Whether the Supreme Court should review a case involving alleged financial fraud with potential punitive damages exceeding $187.2 million and involving multiple jurisdictional and procedural challenges

is whether this case is of high national importance. This case is one of a string of seven recent frauds I list below by Defendant of huge amounts. The total amount of the fraud on all UWT stock investors as I listed in my Doc 22 complaint as early as 12/19/20, based on the number of shares issued, was $156 million. I’ve since stated that this figure has never been contested by Defense Counsel, though I’ve consistently repeated it in my Doc 144 complaint of 10/26/2023 and my appeal recently dismissed, both adjusting it for inflation to $187.2 million. “REASONS... ” section below, paragraph (1) lists six other major financial frauds by Defendant, some resulting in fine or indictment, including one at $900 million and another at $1.9 billion and a Miami case just revived days ago for $1 billion. Defendant must be stopped. 2. The next question presented is the validity of my denial of rehearing, Appeals Case 24'237, 04/02/2025, Docket 37.1. Though denial of petitions for rehearing without comment is common, my petition was compelling, stating that the appeals court 24-237 Docket 33.1 ii Order was crucially flawed in omitting the word “Intraday ” in its quoting of the stock prospectus. Said appeal was for the ruling of dismissal in my district court case #l:20-CV-07619'ALC. 3. The next question presented is whether this case would serve to literally and finally define a prime example of the “rare exception ” to exceeding the single digit multiple for punitive damages established as precedent in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). I strongly believe it would because of the $156 million amount above ($187.2 million inflation adjusted). In Doc 144 I stated that since mine was the last open case of the dozen original plaintiffs to be able to hold Defendant accountable, if I were to receive any amount less than $187.2 million then the Defendant would profit from the fraud. In BM W of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), the Court rejected the $2 million in punitive damages as excessive but stated however, that these three factors can be over-ridden if it is "necessary to deter future conduct". Given the plethora of gross ongoing frauds by Defendant before and after my case that I reference below in “REASONS... ” section, paragraph (1), such iii high punitive damages are necessary for such a deterrent. 4) The next question presented is, should this case be accepted, whether venue should be transferred back to Florida. I originally filed suit in my nearest federal court in the middle district of Florida, Case 3:20-cw00504 (2020), and my summons couldn ’t be served because Defendant timed the fraud to the very day they knew their main NYC office would be closed because then NY Gov Cuomo closed all non-essential businesses due to Covid* 19. Defendant knew the policy of the NY SOS (Secretary of State) prohibiting service of summons from courts outside the state of NY. Though not in violation of the UCC, it’s certainly an unfair element that Defendant knew would enable them to litigate amongst local judges with conflicts not direct enough to warrant recusal: the district Judge Carter and two of the three appellate judges being recommended for appointment by Senator Schumer, whose third largest contributor is the Defendant; and Carter ’s wife being a former attorney for JP Morgan, a co-defendant with Citigroup in a plethora of fraud cases. iv