Supreme Court in Donnahue George v Ken Griffin Orders Full Petition Filing — Estimated Cost: $3,000

Added: 2026-05-19

[00:00:00]This is not financial advice. This is not legal advice.

[00:00:05]This is just my update to everybody who cares about a fair and transparent stock market, okay? You guys know that I have a case in the United States Supreme Court against Ken Griffin of DTCC, FINRA, and Citadel, okay?

[00:00:27]And I had requested at the court allow me to file my paperwork where I could just file 10 copies on regular 8 and 1/2 by 11 paper.

[00:00:43]And therefore, I wouldn't have to have the cost of actually going to a professional printer and printing it like I'm a full-fledged white-shoe Supreme Court law firm, okay?

[00:01:02]The courts denied my motion to file normal papers.

[00:01:08]But, what the courts did, the courts gave me until June 6th to file professional papers with the courts.

[00:01:18]And guys, the cost of this is going to be about $3,000 in printing costs and fees, okay? $3,000 to keep this case going against Ken Griffin, Citadel, DTCC, and FINRA.

[00:01:38]So, all you guys who say that I'm not committed to a fair and transparent stock market, that think I'm not committed to justice for all the money we lost because of what they did to AMC and GME.

[00:01:59]You can't tell me that anymore, okay?

[00:02:01]Cuz I've been fighting this for the last 4 years on my own.

[00:02:07]On my own.

[00:02:09]And now I have to invest an additional $3,000 to keep the case open.

[00:02:19]Okay?

[00:02:21]And you know, in for a penny, in for a pound, okay? In for a penny, in for a pound, I have to keep the case going.

[00:02:31]If you guys have been following the case, you know that the lower courts made a decision that was totally contrary to federal law. Not only was it contrary to federal law, it was a decision that conflicted with all the other appellate circuits, okay? They made a ruling They made a ruling that circumvented federal law and it benefited Citadel, Ken Griffin, DTCC, Finra, and all the bad actors that have been taking advantage of retail investors, pension funds, and institutions that followed the rules.

[00:03:22]Guys, listen.

[00:03:25]I am going to fight this to the end.

[00:03:31]If we get the Supreme Court to hear the case, I believe we have the law on our side, we have federal statutes on our side, we have justice on our side.

[00:03:47]So, I have till June 6th to get the printing done and get all this $3,000 worth of documents over to the United States Supreme Court.

[00:04:01]I'm going to get it done.

[00:04:03]But for all you naysayers who say that I'm not committed to justice, here I am putting more of my money where my mouth is, okay? I'm putting more of my money where my mouth is because I believe we should have a fair and transparent stock market and bad actors should not be allowed to manipulate the market and take advantage of retail investors, pension funds, and institutions that follow the rules.

[00:04:35]But this case that I'm fighting at the Supreme Court goes beyond Ken Griffin, goes beyond Citadel, goes beyond DTCC and FINRA.

[00:04:51]You know why?

[00:04:53]Because the appellate court's ruling allows plaintiffs and most likely not plaintiffs, but defendants, to be able to file motions to dismiss at any at any time in a lawsuit.

[00:05:18]So, the appellate court's decision says that if you are scheduled to go to trial tomorrow, you can file a motion to dismiss and stop the trial from happening. If you have to turn over discovery documents, you can file a motion to dismiss and stop turning over the discovery documents.

[00:05:43]Well, the reason we started this lawsuit was because of the fraud and corruption in the United States stock market, it has morphed into much bigger issue.

[00:05:56]A much bigger issue with, in my opinion, global significance. Global significance because you're going to have people coming to court in the United States of America and when they enter federal court, they're going to believe that the federal rules stand for something.

[00:06:20]The appellate court's ruling makes mandatory federal rules discretionary.

[00:06:29]Discretionary and then you have to wonder, are they only discretionary when they benefit large financial institutions?

[00:06:40]But beyond the large financial institutions, federal rules have to be mandatory for all parties. Whether you're a a pro se litigant or whether you're a big financial institutions, the rules have to be applied the same. So, you can't have mandatory rules in one circuit and in other circuits, you have different a different set of rules. Or you have the same rules, but the judges have leeway in in how they applying mandatory rules.

[00:07:11]They can't have that and that's why we need the Supreme Court to make a decision and decide whether or not federal court rules are mandatory or are they discretionary dependent on who the parties are.

[00:07:31]Anyway, have a great day. God bless and I appreciate y'all on this journey with me.