectfully 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 without approval from Chambers.

The total number of letter spam filings from EminiFX investors is unknown. The fifty-two that were docketeted were all ordered stricken as improper filings.

In conclusion, everybody’s time was wasted.