WALLWALL #12
Sam Ikkurty
Posted April 12, 2026
PERMANENT LINKcftcsucks.com/12
PDF Document — 3 pages↓ Download PDF
SAM IKKURTY — CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATE samikkurty.com
C O N S T I T U T I O N A L R I G H T S
The Constitutional Crisis: Ex Parte
Orders Without Notice to Counsel
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/constitutional-crisis-ex-parte-orders | Case No. 1:22-
cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
On May 16, 2022, the CFTC obtained an emergency ex parte order
freezing all assets of Rose City Fund — without providing any notice to
my legal counsel. This single act violated multiple constitutional
amendments and set in motion a three-year legal battle that continues
today.
## What Is an Ex Parte Order?
An ex parte order is issued by a court based solely on one party's
presentation, without the other party being present or notified. In civil
cases, ex parte orders are reserved for genuine emergencies where prior
notice would cause irreparable harm — such as a defendant about to flee
the country with investor funds.
## Why the CFTC's Ex Parte Order Was Unconstitutional
The CFTC obtained its emergency order without notifying my counsel
despite the fact that:
1. I was not a flight risk — I had been cooperating with the CFTC's
investigation for months
C O N S T I T U T I O N A L R I G H T S
The Constitutional Crisis: Ex Parte
Orders Without Notice to Counsel
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/constitutional-crisis-ex-parte-orders | Case No. 1:22-
cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
On May 16, 2022, the CFTC obtained an emergency ex parte order
freezing all assets of Rose City Fund — without providing any notice to
my legal counsel. This single act violated multiple constitutional
amendments and set in motion a three-year legal battle that continues
today.
## What Is an Ex Parte Order?
An ex parte order is issued by a court based solely on one party's
presentation, without the other party being present or notified. In civil
cases, ex parte orders are reserved for genuine emergencies where prior
notice would cause irreparable harm — such as a defendant about to flee
the country with investor funds.
## Why the CFTC's Ex Parte Order Was Unconstitutional
The CFTC obtained its emergency order without notifying my counsel
despite the fact that:
1. I was not a flight risk — I had been cooperating with the CFTC's
investigation for months
2. No investor had complained — Investigator Dasso later admitted under
oath that no investor ever told her they did not receive their promised
payments
3. The fund was operating transparently — 139 consecutive weekly
investor updates with public blockchain wallet addresses
4. The assets were not at risk of dissipation — they were held in verifiable
on-chain wallets
The constitutional violations include:
- 4th Amendment: Unreasonable seizure of assets without probable cause
- 5th Amendment: Deprivation of property without due process
- 6th Amendment: Denial of right to counsel at a critical proceeding
- 14th Amendment: Denial of equal protection and due process
## The Receiver's Role
The court-appointed Receiver, James L. Kopecky, subsequently
liquidated the fund's digital assets — despite 100% of investors opposing
the liquidation. The Receiver's fees exceeded $500,000. The investors
whose assets were being "protected" received less than they would have if
the fund had been allowed to continue operating.
## The Path Forward
The 7th Circuit is now considering whether the CFTC had jurisdiction to
bring this case at all. If the court rules that Ethereum SPOT transactions
are outside the CFTC's statutory authority, the entire enforcement action
— and the constitutional violations it produced — will be exposed as an
unlawful exercise of power.
I have documented every constitutional violation in my GAO complaint,
my DOJ criminal complaint, and my CFTC IG complaint. All are available
in the Legal Documents section of this site.
oath that no investor ever told her they did not receive their promised
payments
3. The fund was operating transparently — 139 consecutive weekly
investor updates with public blockchain wallet addresses
4. The assets were not at risk of dissipation — they were held in verifiable
on-chain wallets
The constitutional violations include:
- 4th Amendment: Unreasonable seizure of assets without probable cause
- 5th Amendment: Deprivation of property without due process
- 6th Amendment: Denial of right to counsel at a critical proceeding
- 14th Amendment: Denial of equal protection and due process
## The Receiver's Role
The court-appointed Receiver, James L. Kopecky, subsequently
liquidated the fund's digital assets — despite 100% of investors opposing
the liquidation. The Receiver's fees exceeded $500,000. The investors
whose assets were being "protected" received less than they would have if
the fund had been allowed to continue operating.
## The Path Forward
The 7th Circuit is now considering whether the CFTC had jurisdiction to
bring this case at all. If the court rules that Ethereum SPOT transactions
are outside the CFTC's statutory authority, the entire enforcement action
— and the constitutional violations it produced — will be exposed as an
unlawful exercise of power.
I have documented every constitutional violation in my GAO complaint,
my DOJ criminal complaint, and my CFTC IG complaint. All are available
in the Legal Documents section of this site.
Sam Ikkurty · samikkurty.com · All documents and evidence available at samikkurty.com/
legal-documents
legal-documents
Share this record
VERIFICATION RECORD
Submission trackF
StatusWALL
Posted2026-04-12T11:25:52.000Z
SHA-256 hasha5de737368ffbda97cbf8b705d311048d1db09bd336a6834734ba53fa18093b5
Permanent record. This document is permanently archived on Arweave — a decentralised storage network — where it will persist independently of this website, any server, or any court order. The SHA-256 hash above cryptographically proves the document has not been altered since archiving.