Bitclub Newsletter No. 202

Dear Clients,

In our recent updates, we have been following Christopher Scanlon’s pending Motion to Vacate
Seizure Warrant and the continuing questions concerning property restrained in connection with
the BitClub Network proceedings.

At present, we have no new verified Court decision concerning that motion.

This week, we would therefore like to clarify an issue that can easily cause confusion when
following a federal court docket:

What does it mean when a motion remains pending, and does a date associated with the
motion mean that the Court must decide by that date?

Filing a motion does not create an automatic deadline for a decision

When a party files a motion, the Court must first have an opportunity to consider the request and
any procedural requirements associated with it.

A date appearing on the docket or in connection with a motion should not automatically be
understood as the date by which the judge must issue a final decision.

Depending on the applicable procedure and the circumstances of the case, the Court may decide
a motion on the papers, request further submissions, schedule proceedings or issue an order at a
later stage.

For this reason, the absence of a decision immediately following a date associated with a motion
does not, by itself, mean that the motion has been denied or abandoned.

Why is this relevant to the Scanlon motion?

Scanlon is seeking to vacate the seizure warrant as it applies to particular property following the
dismissal of the criminal charges against Matthew Goettsche.

The important development for BitClub Network victims will therefore be an actual Court order
or another substantive docket filing that clarifies how the Court intends to deal with the request.

Until such a development occurs, it would be premature to interpret the passage of time either as
success or failure of the motion.

What should victims look for when a decision is issued?

The result alone will not necessarily tell the whole story.

It will also be important to examine which specific property the Court addresses, the legal
reasoning used by the Court and whether the decision concerns only Scanlon’s particular claim

or contains reasoning potentially relevant to other property connected with the BitClub Network
proceedings.

As we explained previously, different assets may be subject to different claims and procedural
circumstances.

For that reason, a decision concerning one item or category of property should not automatically
be applied to all property associated with the wider case.

What is the current position?

At present, we have no new verified development requiring action from our clients.

We continue to monitor the docket for a Court order or other substantive filing concerning
Scanlon’s request.

If a decision is issued, we will review not only the outcome but also its reasoning and the
property to which it applies before assessing whether it may have broader significance for
BitClub Network victims.

Thank you for your continued trust.

Kind regards,
Attorney Zoran Miljaković