REJECTEDWALL #187
Sam Ikkurty
Posted April 14, 2026
PERMANENT LINKcftcsucks.com/187
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
A Judge Who Had Already Decided:
The Constitutional Problem at the
Heart of CFTC v. Ikkurty
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/judge-who-had-already-decided | Case No. 1:22-cv-02465
(N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. The Supreme Court has held, repeatedly and without
exception, that due process requires a neutral decision-maker — a judge
who has not prejudged the outcome before hearing the evidence.
On May 11, 2022, at 1:03 in the afternoon, a telephone hearing began in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
hearing lasted eleven minutes. I was not there. My lawyer was not there.
No one representing my interests was there. CFTC attorney Candice
Haan was there, and Judge Virginia Rowland was there, and that was the
entirety of the proceeding that resulted in the freezing of $209 million in
assets.
The transcript of that hearing is now public. It is available at
samikkurty.com/legal-documents/tro-hearing-transcript-may-11-2022.
Read it.
C O N S T I T U T I O N A L R I G H T S
A Judge Who Had Already Decided:
The Constitutional Problem at the
Heart of CFTC v. Ikkurty
Published at samikkurty.com/blog/judge-who-had-already-decided | Case No. 1:22-cv-02465
(N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. No. 24-2684
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. The Supreme Court has held, repeatedly and without
exception, that due process requires a neutral decision-maker — a judge
who has not prejudged the outcome before hearing the evidence.
On May 11, 2022, at 1:03 in the afternoon, a telephone hearing began in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
hearing lasted eleven minutes. I was not there. My lawyer was not there.
No one representing my interests was there. CFTC attorney Candice
Haan was there, and Judge Virginia Rowland was there, and that was the
entirety of the proceeding that resulted in the freezing of $209 million in
assets.
The transcript of that hearing is now public. It is available at
samikkurty.com/legal-documents/tro-hearing-transcript-may-11-2022.
Read it.
The sentence that matters most appears on page four. Before CFTC
attorney Haan had presented a single word of substantive argument,
before any evidence had been discussed, before any legal standard had
been applied, Judge Rowland said: "So if I entered it today, which I plan
to do..."
She had already decided. The hearing had not yet begun in any
meaningful sense, and the judge had already announced her conclusion.
What followed was not deliberation. It was paperwork.
The constitutional problem is not subtle. The Supreme Court held in
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975), that due process requires a
decision-maker who has not prejudged the merits. The Court held in
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), that the
appearance of bias is itself a constitutional violation when it reaches a
certain threshold. And the Court held in Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.
Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974), that ex parte temporary
restraining orders are "an extreme remedy" that must be followed
promptly by an adversarial hearing — not a two-year prosecution.
There are other problems with the hearing. The exhibits were missing —
Exhibits A through K had not been provided to the judge when she
entered the orders. The receiver was appointed without the judge
reviewing his qualifications: "I trust that Mr. Kopecky has done this
before," she said. The CFTC attorney told the judge the agency had
"remained in a covert posture" — meaning I had been deliberately kept in
the dark — and the judge said "okay" and moved on.
Eleven minutes. Missing exhibits. A pre-announced ruling. A receiver
appointed on trust. And $209 million frozen.
I am not arguing that judges cannot make quick decisions. I am arguing
that a decision announced before argument is presented is not a decision
attorney Haan had presented a single word of substantive argument,
before any evidence had been discussed, before any legal standard had
been applied, Judge Rowland said: "So if I entered it today, which I plan
to do..."
She had already decided. The hearing had not yet begun in any
meaningful sense, and the judge had already announced her conclusion.
What followed was not deliberation. It was paperwork.
The constitutional problem is not subtle. The Supreme Court held in
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975), that due process requires a
decision-maker who has not prejudged the merits. The Court held in
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009), that the
appearance of bias is itself a constitutional violation when it reaches a
certain threshold. And the Court held in Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v.
Brotherhood of Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974), that ex parte temporary
restraining orders are "an extreme remedy" that must be followed
promptly by an adversarial hearing — not a two-year prosecution.
There are other problems with the hearing. The exhibits were missing —
Exhibits A through K had not been provided to the judge when she
entered the orders. The receiver was appointed without the judge
reviewing his qualifications: "I trust that Mr. Kopecky has done this
before," she said. The CFTC attorney told the judge the agency had
"remained in a covert posture" — meaning I had been deliberately kept in
the dark — and the judge said "okay" and moved on.
Eleven minutes. Missing exhibits. A pre-announced ruling. A receiver
appointed on trust. And $209 million frozen.
I am not arguing that judges cannot make quick decisions. I am arguing
that a decision announced before argument is presented is not a decision
— it is a formality. And a formality that results in the seizure of $209
million, the appointment of a receiver who has since charged $451,000 in
fees, and a four-year prosecution of a fund manager whose investors all
made money is not due process. It is the appearance of justice without the
substance.
The Seventh Circuit will decide whether this matters. The full transcript
is at samikkurty.com. The constitutional arguments are in the appellate
brief. The record is complete.
What is not complete is the accounting. Not the financial accounting —
the blockchain handles that. The constitutional accounting: who is
responsible for eleven minutes that cost four years, and what does a
government owe a citizen when it takes that much on the basis of that
little?
Sam Ikkurty · samikkurty.com · All documents and evidence available at samikkurty.com/
legal-documents
million, the appointment of a receiver who has since charged $451,000 in
fees, and a four-year prosecution of a fund manager whose investors all
made money is not due process. It is the appearance of justice without the
substance.
The Seventh Circuit will decide whether this matters. The full transcript
is at samikkurty.com. The constitutional arguments are in the appellate
brief. The record is complete.
What is not complete is the accounting. Not the financial accounting —
the blockchain handles that. The constitutional accounting: who is
responsible for eleven minutes that cost four years, and what does a
government owe a citizen when it takes that much on the basis of that
little?
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 hashf59c22893ff688e8dc98bcc3c5ba9e74ca68790d3ece34a952c4f928efd19794
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.