Resolves YES if Sokolowski v. Digital Currency Group, Inc., 4:25-cv-00001, (M.D. Penn.) survives defendants' motion to dismiss (e.g., 12(b)(6) or a bankruptcy related motion), In the event that such a motion is granted in part, I will resolve to a % based off of the number of defendants and claims remaining (e.g., a MTD which results in the dismissal of 2 of 3 parties will result in a 33% resolution).
Resolves NO if a motion is granted in full; or plaintiffs dismiss the suit with or without prejudice prior to the last deadline for defendants to file such a motion.
The docket can be found here (or on PACER here). A copy of the original complaint can be found here.
The MTD by defendants Silbert and DCG (ECF 16) is available here.
1,000
Only 2602 more hours to go until AI figures out a way to create a sham entity that recovers money through an assignment in bankruptcy court and then allows you do double dip individually and collect money again by suing. Everyone is about to get two times richer (except for the people who will necessarily get two times poorer). Awe-inspiring.
@KevinBlaw Talk about running through the tape, he will be working on this brief for a full 12 days after it was already due!
Some highlights from the brief in support of Silbert's and DCG's MTD:
To manufacture a right to sue, Plaintiffs now assert that CM is a sham entity
and that they were the true lenders all along. While this rather brazen attempt to
offensively pierce their own corporate veil to gain standing may seem clever at
first blush, this tactic actually leads to the conclusion that Plaintiffs are either
admitting to criminal Bankruptcy fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 157 (making a false statement
in a bankruptcy case) and defrauding the buyer of its claim, or a violation Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (asserting a baseless allegation in a pleading)
(page 8)
Plaintiffs proclaimed in their public blogposts that they drafted the
Complaint using generative AI. Accepting that AI can do many things, protecting
its users from confessing to criminal or otherwise sanctionable conduct is not
among them.
(page 9)
@kopecs @FrederickNorris i want to read this brief carefully however, it seems like this lawyer has done his homework and I don’t want to get subpoenaed to testify!
@kopecs Huh, just like we've seen saying. Soko is cooked. He could really roil these markets by dismissing the case now, and going back to daytrading (marking the only time daytrading is more productive that the alternative, pro se suing).
@FrederickNorris I knew @SteveSokolowski when he was just a rewards points huckster. Now he is a full fledged bankruptcy fraud criminal. But, I am sure that AI has “thought” of this and it’s all just a big misunderstanding.
@SteveSokolowski Any thoughts on the motion to dismiss, sir? Was the (b)(2) motion anticipated? Did you see the judge has specific AI polices? Your thoughts? (Hands microphone) (please don't play AI generated music)
https://x.com/SteveSokolowsk2/status/1896960571783946536
Motion to dismiss is anticipated. Weird how the AI couldn't make a complaint where a motion to dismiss wouldn't be filed, just one that (allegedly) will survive a motion to dismiss.
@KevinBlaw I can't add it to RECAP via my current computer, but there is now a MTD by defendants DCG and Silbert (ECF 9) for 12(b)(2) and (6). I don't see a brief yet but local rules give them 14 days.
@Ziddletwix @kopecs (b)(2) means that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the person, i.e., it should have been brought in a different venue? (b)(6) means that even if you assume everything is true, no law has been broken that the court can enforce.
@kopecs He's got a hot shot bankruptcy lawyer in the case. I think, what with Steve bragging about all the money he made to pay off his house, that sanctions are on the table.
When you really digest what's occurring here, trying to relitigate a bankruptcy claim in his own name when he took money as an LLC, it's untenable.
@kopecs If no motion to dismiss is filed, for one reason or another, is that an N/A? Because if none is filed, it can't resolve YES, for having "survived" such a motion.
@FrederickNorris Sorry, I haven't been super active recently. My only concern is essentially the one you have mentioned below about (sua sponte) dismissal due to e.g., 12(b)(4) or (5) (process/service). Or some other sua sponte dismissal.
I guess I would N/A in that case unless everyone agrees otherwise.
@kopecs N/A would be right in that case. This market is priced correctly. He was to win a ruling on a motion to dismiss for this to resolve YES.
@FrederickNorris Yes; and I don't mean to imply the other choice would be a YES resolution. It would either be N/A or NO. I did foolishly say "defendants' motion" though, instead of any MTD other than by Sokolowski (and thus we have the N/A).
@kopecs This was not a criticism of you in any way, just wanting to set the record straight. Increasingly, I am thinking there will be no actual litigation in this case, just a sua sponte order of dismissal on one ground or another.