Did the lower courts err in granting summary judgment against the defendant on securities fraud claims?

Questions Presented 2 A. Did the District Court err in concluding on the record—and did the Appellate Court err in affirming—that the 3 Defendant and his company lacked a business history with major oil companies (especially where judicial 4 notice of the relationship may have even existed)? 5 B. So, even if Defendant and his company worked with major oil companies, could someone try to argue that 6 Defendant’s marketing materials used certain grammar or word choice (e.g. “like” and “as”) in an inappropriate 7 or misleading way? : . 8 C. Even if (somehow) the District Court was not able to verify that Sethi Petroleum’s claims about its relationships 9 with major oil companies were truthful, did the District and Appellate Courts violate Defendant Sethi’s 7th 10 amendment constitutional rights by issuing summary judgment and refusing to let the issue proceed to trial? i D. Did the lower court violate Defendant’s 7th amendment rights by affirming a summary judgment that there was . 12 scienter on the part of the Defendant, despite the complete reliance on (thought to be) attorney (general counsel) 13 and CFO for the company? 14 E. Could the investments offered by the Defendant’s company, really have been verifiably determined to be 15 securities, and, accordingly, that they offered investors negligible powers? 16 F. Even to the extent investments offered by Defendant’s company appeared that they may have had 17 characteristics of securities (e.g., alleged indications that investors’ management voice might be limited), it may 18 have been premature to be able to determine the management dynamic and governance influence of investors in 19 this nascent entity—and hence if the investments in this entity were actually securities? 20 G. Did the SEC violate its investor protection mandate by causing to shut down, on an unsubstantiated claim, 21 Defendant’s company, Sethi Petroleum LLC, a company that would have likely helped its investors conduct oil 22 and gas business to their benefit (especially where the SEC caused this shutdown without recognizing the 23 Defendant and his company’s successful track record when dealing with investors)? Even if the SEC thought 24 there to be some fault with Defendant or his company, would it have been more appropriate and in the best 25 interest of the investors for the SEC to have sought alternate resolutions? 26H. Was Defendant--stripped of his assets by the receiver and unable to afford access to evidence or legal counsel 27 experienced in federal securities litigation--ever in a position to properly defend himself? Was the counsel 28 representing Defendant negligent in his representation in matters of this case? 29 I. Even if Sethi Petroleum LLC had made some misrepresentation in the sale of securities, should Sameer Sethi 30 have been personally found to be liable, especially given Sethi Petroleum LLC’s status as a distinct limited 31 liability company and the good faith reliance on thought-to-be attorney (general counsel)? 32. J. Docurrent SEC guidelines, or the existing law as a whole, provide sufficient guidance as to what constitutes a 33 security (especially as regards the Williamson factors test) and what elements would, if they exist, preclude an 34, investment from being characterized as a security? If not, should the law, particularly the existing case law, be 35, revised? So Page 2 of 38 Defendant Sameer Sethi’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pro Se Case 17-41022 Page 3 of 38 1 II.