Famous way back to Might, BitClub Community defendant Joby Weeks has been flooding his prison case docket with motions and notices.
Many of the motions aren’t value reporting in one of many motions Weeks sought to withdraw his responsible plea.
Twenty-four motions filed by Weeks have been denied in an October eighth omnibus order.
Particular to withdraw his responsible plea, Weeks (proper) argued:
- he wasn’t responsible of buying and selling unregistered securities as a result of bitcoin and bitcoin mining gear will not be securities;
- he didn’t have discover that his actions have been securities transactions;
- he isn’t conscious of any BitClub Community victims;
- BitClub Community was a “personal membership affiliation” exempt from US monetary regulation; and
- as a result of he was dwelling abroad he wasn’t required to pay taxes (particular to tax evasion)
On argument one the court docket discovered;
Defendant just isn’t charged with conspiring to commerce laptop gear or Bitcoin; he’s charged with, and pleaded responsible to, conspiring to advertise and promote shares in BCN mining swimming pools.
As an apart, I incessantly see this argument from fraudulent funding schemes BehindMLM stories on. Sometimes the argument is “however our token is a utility token”, or some variation of “how can our rip-off be committing securities fraud, is bitcoin a safety?”
Like Weeks on this occasion, there’s a basic misunderstanding of what’s and isn’t a safety. It’s the MLM funding scheme as an entire that’s the safety. No matter token or coin the safety is obtainable by way of is irrelevant.
Sadly this by no means appears to sink in for crypto scammers.
Getting again to the court docket’s findings;
BCN shares are securities as outlined by 15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1) and SEC v. W. J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946) (the “Howey check”).
BCN shareholders
(i) invested cash;
(ii) in a standard enterprise (BCN) by which BCN funded its mining operations with shareholders’ investments;
(iii) shareholders had an affordable expectation of income based mostly on the representations of BCN;
(iv) to be derived solely from the efforts of the BCN mining program.
One other tactic Weeks tried on was the additionally widespread “it’s not an funding if we don’t name it an funding” argument.
Defendant additionally seems to argue that BCN shares will not be securities as a result of buyers purchased shares in trade for Bitcoin, not cash, and so there was no “funding of cash,” because the Howey check requires.
Courts have discovered that an funding of Bitcoin, quite than cash, satisfies the “funding of cash” prong of the Howey check.
This Courtroom agrees, and finds that shares of BCN are securities even when buyers bought them with Bitcoin.
On Weeks’ “I didn’t obtain discover” argument;
This place fails for 2 causes. First, as mentioned intimately above, Defendant was not indicted based mostly on a novel concept of securities regulation; he was charged with conspiring to supply and promote unregistered shares of BCN, that are securities as outlined by the Howey check.
Second, Part 5 of the Securities Act of 1933—the statute underlying Depend Two that prohibits the providing or sale of unregistered securities—“imposes strict legal responsibility.”
Subsequently, Defendant’s argument that he had no discover of the illegality of his conduct is unavailing.
On Weeks’ pretending there are not any BitClub Community victims;
Part 5 legal responsibility doesn’t hinge on proof of hurt, loss, or victimization—the mere provide or sale of unregistered securities is enough.
Accordingly, whether or not Defendant’s conduct brought about hurt to any victims is irrelevant to his innocence.
On Weeks’ “personal membership affiliation” sovereign citizen pseudo-compliance;
Defendant argues that BCN “was a Personal Membership Affiliation (PMA) that handles its personal authorized affairs and doesn’t burden this court docket,” and that the “SEC/Authorities has no proper to dictate what personal membership organizations do with personal women and men.”
Defendant cites no authorized authority that helps this assertion.
Certainly, “it’s immaterial whether or not an individual consents to federal regulation; the legal guidelines of the USA apply to all individuals inside its border.” United States v. Reilly, No. 15-196, 2016 WL 7335680.
On Weeks dwelling overseas and never responsible of tax evasion consequently;
Defendant acknowledged in his plea colloquy that he’s a U.S. citizen and the Info states that Defendant was a resident of Colorado on the time of the charged conduct, and Defendant gives the Courtroom with no proof to presume in any other case.
Moreover, on the plea colloquy, Defendant agreed that he “willfully try[ed] to evade and defeat revenue taxes due and owing by you to the USA of America for the calendar years 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.”
For these causes, Defendant fails to make a reputable displaying of innocence supported by a factual file.
Many of the different arguments Weeks introduced up aren’t value mentioning, however there are a number of sovereign citizen nuggets we’ll reproduce beneath;
Defendant repeatedly contends that the Courtroom doesn’t have jurisdiction over him as a result of he’s a “dwelling man” named “Jobadiah-Sinclair of the household Weeks,” and isn’t the Defendant, who’s purportedly a “business vessel” known as “JOBADIAH SINCLAIR WEEKS.”
Defendant acknowledged he “made a mistake by autographing ‘Jobadiah Weeks’ within the stead of an individual listed on the doc by the identify of JOBADIAH SINCLAIR WEEKS who he was/just isn’t.”
Defendant has not articulated any foundation for this competition below the USA Structure, any federal statute, case regulation, the Federal Guidelines of Felony Process, or every other binding authorized authority.
Courts are aware of arguments that the court docket lacks jurisdiction over a person as a result of he isn’t the defendant, however is as an alternative the “dwelling man,” and routinely discover them to be meritless and “patently frivolous.”
Subsequently, to the extent Defendant’s submissions are understood as a problem to this Courtroom’s jurisdiction over him, they’re rejected.
Courts destroying sovereign citizen arguments will at all times be humorous to me.
Defendant’s movement to withdraw his responsible plea is denied, which consequently renders most of his different motions moot.
As beforehand acknowledged and reiterated above, the remainder of Weeks’ motions have been denied.
For the aforementioned causes, the Courtroom hereby denies Defendant’s pending motions.
Accordingly, IT IS on this eighth day of October, 2025:
This was a mix of the motions both being moot or meritless.
In the identical order denying Weeks’ motions, the court docket directed the events to file a joint letter by October thirty first,
outlining any excellent points earlier than the Courtroom and/or among the many events that should be resolved earlier than sentencing.
A joint letter was not filed. As a substitute Weeks filed a solo letter on October twenty eighth. In his letter, Weeks requested the court docket three motions looking for to unseal earlier filings.
On October thirtieth, Weeks filed a movement looking for reconsideration of the October eighth omnibus denial order.
On October thirty first, the DOJ filed a solo letter to the court docket, stating
The Authorities agrees that all the sealed docket entries recognized by the Courtroom in its October 8 Opinion and Order at web page 22 could also be unsealed.
Apart from unsealing of the docket entries … the Authorities disagrees with the opposite reduction requested in Defendant’s “Annex,” nonetheless.
Particularly, the events disagree about whether or not Defendant could search additional disclosures from the Authorities. Defendant seems to interpret the Courtroom’s October 8 Opinion and Order as inviting briefing concerning “unsealing” of “sealed” paperwork similar to search warrant inventories and different paperwork which have by no means been docketed.
The Authorities’s place is that the Courtroom’s October 8 Opinion and Order was appropriate in ruling that Defendant has no additional proper to hunt discovery now that he has pleaded responsible and his movement to withdraw his responsible plea has been denied.
The Defendant entered a responsible plea knowingly and voluntarily, and he waived his proper to trial within the course of.
Because of this, he forfeited his proper to further discovery associated to his guilt.
Thus, to the extent Defendant’s motions to unseal are in actuality motions to compel additional disclosures by the Authorities, similar to search warrant inventories, the Authorities opposes the motions for the explanations acknowledged in its prior submissions and within the Courtroom’s October 8 Opinion and Order.
Accordingly, as acknowledged in its letter dated October 21, 2025 addressed to Your Honor, the Authorities opposes Defendant’s requests to resume his beforehand denied motions and believes that there are not any additional impediments to continuing to sentencing (aside from Defendant’s movement for reconsideration). ECF No. 506.
The DOJ’s place is Weeks is stalling. And this stalling is the one obstacle stopping a sentencing date being set.
Pending additional orders from the court docket, keep tuned.
