Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre

~ if a ee Pere □□ MEMO ENDORSED LER BL pe pecescereconen cerca | | | | | 14 bh poof pif i! itl io i JAM 2 O fog tf boty | f AR Rey oe pos fc res emag pats □□□ 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ° i ihe kta a ee SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Nowe” re COMMODITIES FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, NEW YORK, N.Y. v. Case No. 22-cv- Eddy Alexandre Judge Caproni USDC SDNY Defendant. DOCUMENT x ELECTRONICALLY FILE DOC #: : 25 EMERGENCY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED ON AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Notice is hereby given that, Eddy Alexandre, ("Mr. Alexandre"), the petitioner, pro se, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT from the Southern District Court's order GRANTING the Receiver's Distribution Plan and APPROVED in all respects, at Dkt. 431 and denial with prejudice of affirmative defense at Dkt. 433 .

Whereas, the clerk of court was directed to terminate the open motions at Dkt. 381, 377, 386 & 388.

These orders resolved all pending claims and authorized the receiver to commence distributions without any due process as set forth in the Distribution Plan at any time after the entry of this Order leaving no room to litigate any and all pending matters in these proceedings hurting ten of thousands of investors who have their transactions documented as attested by the receiver himself in internal transfers between EminiFX members. This is an abuse of discretion as Judge Caproni violated her Oath to protect the rights of every citizen. Rubber-stamping the work of the CFTC from the executive branch remove the separation between the judiciary and the executive whereas the judge is making determination in an attempt to short-circuit the process and avoid a fair and just jury trial as the ultimate trier of facts. In a common law case as this one at bar, Mr. Alexandre is entitled to a trial by jury as a matter of law, the common law claims had to heard by a jury. Mr. Alexandre consistently and vigorously fought these allegations and proffered open issues with material facts in this conspiracy to 4/2 deprive him and his investors of property, rights, liberty and justice. See SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 US S.Ct. 219 L.Ed.2d 650 US, 2024. The level of bias and conflict from the presiding judge have reached their peak. Only a recusal from Judge Caproni will bring a fair and just outcome to this process.

Respectfully submitted, DATED: January 22, 2025 {S/ Eddy Alexandre Eddy Alexandre, pro se Reg. No.: 06712-510 ex-CE0O, founder of EminiFX FCC Ailenwood-Low P.O. Box 1000 ‘White Deer, PA 17887 □ enclosure at they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) quotation marks omitted). The Court interprets this filing to be a notice of appeal of two orders: the 21, 2025, Order (Dkt. 431) approving the Distribution Plan and the January 22, 2025, Order (Dkt. 433) the CFTC's motion to dismiss the counterclaim and dismissing as moot the Receiver's motion to strike the defense of contributory negligence as to the Receiver. to the appeal of the January 21, 2025, Order approving the Distribution Plan, the Court of Appeals has to adjudicate appeals of "[iJnterlocutory orders appointing receivers, or refusing orders to wind up ceiverships or to take steps to accomplish the purposes thereof, such as directing sales or other disposals of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2). Accordingly, Mr. Alexandre is entitled to take an interlocutory appeal of the 21, 2025, Order and this notice of appeal was correctly filed with the District Court. the extent Mr. Alexandre intends to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of the January 21, 2025, Order would not be taken in good faith. Mr. Opposition to the Motion to Approve the Distribution Plan (Dkt. 394) consists predominately of ad attacks on the CFTC, the Receiver, and the Undersigned; it contains no credible legal or factual for consideration on appeal. the extent this filing can be construed as a request to stay the Receiver's distribution of funds, that request is "The four factors to be considered in issuing a stay pending appeal are well known: (1) whether the sta‘ has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies." In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litig., F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2007). As to the first factor, it is unlikely that Mr. Alexandre's appeal will succeed on e merits because, as the Court explained in the January 21, 2025, Order, none of Mr. Alexandre's arguments approving the Distribution Plan is factually or legally sound. As to the second factor, Mr. Alexandre will be injured absent a stay because he has already pled guilty to defrauding investors in his criminal case and has valid claim to any of the assets that will be distributed. As to the third factor, the investors who Mr. Alexandre would be injured if their recovery were delayed due to frivolous legal filings. As to the fourth factor, th has a clear interest in making fraud victims whole. any appeal of the January 22, 2025, Order (Dkt. 433) granting the CFTC's motion to dismiss the and dismissing as moot the Receiver's motion to strike the affirmative defense of contributory as to the Receiver would be an interlocutory appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a) does not grant the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate interlocutory appeals of orders on motions to dismiss affirmative defenses or Accordingly, Mr. Alexandre may appeal the January 22, 2025, Order only if this Court determines such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Because Mr. Alexandre's counterclaims and affirmative defenses were frivolous. e Court concludes that the January 22, 2025, Order neither involves a controlling question of law nor presents a ground for difference of opinion.

Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Mr. Alexandre and to note the mailir the docket.

ORDERED. (Faas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, □ Case No.: 22-cv-3822 v. Judge Caproni EDDY ALEXANDRE and EMINIFX, INC., Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby declare under the penalty of perjury, pursvant to 28 U.S.C § 1746; 18 U.S.C § 1621, that on this date 2 caused a. true and complete copy of the attached Smercancey Moh ou Ba lgave TO Feecesd TER bocu □□□ a A Rt SG Yn to be served, in Placing same in a sealed envelope and routing it for mailing via First-class United States mail service, with, postage thereon fully prepaid, and depositing same in this institution's internal mail system- I am an inmate confined in an institution.

The FCC Allenwood-Low has a system Gesignated for legal mail.

A true copy thereof vas served upon the following interested party/ies: 1~_Clerk of Court US SONY US Gorthouse 500 Pear] Street New York, NY 10007-1332 2- Douglas G. Snodgrass US Attomey CFIC 77 □□ Jackson Blyd. Chicago, TL 60604 es 3- David Castleman as Cort-agpt 'd Receiver 230 Bork Ave New York NY_70169 . — to Brinilx c/o Otterbox, P.C. 230 Park Ave Ney York, WY J0I@9 5- __ Cm DATED: ! 1S 202) □ (HED) Eddy Alexandre, pro Be Reg. No.: 600712-510 FCC Allenwood-Low P.O. Box 1000 © White Deer, PA 17887 □□□ oe □ eS eo ee Se Be ee : □□□ ES EE We et | Se caps ESE Ue □□□ i ose ee □□□ UST OS A ee □□ UR ES gadaoeng OS a Do Se EO □ as Se Sa sa See ee SACU GaASTS UO UTES □□ SE Ee □ ESS : cag ne ee es □□ Be ES da a WEEE aang YT ee ee □□ nS eee Se ee 2 rsr—“‘O(‘(‘‘O‘_“( □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ eS ES ae ee A ED ge □□ eee □□□ □□□ BLS Cheam AE □□□ Rag ee ees AE USES So ee □□ Tn ESSE aacametomcmaemel OSS SSS ee □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ EES Se ee ASE teec cEndpece adie 2200S SSS EEE SE □□ ro Re □□ ME Boao noe EEE Se □ Ee □□□ ee □□ ee Ce UN ER Behe Fe SE SS See eke at es PO ge □□ ein non BSE SR Sg 4 oe [OS Se Ee ee □□ DUES ee hm Lo ee eee Se Be BE a [OS RT a a □□ □□ Ee cose a ip > Ss Pe ee See ook Sg ot > □□ ee □□ US Rao Ce SES we AL as Pe OS aXe □□ eee eo □□ □□ Enea —Y aq US ee HULU ESERIES SUE t Me O — UR REE RE □□□ □ se ee se See ow Day Te O Bg ee oe COOL PK a PE ee SUL a un) SM SE Se eee oo OO Se CUES SS □□ SRE 25006lUdlhlhlm Ne ns fe se Inu So us iu he i geiee SE SE □□ Sn ey TE Sat [SRS OCU Sa □□ rae RE I ERE US oe □ ,r—i DD □□□ Ns i □□ she ae me ee a oe oe Eero □□□ DOs Les a □□ □□ ae ee □ □□ Ce □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□