REJECTEDWALL #181
Sam Ikkurty
Posted April 14, 2026
PERMANENT LINKcftcsucks.com/181
PDF Document — 9 pages↓ Download PDF
SAM IKKURTY — CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATE samikkurty.com
C A S E A N A L Y S I S
The Complete Timeline: What Actually
Happened in CFTC v. Ikkurty
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/cftc-v-ikkurty-complete-timeline | Case No. 1:22-cv-02465
(N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
If you have heard about this case through a news article, a court filing, or
a social media post, you have probably encountered the CFTC's version of
events: a fund manager ran a Ponzi scheme, defrauded investors, and was
stopped by federal regulators. That version is wrong. This post is the
complete timeline — every significant event, in order, with the evidence
that the CFTC's narrative cannot accommodate.
## 2018–2021: The Fund Is Founded and Performs
Rose City Investment Fund I (RCIF1) was established in 2018 as a digital
asset fund investing exclusively in ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum
blockchain. The fund's strategy was built around decentralized finance
(DeFi) protocols — a category that barely existed when the fund launched
and that would grow into a multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem over the
following years.
The fund operated with full transparency from day one. Every week,
without exception, I sent all partners a detailed "Five Bullet Friday"
update that included the fund's blockchain wallet addresses, current
positions, and performance metrics. Over the life of the fund, I sent 139
C A S E A N A L Y S I S
The Complete Timeline: What Actually
Happened in CFTC v. Ikkurty
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/cftc-v-ikkurty-complete-timeline | Case No. 1:22-cv-02465
(N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
If you have heard about this case through a news article, a court filing, or
a social media post, you have probably encountered the CFTC's version of
events: a fund manager ran a Ponzi scheme, defrauded investors, and was
stopped by federal regulators. That version is wrong. This post is the
complete timeline — every significant event, in order, with the evidence
that the CFTC's narrative cannot accommodate.
## 2018–2021: The Fund Is Founded and Performs
Rose City Investment Fund I (RCIF1) was established in 2018 as a digital
asset fund investing exclusively in ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum
blockchain. The fund's strategy was built around decentralized finance
(DeFi) protocols — a category that barely existed when the fund launched
and that would grow into a multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem over the
following years.
The fund operated with full transparency from day one. Every week,
without exception, I sent all partners a detailed "Five Bullet Friday"
update that included the fund's blockchain wallet addresses, current
positions, and performance metrics. Over the life of the fund, I sent 139
consecutive weekly updates. Partners could — and did — verify every
transaction independently on the public Ethereum blockchain.
By 2021, RCIF1 had completed its investment cycle. The results were
extraordinary by any measure: 69 partners collectively invested $5.9
million and exited with $29.3 million in redemptions and $825,351 in
distributions. The mean CAGR across all partners was 303%. The highest
individual CAGR was 1,407%. The lowest was 16.44%. Zero investors lost
money. These figures are not disputed — they are documented in the
fund's own records, corroborated by the CFTC's expert witness, and
available in the Rose City Fund Redemption List.
Rose City Investment Fund II (RCIF2) launched subsequently and
continued the same DeFi strategy. An independent analysis by StoneTurn
Group, a forensic accounting firm retained by the Receiver, confirmed
that RCIF2 generated returns of 339.55% in one year — a figure that is, as
the StoneTurn report noted, mathematically impossible in a Ponzi
scheme.
## May 16, 2022: The Federal Raid
On the morning of May 16, 2022 — just 48 hours after I sent Issue #139
of the Five Bullet Friday newsletter — ten federal agents arrived at my
home. They carried an ex parte temporary restraining order that I had
never seen, issued in a lawsuit I had never been notified of. My legal
counsel was told the matter was "confidential" and was excluded from the
proceedings.
The CFTC had filed its complaint in secret, obtained emergency relief
without notifying the defendant, and executed a raid before I had any
opportunity to respond. This is the procedure reserved for cases where
there is an immediate, documented risk of asset flight or evidence
transaction independently on the public Ethereum blockchain.
By 2021, RCIF1 had completed its investment cycle. The results were
extraordinary by any measure: 69 partners collectively invested $5.9
million and exited with $29.3 million in redemptions and $825,351 in
distributions. The mean CAGR across all partners was 303%. The highest
individual CAGR was 1,407%. The lowest was 16.44%. Zero investors lost
money. These figures are not disputed — they are documented in the
fund's own records, corroborated by the CFTC's expert witness, and
available in the Rose City Fund Redemption List.
Rose City Investment Fund II (RCIF2) launched subsequently and
continued the same DeFi strategy. An independent analysis by StoneTurn
Group, a forensic accounting firm retained by the Receiver, confirmed
that RCIF2 generated returns of 339.55% in one year — a figure that is, as
the StoneTurn report noted, mathematically impossible in a Ponzi
scheme.
## May 16, 2022: The Federal Raid
On the morning of May 16, 2022 — just 48 hours after I sent Issue #139
of the Five Bullet Friday newsletter — ten federal agents arrived at my
home. They carried an ex parte temporary restraining order that I had
never seen, issued in a lawsuit I had never been notified of. My legal
counsel was told the matter was "confidential" and was excluded from the
proceedings.
The CFTC had filed its complaint in secret, obtained emergency relief
without notifying the defendant, and executed a raid before I had any
opportunity to respond. This is the procedure reserved for cases where
there is an immediate, documented risk of asset flight or evidence
destruction. There was no such risk. The fund's assets were on a public
blockchain — immutable, auditable, and going nowhere.
The agents seized computers, documents, and digital assets. They froze
all accounts. They appointed a Receiver — attorney James L. Kopecky —
to take control of the fund's assets. They seized the fund's domain and
prevented me from communicating with my partners.
This is the moment the CFTC violated my First Amendment right to free
speech, my Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and
seizures, my Fifth Amendment right to due process, my Sixth
Amendment right to be present and represented at proceedings against
me, and my Fourteenth Amendment right against deprivation of property
without due process.
## May–December 2022: The Investigation That Never Happened
In the months following the raid, the CFTC's investigation proceeded —
but not in the way one might expect. The lead investigator, Heather
Dasso, later admitted under oath that she never reviewed the Ethereum
blockchain records. Her exact words: *"As far as this case, I did not look
at the blockchain, correct."*
This admission is not a minor procedural oversight. The entire fund
operated on the Ethereum blockchain. Every transaction — every deposit,
every DeFi protocol interaction, every withdrawal — is recorded
immutably and publicly at wallet address
0x168fa4917e7cd18f4ed3dc313c4975851ca9e5e7. Reviewing that record
would have taken hours. It would have shown that the fund was actively
trading digital assets, that returns were generated by legitimate DeFi
operations, and that no investor funds were misappropriated.
blockchain — immutable, auditable, and going nowhere.
The agents seized computers, documents, and digital assets. They froze
all accounts. They appointed a Receiver — attorney James L. Kopecky —
to take control of the fund's assets. They seized the fund's domain and
prevented me from communicating with my partners.
This is the moment the CFTC violated my First Amendment right to free
speech, my Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and
seizures, my Fifth Amendment right to due process, my Sixth
Amendment right to be present and represented at proceedings against
me, and my Fourteenth Amendment right against deprivation of property
without due process.
## May–December 2022: The Investigation That Never Happened
In the months following the raid, the CFTC's investigation proceeded —
but not in the way one might expect. The lead investigator, Heather
Dasso, later admitted under oath that she never reviewed the Ethereum
blockchain records. Her exact words: *"As far as this case, I did not look
at the blockchain, correct."*
This admission is not a minor procedural oversight. The entire fund
operated on the Ethereum blockchain. Every transaction — every deposit,
every DeFi protocol interaction, every withdrawal — is recorded
immutably and publicly at wallet address
0x168fa4917e7cd18f4ed3dc313c4975851ca9e5e7. Reviewing that record
would have taken hours. It would have shown that the fund was actively
trading digital assets, that returns were generated by legitimate DeFi
operations, and that no investor funds were misappropriated.
Dasso also admitted that no investor had ever complained about not
receiving their promised dividend payments. The CFTC's complaint
alleged that the fund operated as a Ponzi scheme — but the agency's own
investigator confirmed that no victim had ever come forward to report
harm.
The CFTC's complaint further alleged that the fund traded "no digital
assets." This claim was false on its face. The blockchain records —
publicly available to anyone with an internet connection — showed $19
million in verifiable on-chain transactions. The CFTC made this
allegation without checking the blockchain.
## 2023: The Receiver Moves to Liquidate — and Every Investor Objects
In 2023, Receiver Kopecky filed a motion to liquidate all cryptocurrency
assets in the receivership estate. The timing was significant: the crypto
market was near a cyclical low, and liquidating at that moment would
have locked in losses on assets that, if held, could have recovered
substantially.
The investors understood this. They had followed the fund's strategy for
years. They knew what the assets were and what they could be worth. So
they did something remarkable: every single investor filed a formal
objection with the court.
Not a majority. Not most of them. One hundred percent of the investors
in Rose City Fund filed formal legal objections opposing the Receiver's
liquidation proposal. They retained independent legal counsel — attorney
Sesha Kalapatapu filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (Dkt.
#229) to represent the investors' collective interests. They wrote personal
letters to Judge Rowland. They filed formal legal briefs.
receiving their promised dividend payments. The CFTC's complaint
alleged that the fund operated as a Ponzi scheme — but the agency's own
investigator confirmed that no victim had ever come forward to report
harm.
The CFTC's complaint further alleged that the fund traded "no digital
assets." This claim was false on its face. The blockchain records —
publicly available to anyone with an internet connection — showed $19
million in verifiable on-chain transactions. The CFTC made this
allegation without checking the blockchain.
## 2023: The Receiver Moves to Liquidate — and Every Investor Objects
In 2023, Receiver Kopecky filed a motion to liquidate all cryptocurrency
assets in the receivership estate. The timing was significant: the crypto
market was near a cyclical low, and liquidating at that moment would
have locked in losses on assets that, if held, could have recovered
substantially.
The investors understood this. They had followed the fund's strategy for
years. They knew what the assets were and what they could be worth. So
they did something remarkable: every single investor filed a formal
objection with the court.
Not a majority. Not most of them. One hundred percent of the investors
in Rose City Fund filed formal legal objections opposing the Receiver's
liquidation proposal. They retained independent legal counsel — attorney
Sesha Kalapatapu filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice (Dkt.
#229) to represent the investors' collective interests. They wrote personal
letters to Judge Rowland. They filed formal legal briefs.
The 32 investor objection documents are now part of the public court
record, docketed as Exhibits 204–243 in *CFTC v. Ikkurty*, Case No.
1:22-cv-02597 (N.D. Ill.). They are available in full in the Investor
Objections section of the Legal Documents page.
The CFTC's response to unanimous investor opposition? They continued
the prosecution anyway.
## 2023–2024: The Trial and Conviction
The case proceeded to trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois before Judge Sara L. Ellis. The CFTC presented its case.
The defense presented the blockchain evidence, the StoneTurn analysis,
the investor letters, and the testimony of the investors themselves.
The court ruled in favor of the CFTC. A judgment was entered finding
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. The Receiver was authorized
to distribute assets to investors — the same investors who had
unanimously asked the court not to do this.
The judgment is now on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit. The central question before the appellate court is
whether the CFTC has statutory jurisdiction over Ethereum SPOT
transactions under the Commodity Exchange Act — a question that
Congress has never directly addressed and that has profound
implications for the entire digital asset industry.
## 2025: The Constitutional Accountability Campaign
Following the trial court judgment, I began a systematic effort to
document the constitutional violations and prosecutorial misconduct in
this case through the official channels available to citizens.
record, docketed as Exhibits 204–243 in *CFTC v. Ikkurty*, Case No.
1:22-cv-02597 (N.D. Ill.). They are available in full in the Investor
Objections section of the Legal Documents page.
The CFTC's response to unanimous investor opposition? They continued
the prosecution anyway.
## 2023–2024: The Trial and Conviction
The case proceeded to trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois before Judge Sara L. Ellis. The CFTC presented its case.
The defense presented the blockchain evidence, the StoneTurn analysis,
the investor letters, and the testimony of the investors themselves.
The court ruled in favor of the CFTC. A judgment was entered finding
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act. The Receiver was authorized
to distribute assets to investors — the same investors who had
unanimously asked the court not to do this.
The judgment is now on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit. The central question before the appellate court is
whether the CFTC has statutory jurisdiction over Ethereum SPOT
transactions under the Commodity Exchange Act — a question that
Congress has never directly addressed and that has profound
implications for the entire digital asset industry.
## 2025: The Constitutional Accountability Campaign
Following the trial court judgment, I began a systematic effort to
document the constitutional violations and prosecutorial misconduct in
this case through the official channels available to citizens.
April 7, 2025 — The DOJ issued its memorandum "Ending Regulation By
Prosecution," explicitly prohibiting agencies from pursuing cases without
evidence of willful misconduct and actual investor harm. Both conditions
are absent in this case, as admitted by the CFTC's own investigators.
May 13, 2025 — CFTC Commissioner Caroline Pham issued a public
statement in the context of *CFTC v. Traders Global Group Inc.* (D.N.J.
2025), where the court imposed $3.1 million in sanctions for "willful false
statements" by the Division of Enforcement. Commissioner Pham stated:
*"This case clearly shows that the Division has for far too long
maintained a culture that the CFTC is above the law... leading to abuse of
prosecutorial power and violation of due process."* A sitting CFTC
Commissioner publicly validated what I had been documenting for three
years.
July 20, 2025 — I filed a formal complaint with the CFTC Inspector
General, documenting systemic abuses of power and requesting an
investigation into the Division of Enforcement's conduct in this case.
July 29, 2025 — I filed a formal criminal complaint with the Department
of Justice — addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Acting Assistant
Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti, and U.S. Attorney Andrew S.
Boutros — requesting a grand jury investigation into alleged federal
crimes by CFTC officials and the Receiver, including obstruction of
justice, false statements, and deprivation of rights under color of law.
July 2025 — I filed a formal complaint with the Government
Accountability Office, requesting a GAO investigation into the CFTC's
Division of Enforcement and its pattern of misconduct across multiple
cases.
All three complaints are available in full in the Legal Documents section
of this site.
Prosecution," explicitly prohibiting agencies from pursuing cases without
evidence of willful misconduct and actual investor harm. Both conditions
are absent in this case, as admitted by the CFTC's own investigators.
May 13, 2025 — CFTC Commissioner Caroline Pham issued a public
statement in the context of *CFTC v. Traders Global Group Inc.* (D.N.J.
2025), where the court imposed $3.1 million in sanctions for "willful false
statements" by the Division of Enforcement. Commissioner Pham stated:
*"This case clearly shows that the Division has for far too long
maintained a culture that the CFTC is above the law... leading to abuse of
prosecutorial power and violation of due process."* A sitting CFTC
Commissioner publicly validated what I had been documenting for three
years.
July 20, 2025 — I filed a formal complaint with the CFTC Inspector
General, documenting systemic abuses of power and requesting an
investigation into the Division of Enforcement's conduct in this case.
July 29, 2025 — I filed a formal criminal complaint with the Department
of Justice — addressed to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Acting Assistant
Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti, and U.S. Attorney Andrew S.
Boutros — requesting a grand jury investigation into alleged federal
crimes by CFTC officials and the Receiver, including obstruction of
justice, false statements, and deprivation of rights under color of law.
July 2025 — I filed a formal complaint with the Government
Accountability Office, requesting a GAO investigation into the CFTC's
Division of Enforcement and its pattern of misconduct across multiple
cases.
All three complaints are available in full in the Legal Documents section
of this site.
## 2026: The Seventh Circuit Appeal
The appeal before the Seventh Circuit is now pending. The jurisdictional
question at the heart of the appeal — whether the CFTC has authority
over Ethereum SPOT transactions — is one of the most significant
unresolved questions in digital asset law. There are approximately 247
million unique Ethereum wallet addresses engaging in SPOT trading. If
the CFTC's jurisdictional claim is upheld without Congressional
authorization, it would effectively make criminals of hundreds of millions
of users who have never been told they are subject to CFTC oversight.
The DOJ's April 2025 memorandum, Commissioner Pham's public
statement, and the broader shift in the regulatory environment all point
toward a legal landscape that is increasingly hostile to regulation-by-
prosecution. The Seventh Circuit's decision will determine whether that
shift reaches this case.
## What the Evidence Shows
After four years of litigation, the evidentiary record in this case is clear:
The fund performed. 69 investors in RCIF1 exited with a mean CAGR of
303%. Zero investors lost money. RCIF2 generated 339.55% returns in
one year. These facts are documented, verified, and uncontested.
The fund was transparent. 139 consecutive weekly investor updates.
Blockchain wallet addresses shared publicly. Every transaction verifiable
on an immutable public ledger.
The CFTC's investigation was inadequate. The lead investigator never
reviewed the blockchain. No investor ever complained of harm. The
agency alleged "no digital assets traded" without checking the blockchain.
The appeal before the Seventh Circuit is now pending. The jurisdictional
question at the heart of the appeal — whether the CFTC has authority
over Ethereum SPOT transactions — is one of the most significant
unresolved questions in digital asset law. There are approximately 247
million unique Ethereum wallet addresses engaging in SPOT trading. If
the CFTC's jurisdictional claim is upheld without Congressional
authorization, it would effectively make criminals of hundreds of millions
of users who have never been told they are subject to CFTC oversight.
The DOJ's April 2025 memorandum, Commissioner Pham's public
statement, and the broader shift in the regulatory environment all point
toward a legal landscape that is increasingly hostile to regulation-by-
prosecution. The Seventh Circuit's decision will determine whether that
shift reaches this case.
## What the Evidence Shows
After four years of litigation, the evidentiary record in this case is clear:
The fund performed. 69 investors in RCIF1 exited with a mean CAGR of
303%. Zero investors lost money. RCIF2 generated 339.55% returns in
one year. These facts are documented, verified, and uncontested.
The fund was transparent. 139 consecutive weekly investor updates.
Blockchain wallet addresses shared publicly. Every transaction verifiable
on an immutable public ledger.
The CFTC's investigation was inadequate. The lead investigator never
reviewed the blockchain. No investor ever complained of harm. The
agency alleged "no digital assets traded" without checking the blockchain.
The investors opposed the prosecution. 100% of investors filed formal
objections to the Receiver's liquidation proposal. They retained
independent counsel. They wrote personal letters to the judge. They did
everything within their power to stop the government's actions.
The constitutional violations were real. Ex parte proceedings without
notice to legal counsel. Seizure of a domain and suppression of speech.
Freezing of lifetime earnings without due process. These are not
procedural technicalities — they are violations of the Bill of Rights.
## Why This Case Matters Beyond Me
This case is not just about Rose City Fund or Sam Ikkurty. It is about
whether federal regulatory agencies can pursue enforcement actions
without reviewing the evidence, without a single complaining victim, and
in defiance of the unanimous opposition of the people they claim to be
protecting.
It is about whether the CFTC has jurisdiction over Ethereum SPOT
transactions — a question with implications for hundreds of millions of
people who have never been told they are subject to CFTC oversight.
And it is about whether the constitutional protections that Americans
have fought and died to preserve apply equally to private citizens and
government agencies — or whether, as Thomas Jefferson warned,
tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for
the citizenry.
All of the documents in this case — the court filings, the government
complaints, the expert reports, the investor letters, the financial records
— are available in the Legal Documents section of this site. I have made
them public because transparency is the only tool available to someone in
objections to the Receiver's liquidation proposal. They retained
independent counsel. They wrote personal letters to the judge. They did
everything within their power to stop the government's actions.
The constitutional violations were real. Ex parte proceedings without
notice to legal counsel. Seizure of a domain and suppression of speech.
Freezing of lifetime earnings without due process. These are not
procedural technicalities — they are violations of the Bill of Rights.
## Why This Case Matters Beyond Me
This case is not just about Rose City Fund or Sam Ikkurty. It is about
whether federal regulatory agencies can pursue enforcement actions
without reviewing the evidence, without a single complaining victim, and
in defiance of the unanimous opposition of the people they claim to be
protecting.
It is about whether the CFTC has jurisdiction over Ethereum SPOT
transactions — a question with implications for hundreds of millions of
people who have never been told they are subject to CFTC oversight.
And it is about whether the constitutional protections that Americans
have fought and died to preserve apply equally to private citizens and
government agencies — or whether, as Thomas Jefferson warned,
tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for
the citizenry.
All of the documents in this case — the court filings, the government
complaints, the expert reports, the investor letters, the financial records
— are available in the Legal Documents section of this site. I have made
them public because transparency is the only tool available to someone in
my position, and because the public deserves to see the evidence for
themselves.
Sam Ikkurty · samikkurty.com · All documents and evidence available at samikkurty.com/
legal-documents
themselves.
Sam Ikkurty · samikkurty.com · All documents and evidence available at samikkurty.com/
legal-documents
Share this record
VERIFICATION RECORD
Submission trackF
StatusREJECTED
Posted2026-04-14T08:14:06.000Z
SHA-256 hashf6b19a7ff1eb269d2c77397c82d29ee4c2a175ecc77759e1eb0a15b1ef7b5c20
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.