Michael Terpin v Ellis Pinsky

7/5/2020

Michael Terpin, a global blockchain advisor and the investor' fell victim to a SIM swap attack spearheaded by then 15-year-old where Mr. Terpin lost $25,000,000. 

02/02/2022 update Due to an avoidable conflict that arises, the telephonic settlement conference was rescheduled for Wednesday, February 23, 2022, at 2:15 p.m. 

**12/24/2021 Update ** Redaction Request due 1/14/2022. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/24/2022. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/24/2022.

**12/20/2021 Update ** AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Scheduling Order date 12/15/21 served on Ellis Pinsky on December 20. 2021.

12/15/2021 Update Before February 3, 2022- The parties must submit a confidential letter for a telephonic settlement conference to Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause. Settlement Conference set for 2/7/2022 at 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause.

12/14/2021 Update Letter of potential settlement conference from Cornelius P. McCarthy dated 12/14/21 to Judge Cathy Seibel.

12/13/2021 Update Ellis Pinsky stipulation:

  1. Mr. Pinsky cannot pay for Sher Tremonte LLP's future legal fees in this action.
  2. The ability to pay for Sher Tremonte LLP's future legal fees to this action would matter.
  3. Mr. Pinsky requested to set prose if substitute counsel does not appear for interim requests an order directing the parties to participate in a settlement conference with a magistrate judge. Mr. Biale, Mr. Tremonte, Mr. Cuccaro, and the Sher Tremonte firm are relieved as counsel for Defendant Pinsky. He shall represent himself unless new counsel files a Notice of Appearance by 1/12/22. Counsel for plaintiffs shall advise, no later than 12/15/21, if Plaintiff agrees to a settlement.

12/10/2021 Update Ellis Pinsky filed a motion to withdraw to Noam Biale/Michael Tremonte Mark Cuccaro. Ellis Pinsky Filed Declaration re: MOTION for Noam Biale/Michael Tremonte/Mark Cuccaro to Withdraw as Attorney.

11/1/21 Update Defendant Ellis Pinsky answers Plaintiff Michael Terpin's Amended Complaint named Mr. Ellis Pinsky denies all allegations.

8/13/21 Update Bench Ruling set on August 30, 2021, at 10:45 AM via Teleconference.

11/6/20 Update Defendant Ellis Pinsky files a motion to dismiss because Defendants claims that Plaintiff's RICO claims are entirely conclusory and legally deficient.

On the same day, Plaintiff Michael Terpin files opposition to Defendant Ellis Pinsky's Motion to Dismiss by refuting every single argument that the defendant presented on their motion. 10/15/20 Update File an amended complaint confirmed.

Status Update as of 5/7/20 The complainant filed for Plaintiff.

Claims in
Michael Terpin v Ellis Pinsky
Violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In 1986, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, was introduced to combat hacking, as an update to the first federal computer fraud statute. It has been updated many times over the years, most notably in 2008, to encompass a broad range of actions well beyond its original purpose. The CFAA forbids the intentional access to a device without permission or in excess of permission, but does not specify what "without authorisation" entails. It has been a weapon perfect for violence to usage against virtually any aspect of electronic operation with harsh punishment schemes and malleable clauses.

Violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act

Section 1962(c) makes it unlawful for any person “employed by or associated with any enterprise” engaged in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce “to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”12

Cases

See all Cases
Prev
|
Next

 Support us

Let’s make them stop! Make a donation for public service announcements, legal actions, and creating legislation that to make it impractical for the mobile carriers to continue to give your mobile service to criminals.