With both Charles Scoville’s and the SEC’s briefs filed in the Traffic Monsoon appeal case, Scoville now has the option of filing a reply brief.

On October 20th Scoville requested an extension of time to file his reply, which was granted later the same day.

The court gave Scoville until November 13th to file his reply. In the meantime the Traffic Monsoon Receiver appears to have sought to remove Traffic Monsoon from appeal proceedings.

On October 23rd the Traffic Monsoon Receiver filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief.

Amicus briefs are filed by non-parties in an attempt to assist courts with information believed to be relevant to a case.

As of yet the court hasn’t ruled on the Receiver’s motion, so we don’t have full details of the brief.

On October 26th Scoville filed a response to the Receiver’s motion, which provides some insight as to its contents (despite it not being officially filed on record, Scoville’s lawyers have received a copy of the Receiver’s motion).

Scoville’s reply to the brief is in opposition, based on alleged ‘attempts to raise issues in violation of (the) Court’s stated guidelines for an amicus curae brief.‘

The Receiver first argues that Traffic Monsoon is not a proper party to this appeal, which should be not be considered by this Court because it was, at no point, argued before the District Court or by either party.

Next, the Receiver parrots the arguments made by the SEC, a tactic that “merely extend[s] the length of the [SEC]’s brief . . . and should not be allowed.”

From this we can ascertain the Receiver has sought to exclude Traffic Monsoon from the appeal proceedings.

As revealed later in Scoville’s reply, this is based on Traffic Monsoon being under the Receiver’s control and not that of Charles Scoville.

The Receiver argues “that Traffic Monsoon is not properly a party to this appeal,” because the Receiver did not authorize filing an appeal on behalf of Traffic Monsoon.

This I feel is a fair point. Although I’m not sure whether from a legal standpoint the appeal is “new litigation” or mere continuation of the District Court case.

If it’s the former, then I can see the Receiver objecting to an entity she is wholly in control of being attached to an appeal.

Countering that of course is the fact Traffic Monsoon is a named defendant in the SEC’s case, irrespective of who is in control of the company at any given time.

Scoville also (correctly) points out that this issue wasn’t brought up in either his opening brief or the SEC’s answering brief.

This would make it entirely new subject matter which, exceptional circumstances aside, is not typically permitted in appeal proceedings.

Scoville’s second objection suggests the Receiver has reiterated Traffic Monsoon is a Ponzi scheme, based on her ongoing investigation and consolidation of Scoville’s poorly kept records.

The Receiver is not a friend of the Court, but, rather, a friend of the SEC.

Indeed, although the Receiver purports to have a unique perspective on the issues on appeal, the Brief merely presents a highly partisan account of the facts and simply summarizes and repeats the arguments made by the SEC.

This Court should not be persuaded by this blatant duplication, however, and should disregard the Brief in its entirety.

I was willing to take that on face value, but later in the reply Scoville’s attorneys appear to acknowledge a distinction between the Receiver and SEC’s arguments.

If the Court grants the Motion, the Court should also allow a total of 13,000 words for the Reply Brief, given that Appellants will have to Reply to two distinct sets of arguments.

Two distinct sets of arguments? Surely if all the Receiver did was parrot the  SEC then one response addressing the same arguments would suffice?

And how do “blatant duplication” and “repeated arguments” from two parties form “two distinct sets of arguments” anyway?

I think Scoville’s attorneys may have shot themselves in the foot on that one.

With respect to these two objections, Scoville asserts

neither argument should be considered by this Court.

Accordingly, this Court should deny the Receiver’s Motion.

As of yet the court has yet to issue a ruling on the Receiver’s motion.

Scoville meanwhile has all but disappeared off the internet.

After maintaining a relatively active social media presence since the SEC shut down Traffic Monsoon mid last year, Scoville stopped posting two weeks ago.

Prior to his disappearance, Scoville had been speaking out about the USI-Tech Ponzi scheme and re-embracing Christianity.

After pursuing romantic interests belonging to the Islamic community in the UK, Scoville officially converted to Islam in 2015.

Following the SEC’s shut down of Traffic Monsoon, Scoville’s relationship with Islam and involvement in the community deteriorated.

His recent re-acquaintance with religion has seen Scoville claim, among other things, that mental health doesn’t exist and homosexuality is “unacceptable”.

A ruling on the Receiver’s amicus brief motion is expected later this week or next, after which Scoville’s attorneys will file their reply brief accordingly. Stay tuned…

 

Update 7th November 2017 – The Receiver’s motion to file an amicus brief has been provisionally granted.

Scoville has been given until November 27th to reply to the brief, after which a final decision on whether the brief and reply should be allowed will be made by the merits panel.