Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 10, 2024·No. 1:22-cv-03822·Unknown

Opinion

ENBUROLD | cniven strates pistRIct couRT

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING □□ COMMISSION, ta □□□ Plaintiff, Case No.: 22-cv-3822 □□ Judge Caproni □□ EDDY ALEXANDRE and □□ EMINIFX,INC,, Defendants. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILEI DOC #: MOTION TO VACATE OR SET ASIDE ORDER DATE FILED:_95/10/2024

Dear Judge Caproni: I write as a follow up to two recent Orders from your chambers attacking my credibility denying one motion Dkt. 293 and attacking my credibility again yet approving the extension of time in part to May 10 versus May 17 as requested Stating that you are skeptical of my assertions but you allowed the second re~ quest due to my pro se status. I respectfully request your honor to vacate these two orders and restore my credibility with a new order that you find just and Proper based on material facts presented to your chambers.

MEMORANDUM OF POINT AND AUTHORITIES Your honor, you have the most power set of tools that a common mortal does not have: (1} Fact Findings Power, and (2) Evidentiary Hearing Power. When presented with a conflicting account of some event, you have the power to seek out the truth and extract facts by which you will issue a ruling from the bench. In this current matter, I find it dangerous that you repeatedly attacked my credi- bility instead of using your powerful tools, in fact destroying my ability to Present any further arguments without a heightened disbelief. Your honor have chosen to use your beliefs instead of facts, thus siding with the regulators versus the materials before you. I am not a legal scholar, however I am sure that to be using beliefs and not facts is a prejudicial act. I would argue that a judge is required to use the facts before them and set feelings and beliefs aside. I may be wrong, this is not my expertise by any length, yet this is what we the people are led to believe.

The default standard rule in most types of cases is that the compiai- nant has the burden of procf to prove the allegations made in his complaint. The complainant must prove each element of the claim. And the Supreme Court applied this rule as the default rule. This is a rule that applies broadly unless there are special circumstances to allocate the burden of procf to the other party. Justice O'Connor said that “absent some reason to believe that Congress intended Otherwise," the burden of proof should be “where it usually falls, upon the party Seeking relief." See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005). If you believe I am lying, you have the power to extract the facts and rule accordingly but not sum- Marily declare skepticism attacking my credibility based cn conjectures and not the material facts before you your honor. Your honor accused me of using delay tactic, or one of my delay tactics, while I am incarcerated in prison, am no longer able to use the luxury of using Gelay tactics. ALL I want is to find a fair and just judge as decision-maker to be the trier of facts and a jury of my peers to sort this mess out and expedi- tiously face the CFTC in triai. I have "absolutely" no desire to stall nor to delay any proceeding. I want a speedy trial and a prompt resolution for many reasons that are obvious to everyone involved at this Juncture. I want to close that chapter in my life AND I. want the investors to be made whole. They suffered enough from this CFTC-made debacle. I am "ready" for a speedy trial but TI must ensure my due process rights are not violated because virtually any decisions can be attacked on the basis that the process by which it was made was somehow defec- tive, including providing insufficient opportunity for a party to be heard. In this action, to summarily attack my credibility with conjectures, in lieu of using material facts to issue an order stating how skeptical the court is about the Defendant's assertions, is very damaging and contrary to the rigorous process through which the Judge must reach a conclusion of law. I could have Selected to let bygones be bygones, as the court said it was not enough to "disturb" the premature order, as if it would be too much disturbance to revisit the issue which is now "old." However, if there is one thing we have learned is that "credibility" counts in law and in life. In many legal situations, the goal is to persuade a third-party decision-maker in connection with a dispute between two parties. In the context of a civil trial, any reasonable person or defendant in context will never lose sight of the crucial importance of maintaining the judge's trust in credibility. If a decision-maker concludes that the defendant is not to be believed with regard to one matter, as we have witnessed in multiple orders from this bench, then human nature being what it is, the judce will view the re—

mainder of the defendant's testimony, cequests, arguments, etc., through a lens of heightened skepticism, if not insurmontable disbelief. If a lawyer loses the trust of a Judge in one dispute, the lawyer's ability to persuade that ‘judge in subsequent disputes will be compromised. The same goes for a pro se defendant. This is the lesson of the time-tested story of Boy Who Cried Wolf." Ethical considerations aside, if one hopes to be a persuasive advocate of his own interests or even the interests of others, there is no telling the extent of the damage losing credibility will do to his reputation for lack of truthfulness. Importantly, there is an iterative, interdependent, relationship between law and facts. The facts that we identify teil us what legal rules are likely to be applicable, and the legai rules tell us what facts are Salient. Again, once we know some of the facts, we know where to look. Therefore, Starting with an inference not based on the material facts will inevitably most likely lead to an erroneous conclusion or cause of action. There simply is no accepted Archimedean point from which to measure justice. Instead, individuals in a rule-of-law-based society have implicitly agreed to accept the outcomes of the constitutional and legal process, because they have come to believe that this system provides as well as possible a compro- mise among varying individual visions of justice. Once we lose that trust in the legal system, we venture into arbitrary. This is why the procedural justice and the substantive coexist. The liberal perspective suggests that the procedural justice reflected in adherence to the system outweighs a particular vision of Substantive justice. This is also why when Supreme Court nominees. traditionally testify at their confirmation hearings in congress that they will apply the law as written and will not engage in "judicial legislation," they are actually pled- ging allegiance to these procedural justice values and foreswearing the appli- cation of their “own vision of substantive Justice.” Justice Felix said and I quote "Fragile as reason is and limited as law is as the expression of the institutionalized medium of reason, that's ail we have standing between us and the tyrany of mere will and the cruelty of un- bridled, unprincipled, undisciplined feeling." Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1962. The concept of "procedure" is paramount to arguments that are founded in a legal system. Process and substance are intertwined, and often inseparable. This is the basis under constitutional and human rights heading of “due process." At this point your honor has done more damages than my adversary in succesfully attacking my credibility in ways that the Regulators was not able to do nor even

—3-

attempted to do. There is no tradeoff valuable enough for me between maximizing my interests and maintaining my credibility in this instant action brought by the CFTC. After all, the benefit in the current dispute from credibility will impact the credibility in future matters before the court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre (Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Alexandre) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Houston v. Lack
487 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Casim Noble v. Walter R. Kelly, Superintendent
246 F.3d 93 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Schaffer Ex Rel. Schaffer v. Weast
546 U.S. 49 (Supreme Court, 2005)