- Joined
- Apr 21, 2025
- Messages
- 33
- Thread Author
- #1
- Client Name: MC20masarati (versus The Exchange)
- Counsel Name: Pro se
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
- Reason for the Appeal: I respectfully request that the Supreme Court overturn the Federal Court’s dismissal and legal fee award in this matter on the basis of a critical legal misinterpretation by the presiding judge. In the case indicated, I initiated a suit against The Exchange for its refusal to release my funds during a specific period of time when no valid freeze was in place. To clarify the timeline:
1. An emergency injunction initially froze all my assets, including those held at The Exchange (June 3rd at ~1PM EDT).
2. That freeze was subsequently partially lifted by a successful motion to reconsider, which did not include Exchange-held funds, as The Exchange is a stock exchange, not a bank, under both the Commercial Standards Act and the Taxation Act (June 3rd at ~11PM EDT).
3. During this window (consisting of almost a full day), after the freeze was lifted and before any later re-freeze, The Exchange refused to release my funds when explicitly requested.
4. Only after the defendant refused to release my funds did the Court later re-freeze those same funds (June 4th at ~4PM EDT). I later filed suit to address that refusal (June 5th at ~1AM EDT).
The Federal Court incorrectly assumed I was suing for access to funds that were frozen at the time of filing the case. That is not the basis of my claim. I am suing for The Exchange’s failure to comply during the window when no freeze was in place--a period in which I was legally entitled to access my assets. This factual error formed the foundation of the Court’s dismissal and subsequent award of legal fees. As such, I request that the Supreme Court vacate the dismissal and fee award issued by the Federal Court; and remand the case to proceed to trial under a different judge, free from the influence of the prior misinterpretation. Thank you for your consideration.
- Counsel Name: Pro se
- Were you originally the plaintiff or the defendant: Plaintiff
- Reason for the Appeal: I respectfully request that the Supreme Court overturn the Federal Court’s dismissal and legal fee award in this matter on the basis of a critical legal misinterpretation by the presiding judge. In the case indicated, I initiated a suit against The Exchange for its refusal to release my funds during a specific period of time when no valid freeze was in place. To clarify the timeline:
1. An emergency injunction initially froze all my assets, including those held at The Exchange (June 3rd at ~1PM EDT).
2. That freeze was subsequently partially lifted by a successful motion to reconsider, which did not include Exchange-held funds, as The Exchange is a stock exchange, not a bank, under both the Commercial Standards Act and the Taxation Act (June 3rd at ~11PM EDT).
3. During this window (consisting of almost a full day), after the freeze was lifted and before any later re-freeze, The Exchange refused to release my funds when explicitly requested.
4. Only after the defendant refused to release my funds did the Court later re-freeze those same funds (June 4th at ~4PM EDT). I later filed suit to address that refusal (June 5th at ~1AM EDT).
The Federal Court incorrectly assumed I was suing for access to funds that were frozen at the time of filing the case. That is not the basis of my claim. I am suing for The Exchange’s failure to comply during the window when no freeze was in place--a period in which I was legally entitled to access my assets. This factual error formed the foundation of the Court’s dismissal and subsequent award of legal fees. As such, I request that the Supreme Court vacate the dismissal and fee award issued by the Federal Court; and remand the case to proceed to trial under a different judge, free from the influence of the prior misinterpretation. Thank you for your consideration.
