Update: Respondents File Answer, But the Real Story Is What They Left Out
On July 16, Fisher Phillips LLP submitted an Answer on behalf of DRVM LLC in response to my $15 billion arbitration. On the surface, it looks like a typical legal response—blanket denials, generic defenses, and a narrative that tries to oversimplify a complex corporate fraud scheme.
But here’s what they didn’t expect: I was ready.
What They Filed vs. What They Omitted
Fisher Phillips claims DRVM acted in “good faith,” made “full payment,” and isn’t connected to anyone else, not even its CEO, Maged Boutros. They state I was merely a short-term employee and act like the rest of the case doesn’t exist.
But they completely ignored the $6,000 deposit sent to my personal account on July 1, the same day I notified them of a pending federal petition. This payment, made with no agreement or explanation, has been formally submitted as Exhibit 110. It directly contradicts their “full payment” claim, and they left it out of their Answer entirely.
Worse, Fisher Phillips filed their original Notice of Appearance on April 14 2025, when DRVM was still legally dissolved under Oregon law. They had no legal authority to appear or represent a dissolved company. DRVM wasn’t even reinstated until April 25, 2025.
The Shell Game Continues
They also refuse to acknowledge that DRVM and AMJ Services, both run by Maged Boutros, were already disclosed as interlinked entities by JAMS itself at case initiation. Yet Fisher Phillips acts like DRVM is standing alone, with no connection to the upstream shell structure or the broader fraud.
My Response? Transparent and Direct.
In response, I sent a formal email to JAMS requesting two things:
1. A timeline for when the Rule 15(b) arbitrator list will be issued.
2. Confirmation that all proposed arbitrators will have demonstrable AI and tech experience, as previously agreed.
I also made clear that if the list doesn’t meet the criteria, or if delay continues, I will pursue all available procedural remedies. I’ve withheld action out of respect for the process, but transparency matters. The public deserves oversight. And this case is far too big to be buried.
As of now, we are still waiting for JAMS to issue the official strike-and-rank arbitrator list. I’ve made it clear: every arbitrator must have documented experience with AI and emerging technologies, consistent with what was agreed when this became the first documented AI-assisted arbitration in legal history. If that list fails to reflect those criteria, or if any further stalling or procedural interference occurs, I will immediately proceed with the federal petition to appoint an arbitrator. There are no more off-ramps. This case has already revealed corporate deception, dissolved-entity misrepresentation, and concealed upstream control. The only question left is whether the system will confront it, or keep protecting it.