From: Chris Dilorio To: Subject: Fw: Formal appeal for preliminary denial covered action 2015-016/ Knight Capital TCR & Appendix Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 22:06:19 +0000 Attachments: KCG_Appendix_3-20_13_penultimate.docx; KCG_TCR_3-20-13-penultimate_draft.pdf; KCG_TCR_3-20-13-penultimate_draft.docx; KCG_Appendix_3-20_13_penultimate.pdf Janey, I am in receipt of your letter dated 7/2/2020. You deny my 6/23 appeal submission below stating I had only until 6/22/2020 to make my last and final appeal. Not only do I disagree with your conclusion, it serves as yet another example of gross SEC corruption and criminal obstruction related to my award application. First, I appeal my "hours long delay" on the grounds cited by the SEC in PennMont Securities. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2010/34-61967.pdf PennMont Securities and Joseph D. Carapico On September 4,2009, PennMont Securities ("PennMont") and its general partner, Joseph D. Carapico (together, "Applicants"), both suspended members of the Philadelphia Stock www.sec.gov Where the SEC does have ability to waive certain filing delays provided 2 criteria are met "Extraordinary circumstances beyond control of claimant" AND "Demonstrate claimant intended to file the claim PROMPTLY" In citing 2 examples where the SEC declined to grant the extraordinary circumstances waiver, I am demonstrating to the SEC the true definition of "extraordinary" circumstances. EFTA00083198

https://www.sec.gov/rules/other/2020/34-88464.pdf Order Determining Whistleblower Award Claim 1 united states of america . before the . securities and exchange commission securities exchange act of 1934 . release no. 88464 / march 24, 2020 whistleblower award proceeding www.sec.gov The above referenced whistleblower denial was YEARS in the making with no intention of a prompt filing. In PennMont , also more than a year delay in filing with no intention of a prompt filing. In my case: truly EXTRAORDINARY circumstances: The SEC OWB PRELIMINARY denial came FIVE years after my Award claim was filed. This is EXTRAORDINARY in itself. Unless that is, if the SEC is engaged in corrupt, criminal obstruction. Then, a FIVE year in the making preliminary determination is perfectly normal. So, by denying my 6/23/2020 submission the SEC is admitting yet again that it is in fact engaged in corrupt, criminal obstruction. But, that's just 1 example of my "EXTRAORDINARY" experience with the SEC OWB in general and related to my Denial of Award for the OpCo action. As you are aware Jane, I have filed 2 complaints with the SEC IG Hoecker related to my very serious allegations of SEC corruption and criminal obstruction. I have never been interviewed by Hoecker as is mandated by IG Rules for Investigations written by Hoecker himself. Also, IG Hoecker is mandated to inform Congress of serious allegations like mine so that Congress can perform its oversight function of the grossly corrupt SEC. He did not. The Opco Award denial is just 1 example of truly EXTRAORDINARY examples of the grossly corrupt SEC engaged in criminal obstruction related to my information. Janey, your Preliminary denial of my award claim cited specifically as the reason for denial "SEC investigators did not see my information". A truly EXTRAORDINARY statement given the FACT it is the exclusive and explicit job of the OWB itself to distribute whistleblower information within the SEC as investigations are done in a confidential manner. Therefore, a whistleblower can not KNOW who at the SEC to send their information. The other reason for your denial: "SEC investigators never contacted the claimant" ME. That does not mean my information wasn't used though does it Janey? This is just a start with regards to the EXTRAORDINARY circumstances around your preliminary denial Janey. Further, my intention was to file a timely response to the SEC. I literally responded within hours of the stated deadline. Not days, weeks, months,years as was the case in previous denials of waivers. But, Janey, this exercise is really mute as SEC whistleblower rules are perfectly clear: https://www.sec.gov/about/offices/owb/reg-21f.pdf Sec. Sec. 240.21F-1 General. 240.21F-2 Whistleblower status and retaliation protections. 240.21F-3 Payment of award. 240.21F-4 Other definitions. 240.21F-5 Amount of award. www.sec.gov EFTA00083199

I refer you to the statute section "240.21F-12 Materials that may form the basis of an award determination AND that may comprise the record on appeal" The "Re re re re submitted" emails to the OWB,IG etc on 6/23/2020 are an example. Originally correspondence to your office from 2011/2012-2019+ (2) " and other related materials provided by the whistleblower to assist the Commission with the investigation or examination;" (3) AGAIN " and ANY other filings or submissions from the whistleblower in support of the award application" So, here's the deal Janey: My 6/23/2020 submission within hours of your FIVE year in the waiting preliminary denial below included a SUMMARY of my 8+ years and thousands of emails to you, Hoecker and others at the SEC. My actual e mails, including the 1's I "re re re" sent on 6/23 also within hours of the deadline were already submissions I made to you,Hoecker, and others at the SEC on more than 1 occasion. Therefore, already part of the record per the SEC whistleblower statute I cite above. So, you can accept my 6/23/2020 submission with summary OR you and Hoecker can produce EVERY submission I made to both of you related to my award claim and denial. THAT IS THE RECORD JANEY. I was just being nice in summarizing below. But, now that you are denying my 6/23/2020 submission within hours of the stated deadline, I demand you produce EVERY SINGLE submission I made to your office prior to the deadline that constitutes the record of my application and denial. Should be several hundred by my count. If you can not produce ALL of my submissions which constitute the record for my claim/denial then that also would be EXTRAORDINARY don't you think? Janey, if you , Hoecker et al at the SEC can't produce EVERY SINGLE submission I made related to the OpCo claim/denial which constitutes the record, then what was the denial based on exactly other than " SEC investigators never saw my info or contacted me"? Lastly, more EXTRAORDINARY circumstances surrounding your preliminary denial and subsequent attempts to deny my rights as a whistleblower: like your 6/22 letters with a fabricated denial and reversal within hours: Please send/post Jay Clayton's Knight/KCG/VIRT Sullivan Cromwell conflicts/disclosures. I can't seem to find them anywhere. Did Jay recuse himself from the VIRT/KCG Merger? Did Jay recuse himself from my OpCo denial which irrefutably implicates Sull Crom client Knight/KCG in ILLEGAL activity related to money laundering shells CGFIA and APCX? Because Janey, it was NOT "penny stock trading fairies" executing the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of CGFIA and APCX worthless certs cited by ME and 2 dissenting SEC Commissioners in the OpCo waivers. It wasn't OpCo either. It was Sull Crom Client Knight/KCG and Mary Jo White/Ceresney Debevoise client UBSS. I'll give you til Monday July 6 2020 to either produce ALL of my submissions to you, Hoecker et al that constitute the record for award application and appeal of the OpCo action OR you grant me the few hour delay in my 6/23 filing below in response to your EXTRAORDINARY 5 year in the making preliminary denial. It doesn't get any more EXTRAORDINARY than a well orchestrated, massive, ongoing fraud on the public ACTIVELY facilitated by the grossly corrupt SEC including you Janey. Cheers! Christopher J Dilorio Whistleblower EFTA00083200