U.S. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW, Washington, DC 20581

www.cftc.gov

Office of Proceedings

____________________________________

)

SUNTEX CORPORATION, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) CFTC Docket No. 16-R006

 ) Served electronically

JACOB MICHAEL HINKLE, )

JOHN WILLIAM SENDLOSKY, and )

TRADE STATION SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, )

Respondents. )

____________________________________ )

ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR CAUSE

As explained below, pursuant to CFTC rule 12.304, the complaint of Suntex 

Corporation (“Suntex”) has been dismissed, and respondents’ costs have been awarded,

on grounds that Suntex’s representative and owner, Dr. Michael Elsaid (“Elsaid”), has 

abused this forum and disrupted the fair and orderly conduct of this proceeding. 

Because Elsaid owns and controls Suntex, his bad faith, contemptuous conduct has been 

imputed to Suntex. 

Elsaid, who has advanced degrees and considerable experience as a pro se

litigant, has repeatedly disregarded orders to refrain from filing repetitive motions

which deal with the same subject matter. For example, Elsaid has unnecessarily 

reargued claims in Suntex’s complaint in many of his numerous motions, including 

procedural motions like an extension request and an opposition to respondents’ 10-day 

extension request. These claims include those that the CFTC Office of Proceedings had 

stricken before serving the complaint, because the claims either were not cognizable in 
2

reparations, or because Elsaid had failed to make a prima facie showing. One stricken 

claim that Elsaid has repeatedly tried to resurrect, without bothering to identify or 

produce any reliable substantiating evidence, is for speculative damages based on 

Elsaid’s pie-in-the-sky theory that, but for respondents decision to close his account 

after Elsaid and respondents had failed to resolve their dispute about trading losses, his 

trading system would have guaranteed risk-free profits of $28 to $56 million over the 

next ten years. 

Elsaid, who is not a licensed lawyer, also has brazenly disregarded the bar on his 

appearing as the de facto attorney in another case, Traina v. TradeStation Securities, et 

al. (16-R16), and has attempted to circumvent that bar by forging the signature of Mr. 

Traina on a motion to consolidate his case and Mr. Traina’s case. Dr. Elsaid’s forgery, a 

gross violation of his duty of candor to the reparations forum, confirms that he has

committed to a self-defeating course featuring bad faith and abusive tactics. 

Background

The parties

1. Dr. Michael Elsaid, a resident of Wellesley, Massachusetts, as noted above is 

the representative of pro se respondent Suntex Corporation, a/k/a Suntex Capital 

Management, a Massachusetts corporation. Elsaid placed all trades in Suntex’s 

TradeStation account. Elsaid also placed all trades in Kevin Traina’s TradeStation 

account pursuant to a third-party trading authorization. Elsaid so far has not disputed 

respondents’ assertions that he has extensive experience as a pro se litigant. [See

respondents’ June 14, 2016 motion for extension of time, at ¶ 7 and footnote 1; and 

respondents’ November 23, 2016 motion to dismiss, at footnote 2, page 2.] 
3

Elsaid indicated on his 2006 TradeStation account application that he was the 

chief executive officer of Suntex. In the Articles of Organization for Suntex dated March 

12, 1993, Elsaid was listed as the sole director and officer. [Exhibit A, Suntex’s 

opposition to respondents’ motion to debar Elsaid, filed July 8, 2016.] 

In annual reports filed with the Massachusetts Secretary of State for CY 2011, 

2012, 2013 and 2014, Elsaid listed himself as president and CEO. However, in annual 

reports filed CY 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2015, Elsaid did not list himself as 

an officer or director. Although not listed, Elsaid signed the 2008 report as an “other 

officer.” [Exhibit A, respondents’ June 29, 2016 motion to debar Elsaid.] 

In this connection, on June 29, respondents filed a motion to debar Elsaid as 

representative for pro se Suntex on grounds that he was not listed on the latest annual 

report as a bona fide officer of Suntex. This prompted Elsaid to act a few days later, on 

July 5, by filing amended articles with the Massachusetts Secretary of State, in which 

Elsaid substituted his name as president, treasurer, CEO and CFO, condensed the list of 

directors, and offered the following ludicrous and feckless explanation: “Reason the 

names of officers and directors were filled incorrectly: Family and friends helping out 

without being paid.” [Exhibit C, complainant’s July 8, 2016 opposition to respondents’ 

motion to debar Elsaid.] In his opposition to the debarment motion, Elsaid claimed,

implausibly, that he had only recently discovered -- on his own -- that the annual reports 

had been prepared by family and friends. [Complainant’s opposition to respondents’ 

motion to debar Elsaid, at page 2.] 

Elsaid’s handling of the annual reports may show, among other things, that his 

corporate governance and management has been dubious and shoddy at best. 

Nonetheless, it is sufficient for purposes of this proceeding to support the conclusion 
4

that no one but Elsaid has controlled the operation of Suntex during the relevant time, 

i.e., from the account opening up to today. 

Elsaid indicated on his 2006 TradeStation account application that Suntex’s 

annual earnings were between $100,000 and $249,ooo, net assets between $1,000,000 

and $4,999,999, and liquid assets between $500,000 and $999,000. Elsaid indicated 

on his 2006 TradeStation account application that his personal annual income was 

$900,000, and his net worth (excluding residence) was $1,000,000; and that he had 

over ten years’ experience trading equities, options, futures and forex. More recently,

Elsaid has represented: that Suntex is out of business; that he was rendered indigent in 

2015 when TradeStation closed his account; that he is “living without income,” or, in the 

alternative, forced to trade out his home; and that he has been disabled by a variety of 

ailments, including neuropathic pain, high blood pressure and a potentially lifethreatening blood clot.1 [Elsaid affidavit dated November 21, 2016.]

The Suntex website states the following about Suntex: 

Suntex Capital Management is a Boston-based firm focused 

on various investment strategies. . . . 

The Suntex team has over 40 years of experience in asset 

management, investment strategy, and corporate 

finance/financial planning . . . . Founded in 1991, Suntex has 

provided partners with significant annual returns 

representing a premium to major asset classes.

[Exhibit A, answer.] 

The Suntex website states the following about Elsaid:

Dr. Michael Elsaid is the founder and CEO of Suntex Capital. 

 1 To date, Elsaid has not rebutted respondents’ assertion that in 2014 – well before the disputed 2015 

liquidation out of which his reparations complaint arose – Elsaid represented to a Massachusetts court 

that he was indigent. See respondents’ November 23, 2016 motion to dismiss, at footnote 2. 
5

Dr. Elsaid has more than 30 years of experience in corporate 

finance, risk and financial management, and investment 

management.

As a valuable business partner, Dr. Elsaid has served as a 

board member for several corporations in the United States, 

Europe, and the Middle East. He has been the main speaker 

in numerous seminars on financial management, portfolio 

management and investment strategy.

Before organizing Suntex as a capital management firm, Dr. 

Elsaid operated Suntex as a multi-national holding company 

focused on textiles materials and consumer goods. He began 

his career as a CPA and Head of Budgeting for Lockheed 

Martin Corporation followed by financial and accounting 

roles at various firms. He currently serves as Justice of 

Peace and Notary Public in the state [sic] of Massachusetts. 

After obtaining his bachelor’s degree in accounting from the 

University of Cairo, he received an MBA in International 

Financial Management from the University of Dallas, and a 

PhD in Finance from University of California, Berkeley Haas 

School of Business. 

[Exhibit A, answer; see answer, at pp. 12-13.] On August 29, 2016, Elsaid notified the 

Office of Proceedings that he would be traveling to Stockholm at the invitation of the 

Royal Academy of Science which had accepted his nomination for the Nobel Prize in 

Economics. There is a first time for almost anything, but such a nomination would 

arguably appear to be quite anomalous and unprecedented given the conspicuous 

absence of any references to noteworthy publications or academic appointments in Dr. 

Elsaid’s curriculum vitae posted on the Suntex website. 

2. Kevin Traina, a resident of Auburn, Massachusetts, is the complainant in 

Traina v. TradeStation Securities, et al. (16-R16). As noted above, Traina gave Elsaid 

discretion to trade his TradeStation account. Traina -- a licensed physician assistant, 

and listed on several annual reports as a director and board member of Suntex 

Corporation -- indicated on his May 2015 TradeStation account application that his 
6

annual earnings were between $100,000 and $249,ooo, net assets between $500,000 

and $999,000, and liquid assets between $100,000 and $199,000, and that he had over 

two years’ experience trading equities, options and futures. [Exhibits A and C, answer.] 

In his opposition to respondent’s motion for sanctions, dated July 21, and filed 

July 22, 2016, Traina asserted: one, that he is “about to retire, because of a severe 

illness;”2 and two, that he has “no money,” lives “paycheck to paycheck” and is helping 

to pay off the heavy student debt of his three children, and thus cannot afford an 

attorney. [Traina opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss, dated July 21, and filed 

July 22, 2016, at ¶¶ 4, 5 and 7.]

3. Respondent TradeStation Securities, located in Plantation, Florida, is a 

registered future commission merchant. Respondents Jason Hinkle and John 

Sendlosky are registered associated persons with TradeStation. [National Futures 

Association records; and joint answer, at pp. 11-15.] Respondents are represented by 

Steven Greenbaum, general counsel for TradeStation.

Pleadings and bar on Elsaid representing Traina 

Suntex complaint

4. On January 5, 2016, Elsaid filed a complaint on behalf of his firm Suntex 

Corporation. The complaint arose out of a disputed liquidation in an account in the 

name of Suntex, and an account in the name of Advanta Trust f/b/o Kevin Traina for 

which Elsaid had been given discretionary authority to trade. Elsaid sought various 

actual, speculative and punitive damages ranging up to six and eight figures, and sought 

 2 More recently, Traina identified his ailment as kidney stones. See Traina affidavit, dated November 22, 

2016.
7

various forms of extraordinary relief on a variety of theories. The Suntex case was 

assigned docket number 16-R6.

By letter dated March 4, 2016, Belinda Pugh of the Office of Proceedings advised 

Elsaid that he could not file a complaint on behalf of Traina, and struck all of Suntex’s 

claims with the exception of the claim for actual damages totaling $74,000. By letter 

dated May 27, 2016, Melissa Jurgens, the Chief of the CFTC Executive Secretariat 

Branch in her capacity as acting Director of the Office of Proceedings, would reiterate 

that all of Elsaid’s claims with the exception of the claim for actual damages totaling 

$74,000 had been stricken.

Traina complaint

5. On March 28, 2016, Elsaid filed a complaint on behalf of Traina similarly 

seeking various actual, speculative and punitive damages, and various forms of 

extraordinary relief on a variety of theories. The Suntex and Traina complaints are 

identical or substantially similar, because they arise from the same factual 

circumstances and because they were prepared by Elsaid. By letter dated June 3, 2016, 

Melissa Jurgens, the acting Director of the Office of Proceedings, struck all of Traina’s 

claims with the exception of the claim for actual damages.

Bar on Elsaid representing Traina

6. In Suntex (16-R6), in the May 27 letter, Jurgens advised Elsaid that CFTC rule 

12.9(a) barred Elsaid from representing Traina in the Traina case, because Elsaid is not 
8

a licensed attorney.3 Similarly, in Traina (16-R16), in the June 3rd letter, Jurgens 

informed Traina that CFTC rule 12.9 barred Elsaid from representing Traina. 

In Traina, by letter dated June 24, 2016, Jurgens granted respondents’ request to 

preclude Elsaid from participating in the Traina case. Subsequently by orders dated 

November 4 and 9, 2016, I would warn Traina that his complaint would be dismissed if 

he and Elsaid continue to disregard the bar on Elsaid’s participation in the Traina case.

Answers to Suntex and Traina complaints 

7. On May 27, 2016, the CFTC Office of Proceedings served the Suntex

complaint. On September 26, 2016, respondents filed their amended joint answer to the 

Suntex complaint. Between May 27 and October 12, 2016, Elsaid and Greenbaum 

exchanged multiple motions, including motions by Elsaid to deny Greenbaum’s

reasonable 10-day extension request and to strike the answer, and a motion by 

Greenbaum to debar Elsaid. In each motion, Elsaid repeated, virtually verbatim, the 

various allegations in the complaint, including those that had been stricken.

On October 12, 2016, the Suntex (16-R6) case was assigned to my docket and the 

CFTC Proceedings Clerk issued the Notice of Formal Proceeding (“NFP”). The NFP, 

among other things, provided a link to the CFTC reparations rules, provided contact 

information, and provided basic procedural advice. For example, the NFP stated: “If 

you anticipate that you may not be able to meet a deadline, you should contact the office 

of the Judgment Officer as soon as practicable – before the deadline – to request an 

extension of time.”

 3 CFTC rule 12.9(a) provides that an individual complainant or respondent may represent him or herself, 

or may be represented by an attorney who is admitted to practice, and who is in good-standing, before the 

highest court in any state, territory or DC. In other words, rule 12.9(a) does not permit an individual 

party to be represented by a non-attorney. 
9

8. On June 3, 2016, the CFTC Office of Proceedings served the Traina complaint.

Also on June 3, as noted above, Jurgens informed Traina that the CFTC reparations 

rules barred Elsaid from representing Traina. On July 13, 2016, respondents filed their 

joint answer. Between June 16 and October 12, 2016, Traina filed a series of motions 

nearly identical or substantially similar to those filed by Elsaid in Suntex. On October 

12, 2016, the Traina (16-R16) case was assigned to my docket and the CFTC Proceedings 

Clerk issued the Notice of Formal Proceeding (“NFP”). 

Recent actions in the Suntex case

9. By order issued Wednesday November 9, 2016, I denied respondents renewed 

motion to debar Dr. Elsaid as Suntex’s representative, but warned him:

This ruling should not be construed as finding any merit in Elsaid’s 

assertion that the motion was filed in bad faith. Also, this ruling is 

conditioned on Elsaid immediately dropping the ad hominen attacks on 

respondents’ counsel and immediately stopping the practice of repetitively 

arguing the merits of his complaint with each filing. Failure to do so will 

be grounds for finding Elsaid in contempt, and thus dismissing Suntex’s 

complaint because Elsaid’s contempt would be imputed to Suntex.

In each of Suntex’s and Traina’s subsequent submissions, Elsaid would disregard this 

warning: one, the tone, style, organization and substance of Traina’s submissions 

clearly indicate that Elsaid has continued to dictate, if not actually draft, Traina’s 

submissions, and otherwise has continued to provide tactical, strategic and quasi-legal 

guidance to Traina; and two, in each of Suntex’s and Traina’s subsequent motions, 

Elsaid has continued to repeatedly argue the merits of the complaints, particularly the 

stricken $28 million speculative damages claim, despite the fact that those arguments 

are not relevant to the subject matter of the motions. 
10

10. Also on November 9, 2016, Elsaid filed a request for an extension of the 

Monday November 14 deadline to serve discovery requests. In his request, Elsaid 

claimed that he needed the extension because he “has been severely ill.” However, on 

the morning of Friday November 11, less than two full days later, Elsaid had sufficiently 

recuperated to e-serve his numerous, discursive and argumentative, discovery requests. 

Also on Friday November 11, 2016, Elsaid electronically submitted a motion to 

consolidate the Suntex and Traina cases. Since that day was the Veterans Day federal 

holiday, Elsaid’s motion to consolidate was deemed to have been filed Monday 

November 14, 2016, per CFTC rules 12.3 and 12.5(a). 

 The motion to consolidate stated, in pertinent part: “The undersigned Michael 

Elsaid and Kevin Traina move this court to consolidate the two cases . . . .” The 

signature purporting to be Traina’s signature appeared substantially different from his 

signatures on previous submissions. For example, the signature was noticeably 

“shaky,” compared to the relatively “smooth” signatures on Traina’s previous 

submissions, and the angle of the signature was significantly different from signatures 

on Traina’s previous submissions. 

On November 14, 2016, before Suntex’s motion to consolidate had been 

forwarded to me, I issued a Notice concerning Suntex’s extension request. Among other 

things, I reminded Dr. Elsaid that he should sign each submission and submit each 

submission in an unalterable format:

While certain concessions can be made in light of Elsaid’s pro se status, he 

cannot be relieved of these obligations which are not burdensome and are 

not trivial. The requirement that each filing be in an unalterable format 

assures the integrity of the document. The requirement that each filing be 

signed essentially requires a litigant to “stop and think” before making 

legal or factual contentions in a filing, and emphasizes the litigant’s “duty 

of candor,” the elements of which are spelled out in CFTC rule 12.11(d)(2). 
11

[Underscore added for emphasis.] I also noted that Dr. Elsaid had disregarded the 

warning in the November 9th order to refrain from repetitively arguing the merits of the 

complaint with each filing:

While due consideration has been given to Elsaid’s pro se status, it is not 

unreasonable to expect him to exercise a modicum of common-sense and 

comply with this simple, straightforward instruction. In this connection, 

Elsaid inserted in Suntex’s extension request a repetitive argument about 

Suntex’s $28 million dollar breach of contract claim: 

“[Complainant] Suntex are [sic] determined to recover under 

this reparation program their [sic] losses of $28 Million.” 

This assertion, in sharp contrast to the assertion about his illness, had 

nothing to do with Elsaid’s apparent need for an additional 10 days to 

prepare Suntex’s discovery requests, and thus was gratuitous and 

frivolous, particularly in light of the fact that Elsaid had been clearly and 

explicitly advised that Suntex’s $28 million breach of contract claim was 

not under consideration. Accordingly, Elsaid should consider today’s 

Notice to be a “first-strike” warning that, if he continues to insert similar 

repetitive or immaterial arguments in his submissions, Suntex will be 

subject to sanctions, ranging from non-consideration or striking of such 

abusive submissions, to dismissal of Suntex’s complaint.

[Footnotes deleted.]

11. On November 15, respondents filed their answer to Suntex’s motion to 

consolidate. In their answer, respondents raised a serious, plausible allegation that Dr. 

Elsaid had forged Mr. Traina’s signature on the motion to consolidate, substantiated 

that allegation with facially compelling evidence, stated that they were prepared to hire 

a hand-writing expert to prove that the signature was not Traina’s, and asserted that if 

their suspicion was confirmed, that the Suntex case and the Traina case should both be 

summarily dismissed for abuse of process. [Respondents’ November 15, 2016 answer to 

Suntex’s motion to consolidate, at footnote 1, page 1.] 
12

12. By order dated November 16, 2016, I denied the motion to consolidate on the 

grounds that any efficiency and cost-saving that would accrue with consolidation of the 

two cases would be substantially outweighed by the significant problems associated with 

Dr. Elsaid’s persistent efforts to sidestep the ban on his appearing as Traina’s de facto

attorney. I also noted that if respondents’ forgery allegation proved to be more likely 

than not to be true, it would be grounds to dismiss the complaint in this proceeding and 

to award respondents their related costs. Thus, I set a November 29 deadline for Elsaid 

to file a response to the forgery allegation, and instructed Elsaid that his response 

should be narrowly and strictly focused on the question of the authenticity of Traina’s 

purported signature. I also set a November 29, 2016 deadline for respondents to 

substantiate their costs incurred in connection with their answer to Suntex’s motion to

consolidate and to produce an affidavit by a hand-writing expert.

13. On November 21, 2016, Elsaid and Traina filed substantially similar motions

requesting that I be disqualified as the presiding official for their respective proceedings. 

Elsaid essentially embedded his response to respondents’ forgery allegation in 

paragraph 11 of Traina’s accompanying affidavit and paragraphs 18 and 19 of Elsaid’s 

accompanying affidavit. As a result, Elsaid disregarded the instructions in the 

November 9th order to narrowly and strictly focus his response on the question of the 

authenticity of Traina’s purported signature.

In his affidavit, Elsaid admitted that he had signed Traina’s name on the motion 

to consolidate, and asserted that he did so because Traina, who was “nauseous, 

vomiting, [and] quivering and was unable to sign his name,” orally authorized Elsaid to 

sign for him. In his affidavit, Traina admitted that Elsaid had signed Traina’s name on 

the motion to consolidate, and asserted that because he “was physically incapacitated by 
13

[an unspecified and unsubstantiated] illness,” he had orally authorized Elsaid. By notice 

issued on November 21, I informed the parties that I was treating those paragraphs in

the two affidavits as Elsaid’s response to respondents’ forgery allegation. Notably 

absent from both affidavits was: one, any explanation for why Elsaid and Traina had 

not waited until Traina got stronger, which he would a week later on November 21st

when he signed the disqualification motion, or in the alternative, if they had felt rushed 

for some reason not apparent on the record, why they had not filed an extension request 

based on the extraordinary circumstances of Traina’s purported incapacitation; two, 

why Elsaid had not stated in the transmittal e-mail that he had signed for Traina

because Traina was incapacitated; and three, why Elsaid had not signed his own name 

“for Kevin Traina” in the space designated for Traina’s signature. As a result, the Elsaid 

and Traina affidavits, separately and together, have the quality of a strained, after-thefact construct. 

14. On November 23, 2016, respondents filed their motion to dismiss the 

proceeding based on Elsaid’s repeated abuse of process and disregard of various orders. 

Respondents attached evidence substantiating that they had incurred $4,171 in costs in 

connection with their answer to Suntex’s sham motion to consolidate: $2,571 for 

attorney’s costs, and $1,600 for the hand-writing expert.

15. On November 29, 2016, Elsaid filed seven “emergency” motions, none of 

which serve a discernable legitimate purpose: some seek the same relief sought in 

previous motions, some seek to circumvent the Commission’s reparations rules (e.g., 

demanding an immediate hearing before the full Commission, despite the fact that 

discovery has not been completed and that the rules do not provide for en banc trial 
14

hearings), and some seek various forms of extraordinary relief beyond the scope of this 

proceeding. 

Conclusion

Since the Commission’s reparations program started over 35 years ago, hundreds 

of pro se complainants and respondents have represented themselves in reparations 

cases. With a few rare exceptions, these pro se litigants have managed to represent 

themselves without abusing the forum by disregarding orders, filing repetitive motions, 

or filing sham submissions with forged signatures. Unfortunately, Dr. Elsaid is one of 

those exceptions. Rather than focus on Suntex’s cognizable $74,000 claim, Dr. Elsaid 

has disregarded orders and repeatedly attempted to resurrect specious claims for 

millions of dollars in speculative damages that have been stricken, has brazenly 

disregarded the bar on his appearing as the de facto attorney for Mr. Traina in his 

separate case, and has attempted to circumvent that bar by forging Mr. Traina’s

signature on Suntex’s motion to consolidate the Traina and Suntex cases. As a result, 

Dr. Elsaid has regularly abused this forum and disrupted the fair and orderly conduct of 

this proceeding, with no sign that he intends to correct course. Since he owns and 

controls Suntex, and treats Suntex as one and the same as himself, Dr. Elsaid’s bad faith, 

abusive and contemptuous conduct is imputed to Suntrust. In these circumstances, 

dismissal of the complaint, and an award of respondents’ $4,171 in costs incurred in 

connection with their answer to Suntex’s sham motion to consolidate, is justified. 

ORDER

Based on the bad-faith, abusive and contemptuous conduct of Suntex 

Corporation’s owner and representative, Dr. Michael Elsaid, particularly his forgery of 
the signature of another party: one, the complaint in this matter is hereby dismissed for 

cause;4 and two, Suntex Corporation and Dr. Michael Elsaid are ordered to pay to 

respondents the $4,171 in costs incurred in connection with their answer to Suntex's 

sham motion to consolidate.s 

Dated December 1, 2016. 

;/)1 -'Y ;vi () __,__ 

P~cGuire, Judgment Officer 

4 Suntex's motion to disqualify me as presiding official in this proceeding is hereby denied. However, 

Suntex may bring its objections to my handling of this case to the attention of the Commission in its 

appeal brief. Also, although this order of dismissal effectively suspends the deadline for the parties to 

produce discovery replies, Dr. Elsaid and respondents remain obligated to preserve any documents and 

records that are responsive to each other's discovery requests until the termination of this proceeding. 

s The liability of Suntex Corporation and Dr. Elsaid for this award shall be joint and several. Payment 

should be made within 30 days after the termination of this proceeding. 

15