Bitclub Newsletter No. 169

Dear Clients,

In order to summarize the key procedural developments in United States v. Jobadiah Sinclair Weeks within the BitClub Network proceedings, we hereby provide an overview of the most important court decisions issued in the previous period, which are relevant for understanding the current status of the case and the steps ahead.

On October 8, 2025, the Court issued an omnibus order denying a total of twenty-four submissions filed by the defendant, Joby Weeks, including his request to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea. In that request, the defendant raised a series of arguments commonly encountered in the defense strategies of individuals charged in cryptocurrency-based investment frauds—ranging from the assertion that bitcoin and mining equipment are not securities, to claims of lacking notice regarding the legal consequences of his conduct, to allegations that BitClub Network had no victims, that it operated as a “private membership association” beyond the reach of U.S. law, and that his residence abroad exempted him from U.S. tax obligations.

The Court rejected all of these assertions as legally unfounded. It emphasized that the defendant was not charged with trading bitcoin or equipment, but with participating in the promotion and sale of shares in BCN mining pools—shares that clearly constitute securities under U.S. law pursuant to the established Howey test. The Court confirmed that:

1. investors contributed monetary value (including bitcoin);
2. the investment was part of a common enterprise (BCN), whose mining operations were funded by investor contributions;
3. investors had a reasonable expectation of profit based on BCN’s representations; and
4. the expected profits depended solely on the efforts of BCN.

The Court also dismissed the argument that investing bitcoin does not meet the “investment of money” requirement, noting that federal courts have long held that cryptocurrency investments satisfy this element of the Howey test.

The defendant’s claim that he lacked notice of the illegality of his conduct was likewise rejected, as the Securities Act of 1933 imposes strict liability for the offer or sale of unregistered securities, making subjective knowledge irrelevant. His assertion that there were no victims was deemed immaterial, as liability arises from the act of offering unregistered securities, not from proof of harm.

Similarly unsuccessful were the defendant’s arguments that BitClub Network was a “private membership association” beyond the reach of federal law, as he provided no legal authority to support such a claim. The Court also dismissed a series of pseudo-legal arguments characteristic of the so-called “sovereign citizen” ideology, including claims that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the “living man” as distinct from a “commercial entity.” The Court characterized these arguments as “patently frivolous” and lacking any basis in constitutional, statutory, or procedural authority.

By denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, most of the defendant’s other submissions became moot, and the Court denied them in full. The Court further instructed the parties to file a joint letter by October 31, 2025 identifying any remaining issues that needed to be resolved before sentencing. However, instead of a joint submission, the defendant continued to file unilateral requests, including additional motions to unseal documents and a motion for reconsideration of the October 8 order.

For its part, the Department of Justice indicated that it does not oppose the unsealing of certain previously identified docket entries, but firmly opposed what it characterized as the defendant’s continued attempts to obtain further discovery—emphasizing that by entering a guilty plea, the defendant waived his right to additional fact-finding related to his culpability. The Government reiterated its position that the only remaining obstacle to scheduling a sentencing date is the defendant’s pattern of filing repetitive and meritless motions, the sole effect of which is to delay the conclusion of the case.

Our team continues to closely monitor all court filings and developments in this matter and will keep you promptly informed of any future procedural steps that may affect your interests.

Kind regards,
Attorney Zoran Miljaković