REJECTEDWALL #186
Sam Ikkurty
Posted April 14, 2026
PERMANENT LINKcftcsucks.com/186
PDF Document — 6 pages↓ Download PDF
SAM IKKURTY — CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATE samikkurty.com
C F T C U P D A T E S
The 11-Minute Hearing That Froze
$209 Million — Without Reading the
Evidence
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/the-11-minute-hearing-that-froze-209-million | Case No.
1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
# The 11-Minute Hearing That Froze $209 Million — Without Reading
the Evidence
*By Sam Ikkurty | April 12, 2026*
---
On May 11, 2022, at 1:03 in the afternoon, a federal judge picked up the
phone. Eleven minutes later, at 1:14 p.m., she hung up. In that time,
without a single word from the defense, without reviewing all the
evidence, and without even looking at the qualifications of the man she
was about to hand control of an entire business to, Judge Mary M.
Rowland had done the following:
- Frozen every asset I owned
- Appointed a receiver to seize and liquidate my fund
- Entered a statutory restraining order against me
- Sealed the entire case from public view
C F T C U P D A T E S
The 11-Minute Hearing That Froze
$209 Million — Without Reading the
Evidence
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/the-11-minute-hearing-that-froze-209-million | Case No.
1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
# The 11-Minute Hearing That Froze $209 Million — Without Reading
the Evidence
*By Sam Ikkurty | April 12, 2026*
---
On May 11, 2022, at 1:03 in the afternoon, a federal judge picked up the
phone. Eleven minutes later, at 1:14 p.m., she hung up. In that time,
without a single word from the defense, without reviewing all the
evidence, and without even looking at the qualifications of the man she
was about to hand control of an entire business to, Judge Mary M.
Rowland had done the following:
- Frozen every asset I owned
- Appointed a receiver to seize and liquidate my fund
- Entered a statutory restraining order against me
- Sealed the entire case from public view
I was not on that call. My lawyers were not on that call. No one
representing my interests was on that call. The CFTC had made sure of
that.
---
## "We Have Remained in a Covert Posture"
That is a direct quote from CFTC attorney Candice Haan, spoken on the
record to Judge Rowland during that hearing. When the judge asked
whether the CFTC was in contact with opposing counsel, Haan's answer
was not "we could not reach them" or "we tried and failed." It was a
deliberate, premeditated choice: *covert posture*. They had decided, as a
matter of strategy, to make sure I had no idea what was coming.
The judge's response? "Okay."
That is the full extent of the court's scrutiny of the decision to deny me
any notice or opportunity to be heard before losing everything I had built.
---
## "Which I Plan to Do"
Before Haan had presented a single argument — before any evidence was
discussed, before any legal standard was applied — Judge Rowland
announced her decision. Here is the exact language from the official court
transcript (Docket #414, filed November 20, 2024, page 4):
> *"So if I entered it today, which I plan to do..."*
She had already decided. The hearing was not a hearing. It was a
formality — a rubber stamp dressed up in judicial procedure. The CFTC
filed its motions, submitted its proposed orders, and the judge signed
them. The only question was logistics: how long the TRO would last,
representing my interests was on that call. The CFTC had made sure of
that.
---
## "We Have Remained in a Covert Posture"
That is a direct quote from CFTC attorney Candice Haan, spoken on the
record to Judge Rowland during that hearing. When the judge asked
whether the CFTC was in contact with opposing counsel, Haan's answer
was not "we could not reach them" or "we tried and failed." It was a
deliberate, premeditated choice: *covert posture*. They had decided, as a
matter of strategy, to make sure I had no idea what was coming.
The judge's response? "Okay."
That is the full extent of the court's scrutiny of the decision to deny me
any notice or opportunity to be heard before losing everything I had built.
---
## "Which I Plan to Do"
Before Haan had presented a single argument — before any evidence was
discussed, before any legal standard was applied — Judge Rowland
announced her decision. Here is the exact language from the official court
transcript (Docket #414, filed November 20, 2024, page 4):
> *"So if I entered it today, which I plan to do..."*
She had already decided. The hearing was not a hearing. It was a
formality — a rubber stamp dressed up in judicial procedure. The CFTC
filed its motions, submitted its proposed orders, and the judge signed
them. The only question was logistics: how long the TRO would last,
when to schedule the next conference, and how to keep the case sealed
long enough to execute the raid.
---
## A Receiver Appointed Without Reading His Resume
Among the orders entered that afternoon was the appointment of Kevin
Rowe of KSR Group as receiver over my fund and all its assets. Judge
Rowland acknowledged on the record that she had not reviewed his
curriculum vitae. Her explanation:
> *"I trust that Mr. Kopecky has done this before."*
She could not even keep the names straight. She was appointing a man
named Kevin Rowe and referring to him as "Mr. Kopecky" — the name of
the CFTC's proposed receiver from a different filing. She trusted that
*someone* had done *something* before, and on that basis, she handed a
stranger the keys to a fund that had made every single one of its 69
investors a profit.
That receiver has since billed over $451,000 in fees. He has filed
clawback suits against investors who made money — the very people the
CFTC claimed it was protecting. Not one of those 69 investors lost a
dollar. One hundred percent of them have formally objected to the
CFTC's actions. Thirty-two of them filed written objections with the court
(Dkt. 204–243). The receiver continues to bill.
---
## Missing Exhibits, No Problem
The judge also acknowledged during the hearing that she was missing
exhibits. She had Exhibits J through CC, but Exhibits A through K were
long enough to execute the raid.
---
## A Receiver Appointed Without Reading His Resume
Among the orders entered that afternoon was the appointment of Kevin
Rowe of KSR Group as receiver over my fund and all its assets. Judge
Rowland acknowledged on the record that she had not reviewed his
curriculum vitae. Her explanation:
> *"I trust that Mr. Kopecky has done this before."*
She could not even keep the names straight. She was appointing a man
named Kevin Rowe and referring to him as "Mr. Kopecky" — the name of
the CFTC's proposed receiver from a different filing. She trusted that
*someone* had done *something* before, and on that basis, she handed a
stranger the keys to a fund that had made every single one of its 69
investors a profit.
That receiver has since billed over $451,000 in fees. He has filed
clawback suits against investors who made money — the very people the
CFTC claimed it was protecting. Not one of those 69 investors lost a
dollar. One hundred percent of them have formally objected to the
CFTC's actions. Thirty-two of them filed written objections with the court
(Dkt. 204–243). The receiver continues to bill.
---
## Missing Exhibits, No Problem
The judge also acknowledged during the hearing that she was missing
exhibits. She had Exhibits J through CC, but Exhibits A through K were
not in her possession. She noted this on the record and then proceeded to
grant all three motions anyway.
To be clear about what those motions authorized: a complete freeze of all
assets, the appointment of a receiver with broad powers to seize and
liquidate property, and a statutory restraining order that would remain in
place for years. All of it entered without a complete evidentiary record.
---
## What the CFTC's Own Evidence Actually Showed
Here is what was not discussed in that 11-minute call, because no one was
there to discuss it:
My fund, Rose City Income Fund, is an SEC-registered entity (CIK
0001842816). It invested exclusively in ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum
blockchain. Every transaction — all 885 of them — is permanently
recorded on the public Ethereum ledger and has been available for
anyone to verify since the day each transaction occurred. The CFTC's own
forensic expert, StoneTurn, reviewed those transactions and concluded
that a Ponzi scheme was mathematically impossible given the on-chain
data.
The CFTC's lead investigator, Heather Dasso, later admitted under oath
that she had not looked at the blockchain before filing the declaration
that was used to obtain the orders entered on May 11, 2022. She did not
review the fund's Private Placement Memorandum. She did not review
the 2-and-20 fee structure disclosed to all investors. She did not review
the Intertrust fund administrator records. She did not review the Richey
May audit. She did not review the SEC registration.
She filed a declaration. The judge signed the orders. I lost everything — in
11 minutes.
grant all three motions anyway.
To be clear about what those motions authorized: a complete freeze of all
assets, the appointment of a receiver with broad powers to seize and
liquidate property, and a statutory restraining order that would remain in
place for years. All of it entered without a complete evidentiary record.
---
## What the CFTC's Own Evidence Actually Showed
Here is what was not discussed in that 11-minute call, because no one was
there to discuss it:
My fund, Rose City Income Fund, is an SEC-registered entity (CIK
0001842816). It invested exclusively in ERC-20 tokens on the Ethereum
blockchain. Every transaction — all 885 of them — is permanently
recorded on the public Ethereum ledger and has been available for
anyone to verify since the day each transaction occurred. The CFTC's own
forensic expert, StoneTurn, reviewed those transactions and concluded
that a Ponzi scheme was mathematically impossible given the on-chain
data.
The CFTC's lead investigator, Heather Dasso, later admitted under oath
that she had not looked at the blockchain before filing the declaration
that was used to obtain the orders entered on May 11, 2022. She did not
review the fund's Private Placement Memorandum. She did not review
the 2-and-20 fee structure disclosed to all investors. She did not review
the Intertrust fund administrator records. She did not review the Richey
May audit. She did not review the SEC registration.
She filed a declaration. The judge signed the orders. I lost everything — in
11 minutes.
---
## The Standard That Was Supposed to Apply
Federal law does not permit the government to freeze a person's assets
and seize their business without notice simply because it asks. The
Supreme Court has been clear on this point for decades. In *Granny
Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters*, 415 U.S. 423 (1974), the
Court described ex parte temporary restraining orders as an "extreme
remedy" — one that must be strictly limited and followed by prompt
adversarial review precisely because of the catastrophic harm they can
cause when granted on incomplete information.
The Fifth Amendment's due process clause guarantees every person the
right to be heard before the government deprives them of property. That
guarantee is not suspended because the government calls its target a
fraudster. It is not suspended because the government prefers a "covert
posture." It is not suspended because a judge decides, before hearing
argument, that she plans to sign the orders.
The constitutional requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard
is not a technicality. It is the difference between a government of laws
and a government of agencies.
---
## What This Means Now
This transcript is now public. It is available on this site in full. Every
journalist, every congressional staffer, every lawyer, every person who
has ever wondered how the CFTC can destroy a profitable fund and call it
consumer protection — they can read it for themselves.
## The Standard That Was Supposed to Apply
Federal law does not permit the government to freeze a person's assets
and seize their business without notice simply because it asks. The
Supreme Court has been clear on this point for decades. In *Granny
Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters*, 415 U.S. 423 (1974), the
Court described ex parte temporary restraining orders as an "extreme
remedy" — one that must be strictly limited and followed by prompt
adversarial review precisely because of the catastrophic harm they can
cause when granted on incomplete information.
The Fifth Amendment's due process clause guarantees every person the
right to be heard before the government deprives them of property. That
guarantee is not suspended because the government calls its target a
fraudster. It is not suspended because the government prefers a "covert
posture." It is not suspended because a judge decides, before hearing
argument, that she plans to sign the orders.
The constitutional requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard
is not a technicality. It is the difference between a government of laws
and a government of agencies.
---
## What This Means Now
This transcript is now public. It is available on this site in full. Every
journalist, every congressional staffer, every lawyer, every person who
has ever wondered how the CFTC can destroy a profitable fund and call it
consumer protection — they can read it for themselves.
Chairman Brian Quintenz, who now leads the CFTC, has spoken publicly
about ending regulation by enforcement. Chairman Michael Selig, who
preceded him, made the same promise. The transcript of the May 11,
2022 hearing is the test of whether those promises mean anything.
An agency that obtains a $209 million judgment after an 11-minute secret
phone call — with missing exhibits, a pre-announced ruling, and a
receiver appointed without reviewing his qualifications — is not
protecting investors. It is not enforcing the law. It is doing something else
entirely.
The blockchain record shows every dollar that went into my fund and
every dollar that came out. Every investor made money. The CFTC's own
expert confirmed it. The lead investigator admitted she never looked.
Eleven minutes. That is all it took to end four years of work, freeze every
asset I owned, and set in motion a receivership that has cost investors
more in fees than any alleged harm ever could have.
The transcript is available here — PDF. Read it yourself.
Sam Ikkurty · samikkurty.com · All documents and evidence available at samikkurty.com/
legal-documents
about ending regulation by enforcement. Chairman Michael Selig, who
preceded him, made the same promise. The transcript of the May 11,
2022 hearing is the test of whether those promises mean anything.
An agency that obtains a $209 million judgment after an 11-minute secret
phone call — with missing exhibits, a pre-announced ruling, and a
receiver appointed without reviewing his qualifications — is not
protecting investors. It is not enforcing the law. It is doing something else
entirely.
The blockchain record shows every dollar that went into my fund and
every dollar that came out. Every investor made money. The CFTC's own
expert confirmed it. The lead investigator admitted she never looked.
Eleven minutes. That is all it took to end four years of work, freeze every
asset I owned, and set in motion a receivership that has cost investors
more in fees than any alleged harm ever could have.
The transcript is available here — PDF. Read it yourself.
Sam Ikkurty · samikkurty.com · All documents and evidence available at samikkurty.com/
legal-documents
Share this record
VERIFICATION RECORD
Submission trackF
StatusREJECTED
Posted2026-04-14T08:14:21.000Z
SHA-256 hashec0748c656af51b8dd2a358fa73dae066ab842733a667468cb454830c8337909
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.