Resolves YES if before 2027-01-01T00:00:00-05:00,
Steve is subject to a motion declaring him to be a vexatious or frivolous litigant in any jurisdiction; or
Steve, or a Steve-controlled entity, loses a motion filed under 231 Pa. Code Rule 233.1, regardless of a determination under (c); or
The same, for any equivalent local rule; or
Steve is convicted of 18 Pa. C.S. § 5109 or any equivalent statute; or
At market close, since 2020-01-01T00:00:00-05:00, Steve has commenced, prosecuted, or maintained, pro se, at least five civil actions or proceedings in any state or federal court, other than in a small claims court, that have been finally determined adversely to him (based off of CA Civil Code § 391(b))
"Any equivalent local rule" (bzw. statute) includes the local rules, whatever called, and any procedural or substantive civil statutes (bzw. criminal statute) in any US-based jurisdiction.
Resolves NO otherwise, or barring evidence of any of the above in a reasonable time after market close.
Also potentially some future action against BlockFi: https://stevesokolowski.com/dcg/blog/june-update/#:~:text=An%20analysis%20of%20causes%20of%20action%20in%20our%20next%20suit%20against%20Zac%20Prince%20of%20BlockFi
@kopecs Is this "the Conneticut action"? He should get sanctioned for filing that. It admits that it is idential, but pleading violations of Conneticut law. I'm now lawyer, but it doesn't seem like the right way to do things. Shouldn't all cases be in one court? You can't forum shop all 50 states....unless AI says you can.
@kopecs Omg, this is just sad. "With perfect execution, we will definitely win the case." This fellow thinks any case is winnable if the right words are used in the right order in filings. He seems to understand his eventual downfall, though, in the section about the "online community" being sharply negative.
Is this "the Connecticut action"?"
Yes, the '870 case is.
It admits that it is identical, but pleading violations of Connecticut law. I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem like the right way to do things. Shouldn't all cases be in one court? You can't forum shop all 50 states....unless AI says you can.
Frankly, I don't actually know that you can't do what he is doing here: the issue will be if he loses for 12(b)(6) in MDPA and tries to maintain the CT action (AFAIK claim preclusion won't be an issue until a final judgement). I haven't seen this before because typically people sue in the court that actually has jurisdiction the first time because it would just be frivolous and a waste of time to sue somewhere that doesn't (but Rule 11 doesn't seem to be a great deterrent for Steve).
Tangentially I will say there is something uniquely hilarious to me about this paragraph:
Every attorney I’ve met has either asked us to do research for him (in 2017, an attorney we contacted to determine the legality of PROHASHING asked us what we thought,) held useless meetings to charge more (like having two attorneys present in the same room to double the cost,) offered to provide useless services (like trying to get Zac Prince criminally prosecuted,) or taken five years to accomplish what should have been done in two (my mother’s divorce case.)
@kopecs I'm no expert, but I can't imagine filing an action and asking to have it dismissed tolls the statute of limitations, which is what he seems to think.
@FrederickNorris I believe he asked to have it stayed. But I didn't really want to read that one to be honest.
@FrederickNorris You can see everything I've downloaded from the docket in the DCG case here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69511526/sokolowski-v-digital-currency-group-inc/
Case was assigned to Phillip Caraballo who has an AI policy warning about sanctions. It seems to me that the Sokolowski brothers violated this, but in fairness to them, he wasn't the judge when the case was initially filed.
"Increased use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”), particularly Generative AI (including, but not limited to, OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Bard), in the practice of law raises a number of practical concerns for the Court, including the risk that the generative AI tool might generate legally or factually incorrect information, that it might create unsupported or nonexistent legal citations, or that it may disclose confidential information in the public sphere. Accordingly, any party, whether appearing pro se or through counsel, who utilizes any generative AI tool in the preparation of any document to be filed in any matter pending before Judge Caraballo, must include with the document a Certificate of Use of Generative AI in which the party must disclose and certify:
The specific AI tool that was used;
The portions of the filing prepared by the AI program; and
That a person has checked the accuracy of any portion of the document generated by AI, including all citations and legal authority.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in sanctions."
@KevinBlaw This changes everything. It's almost like this Standing Order was meant to head-off the Soko BS. But the main problem with the case remains that the interest was owned and sold by an LLC, and Soko is trying to double dip on his personal name. Not gonna work. Should not work.
Hot shot Bankruptcy Lawyer may hold the key to this market. It is outrageous that Steve's LLC sold his bankruptcy claim, but he's still trying to sue, claiming he was the real owner. I'm throwing in my lot with this guy, instead of AI-generated gibberish.
@FrederickNorris I expect a motion to dismiss is coming, but it would be fun if the defense just opted to file an answer and let it go to trial. Can you imagine Steve cross-examining a witness with an AI chatbot? “One minute your honor, I have to type in his answer to see what Gemini thinks I should ask next.”
@FrederickNorris @SteveSokolowski i saw where someone was saying plaintiffs are trying to pierce their own corporate veil and assumed that person had to be wrong. Wow. Is that what you are trying to do, Steve?
@KevinBlaw Yes.
The Nominal LLC Structure
30. Plaintiffs each personally owned their cryptocurrency assets and their
US Dollars at all times. They did not transfer title to any LLC or other entity;
instead, they used a nominal LLC, CM LLC-a bare bones entity with no
independent business purpose—at Defendants’ suggestion to meet Genesis’s
minimum deposit thresholds. CM LLC thus was created only weeks before its use
with Genesis. Plaintiffs’ intention was to safely lend their personally owned assets
and earn modest interest—akin to placing money in a high-yield savings account.
[...]
38. No reasonable third party interacting with Plaintiffs would have
recognized CM LLC as a genuine, standalone business given its complete lack of
separate existence, resources, and operational identity.
39. Genesis was aware of and facilitated the use of this LLC structure
specifically to allow Plaintiffs to circumvent Genesis's minimum deposit
requirement. Genesis understood that, despite the LLC form, it was dealing with
individual consumers making personal financial decisions.
and, of course,
93. On January 27, 2023, in the Genesis Global Capital, LLC Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceeding pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York, CM LLC sold its bankruptcy claim against Genesis
to Jefferies Leveraged Credit Products LLC (See Genesis Bankruptcy Action, Doc.
50.)
Sounds like we can expect a filing today or tomorrow.
https://manifold.markets/SteveSokolowski/will-i-have-a-positive-view-of-effe#r5wh0lhoqjj
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69511526/sokolowski-v-digital-currency-group-inc/
NOTE: Defendants in this suit are not Wells Fargo.
@kopecs https://shoemakervillage.org/temp/complaint_as_filed.pdf
Interesting news here. He has filed a lawsuit where there was already litigation at least in Bankruptcy Court and perhaps by Attorneys Generals in state courts. This SHOULD get bounced.
Apparently, DCG is a shareholder of a bankrupt entity.
I believe this case duplicates one filed in NY (although I haven't read either).
I actually sympathize with Stephen on this one, but nonetheless, I think his efforts to be treated differently than other similarly situated persons via this case will simply not work.
I'll try to keep the docket updated there with RECAP, but I made the mistake of downloading everything without it installed on the machine I was on.
One Defendant he sued is already in Bankruptcy
Are they? I don't think DCG is in bankruptcy (just subsidiaries which he hasn't named), unless you mean one of the other parties.
Is getting sanctioned for violating the Bankruptcy stay enough to resolve this market YES under bullet point three?
If it contains or otherwise implies a factual finding required by 231 Pa. Code Rule 233.1(a)(1) or (2), I would say so.
@kopecs I corrected this. I was mistaken. But I do believe that if he's able to perfect service here, this will go out on a motion to dismiss. 1 of 5 down.
I am making a market right now for if it will survive a 12(b)(6) :)
https://manifold.markets/kopecs/will-sokolowski-v-digital-currency?play=true
@kopecs Rude awakening is incoming for Stephen. This case isn't like the Wells Fargo one, since there are actual damages here. So I do feel bad for him not understanding that the case is worth zero from a practical perspective.