Resolves YES if Sokolowski v. Digital Currency Group, Inc., 4:25-cv-00001, (M.D. Penn.) survives defendants' motion to dismiss (e.g., 12(b)(6) or a bankruptcy related motion), In the event that such a motion is granted in part, I will resolve to a % based off of the number of defendants and claims remaining (e.g., a MTD which results in the dismissal of 2 of 3 parties will result in a 33% resolution).
Resolves NO if a motion is granted in full; or plaintiffs dismiss the suit with or without prejudice prior to the last deadline for defendants to file such a motion.
The docket can be found here (or on PACER here). A copy of the original complaint can be found here.
The MTD by defendants Silbert and DCG (ECF 16) is available here.
1,000
3.00
@FrederickNorris I skimmed the complaint. It seems deficient in the same ways as the original but I believe any amended complaint in the 3rd circuit moots motions to dismiss.
Only 2602 more hours to go until AI figures out a way to create a sham entity that recovers money through an assignment in bankruptcy court and then allows you do double dip individually and collect money again by suing. Everyone is about to get two times richer (except for the people who will necessarily get two times poorer). Awe-inspiring.
@KevinBlaw Talk about running through the tape, he will be working on this brief for a full 12 days after it was already due!
Some highlights from the brief in support of Silbert's and DCG's MTD:
To manufacture a right to sue, Plaintiffs now assert that CM is a sham entity
and that they were the true lenders all along. While this rather brazen attempt to
offensively pierce their own corporate veil to gain standing may seem clever at
first blush, this tactic actually leads to the conclusion that Plaintiffs are either
admitting to criminal Bankruptcy fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 157 (making a false statement
in a bankruptcy case) and defrauding the buyer of its claim, or a violation Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (asserting a baseless allegation in a pleading)
(page 8)
Plaintiffs proclaimed in their public blogposts that they drafted the
Complaint using generative AI. Accepting that AI can do many things, protecting
its users from confessing to criminal or otherwise sanctionable conduct is not
among them.
(page 9)
@kopecs @FrederickNorris i want to read this brief carefully however, it seems like this lawyer has done his homework and I don’t want to get subpoenaed to testify!
@kopecs Huh, just like we've seen saying. Soko is cooked. He could really roil these markets by dismissing the case now, and going back to daytrading (marking the only time daytrading is more productive that the alternative, pro se suing).
@FrederickNorris I knew @SteveSokolowski when he was just a rewards points huckster. Now he is a full fledged bankruptcy fraud criminal. But, I am sure that AI has “thought” of this and it’s all just a big misunderstanding.
@SteveSokolowski Any thoughts on the motion to dismiss, sir? Was the (b)(2) motion anticipated? Did you see the judge has specific AI polices? Your thoughts? (Hands microphone) (please don't play AI generated music)
https://x.com/SteveSokolowsk2/status/1896960571783946536
Motion to dismiss is anticipated. Weird how the AI couldn't make a complaint where a motion to dismiss wouldn't be filed, just one that (allegedly) will survive a motion to dismiss.
@KevinBlaw I can't add it to RECAP via my current computer, but there is now a MTD by defendants DCG and Silbert (ECF 9) for 12(b)(2) and (6). I don't see a brief yet but local rules give them 14 days.
@Ziddletwix @kopecs (b)(2) means that the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the person, i.e., it should have been brought in a different venue? (b)(6) means that even if you assume everything is true, no law has been broken that the court can enforce.
