REJECTEDWALL #255
Sam Ikkurty
Posted April 14, 2026
PERMANENT LINKcftcsucks.com/255
PDF Document — 4 pages↓ Download PDF
Sam Ikkurty — Constitutional Rights & Legal Advocacy
samikkurty.com | April 14, 2026
An Open Letter to Chairman Selig: The
Eleven-Minute Phone Call That Cost
Americans $209 Million
Dear Chairman Selig,
There is a number at the center of this case that I want you to
consider: eleven minutes. That is the length of the ex parte phone
call on May 10–11, 2022, in which the CFTC obtained an asset
freeze, a receiver appointment, and a temporary restraining order
against me, my companies, and my investors' funds. I was not
present. I was not notified. I had no opportunity to respond. The
court heard only from the CFTC.
The $209 million judgment that followed — entered on July 22,
2024 — traces directly to that eleven-minute call. The asset
freeze prevented me from operating the fund, paying legal counsel,
or defending myself with the resources I had built for my
investors. The receiver, once appointed, took control of the fund's
assets and began liquidating them. By the time I had the
opportunity to present the blockchain evidence, the StoneTurn
report, and the 69 investor letters to the court, the structural
damage was done.
What the CFTC Told the Court in Eleven Minutes
The CFTC's basis for the ex parte orders was the complaint filed
by Haan and Terrell and the declaration of their investigator,
Heather Dasso. The complaint alleged that the fund "did not trade
digital assets." The declaration drew a Ponzi scheme conclusion
samikkurty.com | April 14, 2026
An Open Letter to Chairman Selig: The
Eleven-Minute Phone Call That Cost
Americans $209 Million
Dear Chairman Selig,
There is a number at the center of this case that I want you to
consider: eleven minutes. That is the length of the ex parte phone
call on May 10–11, 2022, in which the CFTC obtained an asset
freeze, a receiver appointment, and a temporary restraining order
against me, my companies, and my investors' funds. I was not
present. I was not notified. I had no opportunity to respond. The
court heard only from the CFTC.
The $209 million judgment that followed — entered on July 22,
2024 — traces directly to that eleven-minute call. The asset
freeze prevented me from operating the fund, paying legal counsel,
or defending myself with the resources I had built for my
investors. The receiver, once appointed, took control of the fund's
assets and began liquidating them. By the time I had the
opportunity to present the blockchain evidence, the StoneTurn
report, and the 69 investor letters to the court, the structural
damage was done.
What the CFTC Told the Court in Eleven Minutes
The CFTC's basis for the ex parte orders was the complaint filed
by Haan and Terrell and the declaration of their investigator,
Heather Dasso. The complaint alleged that the fund "did not trade
digital assets." The declaration drew a Ponzi scheme conclusion
from bank records alone, without examining the blockchain. As
Dasso later admitted under oath, she had never looked at the
blockchain at the time she prepared her declaration.
The court had no way to know this. Ex parte proceedings exist for
genuine emergencies — situations where advance notice would
allow a defendant to destroy evidence or flee. The CFTC presented
this case as such an emergency. In eleven minutes, without any
adversarial testing of the evidence, the court issued orders that
froze every asset associated with the fund and placed it under the
control of a court-appointed receiver.
The Due Process Violation
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived
of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court held in
Mathews v. Eldridge that due process requires a balancing of the
private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the
government's interest. In this case, the private interest was
substantial — the assets of an investment fund with 69 investors,
built over four years. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high
— the CFTC's central factual allegation was directly contradicted
by publicly available blockchain data that its own investigator had
never examined. The government's interest in proceeding ex parte,
without notice, was never established beyond the boilerplate
assertion of emergency.
The ex parte procedure might be defensible if the CFTC had
conducted a thorough investigation before seeking emergency relief.
It had not. It had examined bank records. It had not examined the
blockchain. It had not examined the fund's SEC registration. It had
not examined the fund's independent administrator, its auditor, or
its legal counsel. It had not spoken to a single investor. It filed a
complaint, obtained emergency orders in eleven minutes, and then
conducted its investigation — in reverse order.
Dasso later admitted under oath, she had never looked at the
blockchain at the time she prepared her declaration.
The court had no way to know this. Ex parte proceedings exist for
genuine emergencies — situations where advance notice would
allow a defendant to destroy evidence or flee. The CFTC presented
this case as such an emergency. In eleven minutes, without any
adversarial testing of the evidence, the court issued orders that
froze every asset associated with the fund and placed it under the
control of a court-appointed receiver.
The Due Process Violation
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived
of property without due process of law. The Supreme Court held in
Mathews v. Eldridge that due process requires a balancing of the
private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the
government's interest. In this case, the private interest was
substantial — the assets of an investment fund with 69 investors,
built over four years. The risk of erroneous deprivation was high
— the CFTC's central factual allegation was directly contradicted
by publicly available blockchain data that its own investigator had
never examined. The government's interest in proceeding ex parte,
without notice, was never established beyond the boilerplate
assertion of emergency.
The ex parte procedure might be defensible if the CFTC had
conducted a thorough investigation before seeking emergency relief.
It had not. It had examined bank records. It had not examined the
blockchain. It had not examined the fund's SEC registration. It had
not examined the fund's independent administrator, its auditor, or
its legal counsel. It had not spoken to a single investor. It filed a
complaint, obtained emergency orders in eleven minutes, and then
conducted its investigation — in reverse order.
What Happened After the Freeze
After the asset freeze, the receiver began liquidating the fund's
digital asset positions. The fund held tokens — YFI, Aave, SNX,
KLIMA, and others — that had been carefully selected and
managed over four years. The liquidation was not orderly. It
occurred during a period of significant market volatility. The losses
incurred during the forced liquidation became part of the "harm"
attributed to me in the final judgment.
The investors who had written to the court saying they had made
money, that they opposed the CFTC's actions, and that they wanted
their assets returned — those investors watched the receiver
liquidate their positions. The $209 million judgment does not
represent money I stole. It represents the CFTC's calculation of
what investors would have received if they had invested in the
S&P 500 instead of my fund — a counterfactual damages theory
applied to a fund whose investors, to a person, reported profitable
returns and opposed the government's intervention.
The Seventh Circuit
The appeal is pending before the Seventh Circuit, Case No.
24-2684. The blockchain evidence, the Dasso deposition, the
StoneTurn report, and the investor letters are all part of the
appellate record. The constitutional questions — whether the ex
parte procedure satisfied due process, whether the damages theory
is legally supportable, whether the CFTC's jurisdiction over digital
asset spot markets is valid — are before the court.
Chairman Selig, you have the authority to direct your agency's
attorneys to engage with the appellate record honestly. You have
the authority to examine whether the eleven-minute ex parte
proceeding that initiated this case was consistent with the
constitutional standards your agency is bound to uphold. You have
After the asset freeze, the receiver began liquidating the fund's
digital asset positions. The fund held tokens — YFI, Aave, SNX,
KLIMA, and others — that had been carefully selected and
managed over four years. The liquidation was not orderly. It
occurred during a period of significant market volatility. The losses
incurred during the forced liquidation became part of the "harm"
attributed to me in the final judgment.
The investors who had written to the court saying they had made
money, that they opposed the CFTC's actions, and that they wanted
their assets returned — those investors watched the receiver
liquidate their positions. The $209 million judgment does not
represent money I stole. It represents the CFTC's calculation of
what investors would have received if they had invested in the
S&P 500 instead of my fund — a counterfactual damages theory
applied to a fund whose investors, to a person, reported profitable
returns and opposed the government's intervention.
The Seventh Circuit
The appeal is pending before the Seventh Circuit, Case No.
24-2684. The blockchain evidence, the Dasso deposition, the
StoneTurn report, and the investor letters are all part of the
appellate record. The constitutional questions — whether the ex
parte procedure satisfied due process, whether the damages theory
is legally supportable, whether the CFTC's jurisdiction over digital
asset spot markets is valid — are before the court.
Chairman Selig, you have the authority to direct your agency's
attorneys to engage with the appellate record honestly. You have
the authority to examine whether the eleven-minute ex parte
proceeding that initiated this case was consistent with the
constitutional standards your agency is bound to uphold. You have
stated publicly that the CFTC will end "regulation by enforcement."
This case is a test of that commitment.
The record is public. The eleven minutes are documented. The
$209 million judgment is real. And every investor who invested in
my fund made money — until the CFTC intervened.
Respectfully,
Sam Ikkurty
All supporting documents, blockchain evidence, investor letters,
and legal filings are available at samikkurty.com/legal-documents.
This case is a test of that commitment.
The record is public. The eleven minutes are documented. The
$209 million judgment is real. And every investor who invested in
my fund made money — until the CFTC intervened.
Respectfully,
Sam Ikkurty
All supporting documents, blockchain evidence, investor letters,
and legal filings are available at samikkurty.com/legal-documents.
Share this record
VERIFICATION RECORD
Submission trackF
StatusREJECTED
Posted2026-04-14T08:17:04.000Z
SHA-256 hash80ff4bffbc334b6d896a849ea58899bdb8c8128f20e7c8e6e95f4756bd1a448d
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.