Kingdom777 “suspends” US ROI payouts
When US regulators came knocking on Phil Ming Xu’s door to ask about the WCM777 Ponzi scheme he was running, he kept it a secret until the state of Massachusetts went public. Xu claimed he was “suspending all US operations”, but continued to accept investment funds from and pay a daily ROI to US affiliate investors.
When California investigated WCM777, Xu again kept quiet about it but announced he was stepping into the background and changing WCM777’s name to “Kingdom777”. James Tenorio was named as Xu’s replacement.
Xu also promised Kingdom777 would eventually go public and “register its stock with the SEC”. In an “announcement” published on the Kingdom777 website in early January, Xu blamed WCM777 affiliates for his regulatory troubles.
Xu’s “blame the affiliates” announcement was made the day before California formally issued their cease and desist against Xu and WCM777. Following California’s cease and desist (January 8th), Colorado has issued their own notice and both Louisiana and New Hampshire have issued WCM777 investor alert notices.
Despite it being pretty obvious that Xu continuing to run WCM777 as Kingdom777 in the US will most certainly result in further regulatory action taken against him (if it already isn’t pending), on January 26th his successor, James Tenorio, published his first member announcement on the Kingdom777 website:
Dear Members,
It has been a busy few days for me. I have been in numerous meetings and will be in countless more as I attempt to gain a full understanding of all the details of the program we acquired from WCM 777.
Our first order of business is to ensure that we work within the guidelines of the law. In doing so, I will be officially suspending all U.S. based transactions throughout our Kingdom 777 system. I am sure with legal council that we will be able to restructure our company to be in direct compliance with all regulatory guidelines here in the US.
Our Kingdom 777 name and brand is something that I will protect and not allow people to create a negative image of our community. We will be moving towards removing those who use our brand and logo without authorization directly from Kingdom 777.
Whether or not Tenorio is stating he’ll “protect” Kingdom777 from Xu who created the Ponzi scheme, or the US regulators who have issued notices and alerts against the scheme is unclear. What is clear though is that US ROI payments to Kingdom777 affiliates have been suspended.
California, presumable after going over Kingdom777’s financials claimed WCM777 had taken in $20 million USD from its investors. How much of that was from US investors and where Xu and Tenorio have transferred that money too are no doubt questions investors will want answered.
Ditto on how Tenorio and his lawyers will modify Kingdom777’s business model to legally operate in the US. As it stands the company is still accepting investment funds from and paying out a daily ROI to non-US affiliate investors. How the company will operate in the US while Kingdom777 continues its Ponzi business model elsewhere around the world is a mystery to me.
Even if Xu and Tenorio ran a different business model in the US there’s still the mixing of funds at a corporate level. Not to mention that US affiliate investors aren’t going to play ball with a non-Ponzi “legitimate” model. Remember Bidify?
In addition to cutting off US affiliate investors from their funds, Tenorio also stated he was putting a stop to Kingdom777 affiliates changing their uplines and acknowledged that
there were recent updates to the system and that some people are waiting to hear the official statement from us of how it works. I will be releasing those shortly.
I’m guessing these are the new Kingdom777 “rules and regulations” Ming Xu stated he’d publish on January 31st (announcement was made when he blamed affiliates for his troubles).
Stay tuned…
Seems he can’t tell the difference between council and counsel…
There’s no way Kingdom777 survives on a level playing field. its not their game and the competition will eat them alive.
Things are at least getting more interesting..
Just shut the mouth up if you do not know anything about WCM777. The company is real, the product is real…. That is not ponzi or scam at all.
When Zeekreward was shutted down by the SEC, people lost 600 million dollars and there are alomost 300 million dollars left in Zeek’s Bank. Zeek is scam because there are no product. The penny auction was not working….but WCM777 have 5 products such as: Icloud, Social Media, Ecommerce, Stock and Credit Card.
I believe that just one of their products is on public, they will have profit to pay out to members. So the main thing WCM777 need is to create the Market. You got it???
Kingdom never was in the playing field for cloud services.
PPBlog is reporting that the wcm777 kingdom777 websites seem to have gone down.
Ming Xu was last seen on Twitter still posting random Bible-y quotes about under siege, must have faith, blah blah blah.
@Lee
Right. And do you really think Ming Xu has infinity ROI up his arse? If you froze Kingdom777 today the ROI liability would exceed the ROIs owed.
Wrong. Zeek was a scam because it was a Ponzi scheme.
There’s your problem. Stop believing and just accept the facts. California already went over Kingdom777’s financials and revealed that 99% of the company’s revenue was from affiliate investment (just like Zeek Rewards).
Kingdom777 is a Ponzi scheme and you are a dirty little Ponzi pimp.
I was thinking more of the other lines of business they purported to have.
The $600 million has partly been adjusted up to $800 million, the $300 million was initially $225 million before clawbacks from banks and e-Wallets.
Zeek actually had $3 billion in liabilities (VIP points), so it only had 7.5% in reserves = enough money for 5-7 days in a worst case scenario. It had already started to experience failed payouts = it didn’t have enough money in the e-Wallet accounts to process all transactions (it would need to bring in reserves to cover normal payouts).
Canada has now also issued an alert against WCM777:
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/news_release.2014.01.0104.html
You have to give Ming Xu credit for running the long con on this one though.
Anyone with doubt’s can read through the facts here on any of the threads (Starting with the initial review of WCM777) and the continued topics. Ming and his partners have been very thoroughly vetted by the members of this site, and his long term fraud that has built into what we now know as Kingdom777 has grown beyond his control. If he is still in the US at this point, it’s probably under legal authority to not leave the country.
Meanwhile, in attempting to run the razors edge, he continues to run the scam while it is alledgedly ‘suspended’ in the usa. I am sure the logs from liquidweb (US based hosting provider for this scam at the moment) will be able to provide logs for the people who are taking the advice of affiliates and group leaders who are being told how to circumvent the suspension rules by using proxy sites outside of the US to continue to ‘work’ their accounts and collect their bonuses.
There are going to be a lot of unhappy affiliates when they realize despite what they are being told that any foreign income is also taxable.
The payouts now are apparently only going onto credits to use in the 1and300.com store, which sells overpriced – cheap – counterfeit products. The cheap counterfeit products are a speciality of Tiger and Ming, who both have a history of selling cheap crap from China.
Let the court filings and clawbacks begin!
They now suspended the access to your accounts if you are from a US IP address
I don’t think James Tenorio will be able to handle this company for more than a couple months. His words, the way we talk personally (i saw him last Monday days ago talking about the company), he is not the same person than when he was in Dubai early this year.
I guess that would apply to you too? That you should shut up if you don’t know anything?
Nope, you TOTALLY misunderstood. The Ponzi scheme involved $600 to $850 million dollars (that’s what about a million people people put in). They haven’t lost all of it because the authorities stepped in when there’s right about half of it left. The other half had been wasted or given away to “net winners”.
This is where you don’t get.
The cloud storage? I can start that today with a free PHP script called personal cloud.
Same with “social media”. Wazzub bought off-the-shelf DZOIC script for like $400.
eCommerce… You’re watching MingXu’s own companies on MingXu’s own website. There really are very few if any other customers other than you. All the listings on his website? From his own companies such as ToPacific
Stocks? What stocks? Stocks in other Ming Xu companies perhaps? How many corporations do you think he owns in California? It’s more than a dozen. Plus a dozen more already closed. All of them on paper.
There is no credit card. Kingdom card is a shopping loyalty card. And it’s a zombie entity derived from one of Ming Xu’s failed ventures called Affluen.com
Yes, you are the market. YOU are buying it. YOU are paying for it.
But who are you really buying from?
Did Ming Xu tell you about his visa business? Give him half a million bucks and he can get you a US residency visa by investing in one of his bogus companies, which are now all illegal?
Did Ming Xu tell you about his role in a huge pyramid scheme in China, and why he’s still using the Chinese name of that scam?
Did Ming Xu tell you about his role in the Beijing Olympic fundraising scam back in 2007-2008?
Did Ming Xu tell you he’s putting money into “The Way TV”, the people who funded “Innocense of Muslims”, that anti-Islam film that sparked bloody protests around the world?
Ming Xu is NOT who you think he is, and none of his companies are what they appear to be.
As if that would stop anybody with half a brain… And can use Google.
I want my money back I have 10 units
When kingdom777 system will be ready? We can withdraw our money? I am afraid ut will be scam
I hope that kingdom777 will scam soon. please show your loyalty to investor. We should void all online invesyment from now on. I don’t hope will get money.
FBI should bring xu to jail and release the money to members i have 9 acct.
The new stuff (guidelines/comp plan etc.) was supposed to come out on the 31st. Don’t think it will.
Hi Phil –
I like the routing of wcm777.com to 192.168.1.1 – Classy!
Will manna777.com be the next jumping block for running this thing just ahead of the names you get C & D orders from??
Who will be next?
hope they close them down.
Yea!! Better Living not paying. WCM777 or Whatever777 is now shut down. What about the casino deal and lucrazon? Both are the same kind of scams. People you gotta wise up!
This kind of stuff is not even close to legitimate. You can lose your money, screw your friends, and then have to pay back what you got anyway.
Why do this? How much time are you wasting instead of working a real business?
You delude yourself into believing that impossibly sky high returns are achievable with little risk and when things turn to sh*t you think someone is going to give you your money back? Sorry, you chanced and and you crapped out. No refunds.
Your 10 units have as much value as yesterday’s losing lottery tickets.
And promoter Steve Hoffman is getting deeper and deeper into the game – he is now listed on the bottom of the main (kingdom777.com) site.
I know the translation is butchered – but I find it funny.
“Other 5,153 bit and say this quite commendable.”
Had anybody tried to log in their account from non US IP address? Although I registered with my European passport and address, I still can not access my account?
I realize I shouldn’t have trusted anyone, but I am a full time student and somehow the idea came compelling to me! Does anyone have updates if we will be able to recover our money?
can we sue them as a group in order to have our money back.
You can, but chances are 1000 to 1 that you won’t. However, any party in interest (including a government bureau or agency) may petition the Court to appoint a Receiver. If approved the Receiver would represent all the victims. Such a motion may already be in progress but nothing prohibits you from doing it yourself.
Now word is starting to circulate around the sites of the resignation of Tenorio and the addition of “Wendy Rothschild” of the famous Rothschild family joining as a managing pertner for the group (Will be involved in a real estate development project Ming is starting in Santa Barbara, CA)
Interesting..
Given the past record of Ming Xu statements turned out to be half-truths or lies… I’d not wager any money on it. He promised a lot of ****.
Tenorio’s resignation, I believe. He may have finally realized he was left with a hot potato and nobody to pass it to. or perhaps that’s what he was paid to be the fall guy.
Did I mention Phil Ming Xu’s middle name is Rockefeller? Yep, picked it himself.
Xu Ming is in planning to take all the money…
Initially it was WCM777 which you can withdraw money, that’s for early “investors”.
Now, he changed it to Kingdom777 in which it pays out 16 points daily instead of dollar. This point can only be transferred to kingdomtrade.org for trading in which the trading is not transparent. Even you managed to trade, the money you get still cannot be withdrawn. It needs to transfer to Kingdom Card for withdrawal. For now, transferring money from kingdom trade to kingdom card still not available.
So, that asshole “Lee” should shut his mouth instead for not knowing anything. His comment make me laugh.
Oh I do agree. He is quite good at only giving half of the story or bending the truth (Which makes people run with the information).
Have you seen the video with the Kingdom777 “Mini-Pad” yet? One of those “Look, we have a product right here.. See it’s real” Don’t know how they are going to distribute it yet, but I want one (I almost bought something from the Zeek auction just to have a piece of the history)
One thing is for sure – This one always manages to stay interesting.
Can we get confirmation Tenorio is out? Haven’t seen anything myself yet…
From the Kingdom777 Feb4th update – kingdomtrade.org/Forms/FG/Kingdomtradeen.pdf
Anyone wanna have a stab at explaining WTF that’s all about?
Real money goes in, people trade numbers on a screen, Ming Xu manipulates supply and demand of said numbers, nobody gets paid?
Even if you got rid of Ming Xu’s Chinglish it’s still terrible…
I’m hearing knocks on that door (Tenorio leaving) from various Portuguese language facebook based promoters. There was some talk of it on a couple of the english language facebook accounts as well. There has been a lot of talk lately, but as usual nothing of any substance from Phil to confirm.
Fair enough. I’ll keep an eye on it and publish if I see anything concrete.
Maybe it was a performance sacking:
Xu: Alright Tenorio welcome to the company. Your first task as CEO is to legalize our Ponzi scheme, register Kingdom777 with the SEC and take this shit public.
Tenorio: Uh… what?
Xu: GET OUT!
Oh – and it looks like the kingdomtrade application is a way to tie up the money for a little bit longer. What I have been reading is the ‘points’ have a initial value of $1.00. There are unnamed brokers who are purchasing the points at prices higher than $1.00, but you have to sell them in groups of 1000 points or more.
I haven’t seen any documents yet that determine the number of ‘points’ in the system, or would help identify who these mystery brokers might be. Prices have been reported of $5.00 or more per point, but many are complaining they have not been able to sell any points at $1.20. Any sales are subject to a 10% broker fee.
There are a lot of people looking to jump ship at this point, but apparently they can not if they live in the US because their accounts are locked up (if accessing from a US based IP). The popular advice for this problem is to access through a proxy service to continue to ‘work’ the account, or provide documentation to the company that you live and work outside of the US.
It’s a fraud, not a normal company or normal investment. A class action lawsuit will most likely be stayed if the program is shut down by another court. It will temporarily be unresolvable in court to protect the interests of other victims with similar rights.
“Equality before the Court” will have a higher rank order than individual claims or class action claims. Your class action lawsuit may represent e.g. 10% of the victims or 99.9% of the victims, but as long as it doesn’t represent all the victims the claim may be unresolvable in court.
THE ZEEK REWARDS CASEYou can take a look at the Zeek Rewards case, to see how individual class action lawsuits have been handled.
https://sites.google.com/a/asdupdates.com/files-website/zeek-rewards-sec-case
The attorney will be fighting for his right to 25%-33% of the money recovered, rather than fighting for his clients’ interests. Paying a lawyer to fight for his own interests rather than your’s is a rather meaningless idea.
Class action lawsuits or individual lawsuits can generally NOT be used in bankruptcy cases or other similar cases. The court can neither rule in favor nor in disfavor of the individual / group of individuals without harming the interests of other individuals with similar claims.
“Johnny Belsome et al” has mostly been fighting for the attorney’s OWN interests. The attorney has tried to get his clients’ claims routed through himself, including payouts to his clients. He’s primarily fighting for solutions that will make it easier for him to collect his salary from the clients.
I made several comments about another class action lawsuit when Zeek was shut down.
Attorneys are typically eager to get clients to sign up for class action lawsuits when a scheme is shut down. They will offer a lot of vague promises, but will deliver very few results.
He was very quick to put up a “Zeek Class Action” website, very quick to inform the local newspaper about that he had a plan, very quick to sign up clients. But he was very vague about his plan, very vague about the conditions, and he hasn’t delivered any significant results.
listen up all of you people that think all of this investment crap is for real. IT’S NOT…IT’S A BIG PIPE DREAM, IT’S SOMEBODY TELLING YOU THAT IT’S RAINING OUTSIDE AND YOU KNOW THAT IT’S NOT RAINING BUT YET YOU BELIEVE HIM BECAUSE YOU NEED IT TO RAIN IN A BAD WAY.
Don’t fall for this kind of b.s.if you really need to make some money, remember…if it sounds too good to be true it’s because it is. So if you really need to make money you’ll make it by not giving it to those assholes from the other side of the world who are telling you your going to make this much from this and that much from that and so on.
If one took the time to stop and think about it, all of the money your supposed to make, you would realize that there is no way possible anybody could give you that kind of return on your money, no f’n way. Come on people…let’s pull’em out, your supposed to sit on it not store your head in it!!!
Filming Rockefeller’s Shoe?
Its not meaningless at all. Contingency fees are not only common but if an attorney is unwilling take a client on a contingency, its probably not much of a case or there is little money to be had. However, an attorney will take your money and represent you on a cash up front basis almost every time, but that means the client must come out of pocket which many individuals can not or don’t want to do. That is why contingency fee arrangements are used.
Contingency Fee agreements are the best method known to actually aligning the attorney interests with the clients. They share the proceeds, IF they win. IF not the attorney has worked for free and the client pays nothing.
You are overgeneralizing from what you know about Zeek, and fail to identify that the situation there is entirely due to Bell’s unique insistance that attorneys can not submit claims on behalf of their clients via the Electronic Claims Portal. This may or may not happen in WCM, and in fact I think the question is even still open in Zeek.
Suits against a Recievership estate are commonly stayed so I don’t think it apt to impute some lack of focus to Belsome’s attorneys on that account.
I’m glad you noticed that I used Zeek as an example. 🙂
It wasn’t a general question either, e.g. about class action lawsuits in general. It was a direct question about class action lawsuits against a potential Ponzi scheme. Zeek Rewards can clearly be used as an example, and can provide valuable info about how individual / group lawsuits are being handled in cases like that.
* I specified in which TYPE of cases it would be rather meaningless, and why it would be so. It will be rather meaningless if your attorney primarily is fighting for his OWN interests rather than for your’s.
* I specified “Equality before the Law” as a main argument for why individual or group lawsuits would be unresolvable in court, e.g. you will be fighting for the same assets in a nearly duplicate case, where your own case has a lower rank.
* I specified “you’re NOT filing claims against an ordinary company about an ordinary investment, you’re filing claims againt a fraud”. That should normally make a huge difference to the TYPE of actions you can use.
It was a direct answer to a specific question. The section you quoted will need to be interpreted in that context, and in the context of the other arguments and examples in those 2 posts. It wasn’t a stand alone argument about class actions or contingency fees in general.
Attorneys are not very useful if you don’t use them correctly. You must ask for the correct type of action for the specific case, rather than expecting the case to fit inside your own “favorite solutions to legal issues”.
I don’t think you understand Equality before the Law. Cases don’t have lower rank. That would hardly be equality would it? Equality before the law means that no matter what a person’s station in life, he/she is entitled to equal treatment.
It makes no difference at all. Fraud is fraud. The elements to prove fraud are the same in every case, against any type of company. Focus on the actions, not the company. The actions are what are illegal.
Niether is a hammer. While it may look like the Belsone group is not being well served, you are not in a position to judge. Have any of them come forward to contest the contingency fee arrangement? No. Is the work that is being done on contingency complete? You have no idea. Probably not. Have Belsone’s attorneys been paid anything to date? You do not know and probably not.
In point of fact you have no information concerning the relationship between Belsone et al and their attorney at all. You know that a stay was imposed and the Receiver does not want to allow the attorneys to file claims on behalf of the clients, which is to say you do not know much.
Maybe you should hear what the clients have to say before jumping to your conclusions.
That’s so ridiculously obvious I do not know why you bother even writing it down. Don’t go to a patent attorney for a parking ticket. Got it.
No actually it wasn’t. MAY I said:
“can we sue them as a group in order to have our money back.”
She said nothing about a class action suit. You jumped to the conclusion that she wanted a PLAINTIFF’s class action suit and you have been busily describing your thoughts on the matter based on the Belsone clients’ experience at Zeek. Truth be told she can get people together and sue without forming a class at all and she may rather do just that since any judgment in her favor is hers alone, and does not have to be shared over hundreds of people. PLAINTIFF Class actions almost always provide for an opt out anyway so individuals can pursue their own remedies.
Regardless, as I said earlier, What is most likely to benefit her is a Recievership who files a DEFENDANT’s Class action suit to bring money back into the estate for subsequent distribution through a claim process….just like is occurring at Zeek)
If she is still reading which I doubt. My advice is to do nothing, sign nothing and pay nothing to anybody for now. Wait and see. Let things develop further before deciding on a course of action and don’t jump to conclusions.
The logic goes like this:
Post #27: Initial question
Posts #38: Initial answer
Post #39: Added more details to the initial answer.
Post #42: Your comment about some random details.
Post #43: Identified the context and some details.
This post: Identifying the logic.
“Clearly identify the case before choosing the type of action” would have reflected that you had got it.
“Don’t go to a patent attorney for a parking ticket” reflected your own ideas rather than the logic in that post. “That’s so ridiculously obvious I do not know why you bother even writing it down” does also reflect your own ideas.
The MAIN question is about whether or not to use a class action lawsuit, the question in post #27. I have added some details to the answers to that question, while you have been focusing on some random details out of context.
CAN YOU EVEN READ?
POST 27 says nothing and asks nothing about a class action suit. The original post 27 question is immediately below….
Do you see one word about a class action? Even one?
A: Not one. You assume you did and
struck out on your own tangent.
Do you see a MAIN question? If so, what is it? A: “Can we sue as a group.”
The answer to that is Yes, but it does not have to be a class action and if a Reciever is appointed, AND if this WCM thing were handled like Zeek, the lawsuit to recover funds for the investors would primarily and first be an action to recover funds for the estate, not a class action on behalf of PLAINTIFF investors (which would be completley redundant and unneccesary because the Receiver would already be attemtpting to recover funds for the investors.
That’s the whole reason why Belsone et al have been stayed. They would only get in the way of the Court’s purposes.
If you have learned anything from Zeek I hope that at least you will come away understanding the difference between a Plaintiff Class action and a Defendant Class action.
She did not ask about Class actions. She does not need or want a Plaintiff Class action. Your droning on about Belsone et al which is not now which probably never become a class action only confuses the issues for everyone.
You spend a lot of time trying to identify logic rather than just plain understanding the words as written. Try that for a change.
Look at the realities rather than at your own ideas? How did you come to the conclusion for the statement “You jumped to the conclusion that she wanted a PLAINTIFF’s class action suit”?
You don’t need to reply to those two questions.
“SUE THEM TO GET OUR MONEY BACK?”My recommendation would be to identify the case more correctly before deciding anything about the TYPE of action. Use a lawyer if needed, but use him as an inexpensive advisor rather than as an expensive tool for personal revenge.
* Identify it as a potential Ponzi scheme rather than as an investment.
* Identify jurisdiction issues, e.g. geographical jurisdiction. Identify other issues.
* Adjust your ideas and actions to match the case. You can’t expect the case to adjust itself to match your own favorite legal solutions.
* I added some examples about Zeek Rewards. Doc56.pdf, “ORDER denying Motion to Lift Stay”, and some of the other documents there can give some valuable information about the legal logic.
https://sites.google.com/a/asdupdates.com/files-website/zeek-rewards-sec-case/zeek-rewards-class-actio
Identify this, identify that. Get on with it. She asked a very simple question; “can we sue them as a group.” Stay on track.
Well gee maybe because that’s because your wrote this.
Ya think?
I covered MANY different types of actions in the same post, from individual lawsuits to group lawsuits to class actions.
You’re a little too focused on details, and you won’t usually look at whether or not it makes some sense in the context where the details are presented. The TYPE of lawsuit wasn’t really important, most of my post was about WHY some lawsuits may fail to produce results.
Suing a fraudulent investment opportunity using normal investment logic won’t make much sense. I gave some examples for actions that have failed to deliver some significant results, where the attorneys are fighting for their OWN interests rather than for the interests of their clients.
“Johnny Belsome et al” and the Cal Cunningham lawsuit are based on the same type of ideas = “Can we sue someone to get our money back?”.
It wouldn’t have made much difference if those lawsuits had been individual or small group lawsuits rather than class actions. They didn’t fail because of the TYPE of action, but because of something else.
People will need to identify their own cases correctly before making any decisions about whether or not to file any lawsuits, and before making decisions about the type of legal action. “Use lawyers if needed, but use them as inexpensive advisors rather than as expensive tools for personal revenge”.
A lawsuit may or may not be the right decision. To find out about that, the case will need to be identified correctly.
I have kept it on track in all my comments, i.e. I haven’t derailed into the details you have been focusing on.
“Identify it correctly” is normally considered to be a wise advice in decision making.
I have continued on the same track in all my comments, but I have also replied to a few of your comments too.
Posts #47 and #49 are on the same track. This post is on the same track. Your own ideas have derailed into many different directions, but my posts have generally been on the same track.
It also implies that an individual action can have a lower rank order than an action on behalf of the whole group. You use too onesided definitions, focused on details rather than on a whole.
In the RVG shutdown, the court made a standard decision about staying individual lawsuits. Individual claims will not be about equal treatment, it will be about individual treatment where the first ones to finish a lawsuit will recover more money than the last ones, because the defendant eventually will run out of money after a few lawsuits.
I also placed that argument into a context, e.g. mentioning bankruptcy cases as one of the examples.
A Supreme Court could not have turned a blind eye towards the fact that other creditors with similar claims also would have similar rights before the law. By allowing ONE individual lawsuit to continue, it would allow ALL similar lawsuits, making it become “a race towards the courts, in attempts to jump ahead of other claimants”.
“Equality before the Law” is clearly about that too. Individual claims can be in conflict with that principle, e.g. they may enrich some creditors at the expense of other creditors with similar rights.
Cases can clearly be stayed. Just give it the identifier you want if you didn’t like the word “rank”?
It isn’t about a rank between identical cases, but about the rank between different laws or legal principles. “Equality before the Law” can probably be found in one of the Amendments to the Constitution, and will have a higher rank order than most other laws.
Cases are not stayed. They are opened upon the filing of a complaint. They continue to be open until closed.
A stay is a “stay of process.” A case is not a process, therefore a case can not be stayed.
Staying a process is not ranking it under any concept of “Equality Before the Law. All are equal before the law.
A stay is a tool used in case management. Its the way the judge directs traffic through his courtroom. He prioritizes what actions can proceed. This in no way is an exercise of discretion under the doctrine of Equality before the law. There is no discretion under such a doctrine. Equal means equal.
That being said, a judge is expected to rule (according to the principals of equality), and to manage his cases.
. . . . .and here is where you go astray. Equality before the law is not about the equality of outcomes.
Its well established that some creditors are enriched at the expense of others. Look at any Bankruptcy case and you will find that there are classes of creditors granted higher priority in the distribution of estate assets than others, even though all recieved equal treatment before the law.
Equality under Recivership/Bankruptcy law dictates that all creditors within a particular classification are treated equally, not that no creditor can recieve more than another.
Belsome et al’s complaint was not stayed because it may have produced an uneven outcome. That is perfectly acceptable under the law. The action was stayed because it potentially interfered with the orderly administration of the Rex estate which was ALREADY under the protection of the court.
Replace “cases” with “legal actions”, to make it easier? “Johnny Belsome et al” was clearly stayed. The plaintiffs have appealed a decision “Order denying lift of stay” to a higher court in early January 2014.
Replace “process” with “proceedings” to make it easier?
You lost me on that one. Where did you find that information?
I specified “creditors with equal rights”. “Outcome” derived from your OWN ideas. And the example you used to support your own argument wasn’t about equal rights.
I haven’t said so either. It derived from your own ideas. 🙂
Your own idea. You derailed from “creditors with equal rights” to your own ideas about “equal outcome”.
You lost me on that one too, the last part of it. I have already asked a question about the “case management tool” part, so that part was only included to show the context.
I didn’t even know “Equality before the Law” was a doctrine? It’s normally one of the Fundamental Rights / Constitutional rights. It’s also one of the fundamental principles of justice.
Generally you can’t use a fundamental right to deny or deprive other rights, e.g. one party can’t use what he believe is his fundamental rights to deny other people the same right or other rights.
It will be up to the higher court to decide whether “Johnny Belsome et al” are net losers among 800,000 other net losers, or if they have unique legal rights that clearly separates them from the other net losers.
STAY OF PROCEEDINGSMy other post was just to get overview, and I didn’t focus on sources there.
“A ruling by a court to stop or suspend a proceeding or trial temporarily or indefinitely”.
Not easier. It makes it correct.
Not easier…. but correct
I know it from experience, but aside from that it should be obvious. A judge sometimes has to keep one group of litigants at bay while he deals with another.
Yes you did, and all litigants have equal rights before the law. BUT keep in mind that Belsome et al are not creditors of the Rex estate (or Burks) and they have no creditor rights, and will not have unless and until and unless they prevail in their suit or their proof of claims are approved.
Your jumping ahead of yourself. See next
Here’s what you said….
To be honest the wording of the above sentence is so poor I am not sure what you meant but if you were saying that the “Supreme Court” would not like it if ALL “creditors/litigants” were not prohibite from proceeding or alternately if all must be stayed to make things equal (otherwise the early birds would get the lions share of the defendants assets then you missed the mark.
Litigants (unlike creditors of BKs or Recieverships) line up as they arrive and they collect judgments as best they can. There is no equal OUTCOME or right to equal access to the court mandated as between litigants. First Come First Serve and in fact, yes it is a race, and the the first one to the court house often wins. In fact the laws governing this are known as “race statutes.” in the present case the SEC and the Recievership arrived first, and Belsome et al did not.
No, this is according to statute. A trustee or reciever is obligated to treat all creditors of the same class equally.
Too bad the formatting got goofed up.
It all goes back to the fact that Belson et all will be treated equally when and if they become creditors of the estate. For now they are only late arriving litigants with no ability to move forward with their action. That they find themselves on the outside looking in is just too bad, they lost the race.
You pick
DOCTRINE
1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c : a principle of law established through past decisions
d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
Who says there are fundamental rights, inalienable, self evident, God given? Thomas Jefferson? The philosophes? God? Moses? Muhammad? Saddam Hussein?
Why do you specify “litigants”? All the net losers should have similar rights?
When you have claims against someone, you’re technically a creditor. Net losers have claims against the Receivership Estate.
Equality isn’t solely about legal actions. The net losers all had the same right to file claims through the claims portal. Even some of the “Belsome et al” filed claims there.
I pointed out that individual lawsuits would not be about equal rights / equal treatment, as a response to your comment about “Equality before the law means that no matter what a person’s station in life, he/she is entitled to equal treatment”. It was quite correct in the context it was posted?
“Equal treatment” is also about the protection the laws can offer. All the different type of creditors will have the right to be offered similar protection by the law as other creditors with similar rights. All the net losers will have similar rights.
You have mixed in your own idea about litigants in the rest of that comment, so it won’t make much sense for me to make any corrections to it.
I have not mixed in that idea.
“Equality before the Law” has been used as a general principle in my comments. I have not limited it to litigants. For me, all the net losers should have similar rights to equal treatment / equal protection by the laws.
They are also called “Human Rights” or “Freedoms”.
* Freedom of Speech
* Freedom of Religion
* Freedom of Assembly
* Right to choose a profession
* Right to Livelihood
* Right to Education
* Right to due process (relatively similar)
* Right to bear arms and to participate in Ponzi schemes 🙂
One of the problems when reading the Amendments is that they often describe rights INDIRECTLY, e.g. “No state have the right to …” type of statements. Or some rights can be REFLECTED rather than stated directly.
14th Amendment has something about Equal Protection Clause.
I have already spent too much time checking Wikipedia for details, without finding what I was looking for. Here’s my conclusion to point the thread back to topic:
CONCLUSION
“Stay of proceedings” and “Equality before the Law” were only EXAMPLES for types of trouble when filing the wrong types of lawsuits. I used 2 examples from Zeek Rewards, where the legal actions have been stayed for probably more than a year.
Generally, Zeek net losers are not litigants. Belsone is an excpetion.
Net losers who have valid claims will be unsecured creditors of the Receivership estate and thus entitled to share PRORATA in the estate’s assets.
By statute the Receiver must treat all UNSECURED CREDITORS equally. That is their statutory right. But! …..
it is the Recievership’s legal rights that are asserted in Court. The Receivership is the LITIGANT. The net losers cum unsecured creditors are not. They are the BENEFICIARIES of the Receivership estate. They benefit from Bell’s litigation efforts not their own. Thus in this context a net winner is a beneficiary not a litigant.
Belsome et al currently fall into THREE categories. 1. They are litigants in their own right, 2. net losers and 3. unsecured creditors once their Claim Portal issue gets cleared up. Their current status as both litigant/net loser/ unsecured creditor will be resolved.
Regardless of that Belsone et al, like all other Zeekheads have the legal right to file a complaint and become a litigant.
More to the point of our discussion is that this right to access the courts as a litigant does not presuppose that any one litigant has the right to share in money obtained by any other litigant. Each litigant bears the costs and the benefits on his/her own. There is no sharing of money. There is no equality of outcome. Its each man for himself and as you noted the johnny come latelys are not likely to get much.
Fortunately the Tyranusaurus Rex of this litigation is Ken Bell and all the net losers benefit by his litigation efforts. It is he who is going to get first crack at insiders, including Burks, and the banks and money transmitters.
I’d guess Belsome et al will amend their suit or morewithdraw altogether. They may find some target to go after (but I doubt it.)
This is why I specified litigants which are actively asserting rights vs. almost all Zeek net losers who are not much more than passive beneficiaries of the rights Bell asserts on behalf of the estate.
If you wonder why I mentioned equality of outcomes it is because you said the “Supreme Court would not like it if the Judge allowed one party to litigate and prohibited another from doing so. Well, as you can see that is exactly what is occurring. Bell is and Belsome isn’t, and the Supreme Court is not going to care a whiff about that, because all the parties are playing by the same rules even if the rules favor the Receivership. To change that as you suggested would be to change the outcome.
Technically does not cut it. You are not a creditor unless you are approved as one That’s what the claims process is about…establishing who the creditors are. A person who does not file and have a proof of claim validated is not a creditor, he/she is a non entity, and a nobody, as far as this case goes.
I know what they are called
The rhetorical question was are they fundamental, as in belonging to one’s innate or ingrained characteristics.
Some have said yes they are, others have said there are no rights except what tradition and society permits.
Not that it matters but I lean towards the latter point of view. Whoever said “might is right” was on to something.
1and300.com update..
https://1and300.net/MenuPage/NewsNotices.aspx
There are pictures of their “Own Brand” phone up also.. Still no official word from anyone on Tenorio.
There’s also a link to the kingdom trade app for smart phones. I wonder how infected those are..
Trying to count reinvestment as “purchase”, eh? Pseudo-compliance…
Is the kingdom site working in other countries now, then? Are they able to withdraw money from 1and300 site? If I transfer my account to my friend in other country, does he able to withdraw (I just want to recover only my initial money….)
Zeeee, I am so ripped off. (tears..)
Anyone??
You should probably ask your friend directly about it.
“Can you withdraw money?”
“Can you withdraw money for me, if I … ?”
Try to tell that to some of your creditors? 🙂
“Sorry, I have not approved you as a creditor, so I can’t pay my debt”.
Creditor is about having a valid claim rather than about the approval. The approval is a tool for the debitor to use before paying the debt.
Don’t apply too many “constructed theories” to it. The reality is usually plain and simple. Net losers have claims against the Receivership Estate, and the Receiver is trying to verify those claims, and to find out how to distribute those payments correctly.
The Receiver is simply an administrator for the Receivership Estate. That’s his PRIMARY role. He’s not a benefactor, but other than that he will need to fill many different roles.
Unfortunately that’s the way it works in a Receivership. I don’t make the rules.
A benefactor/beneficiary relationship has nothing to do with Bell. Why thought you needed to say anything about it escapes me, except that it makes me suspicious of your understanding. The creditors are beneficiaries of the estate, not of the Reciever.
“Plan B”: Try to withdraw money through your friend?
“Plan C”: (Fill in a plan yourself)
“Plan D”: File a complaint to your local state AG?
“File a complaint” should be one of the options, but not the first one. You can rename it to “Plan E” if you can find better options.
I tried to google “NC AG how to file a complaint”. I didn’t find exactly the information I was looking for, but I found the right website, and also some other valuable info.
http://www.ncdoj.gov/Help-for-Victims.aspx
I would be looking for potential RESULTS of an action.
Filing a complaint may POTENTIALLY and EVENTUALLY give you some money back after a couple of years, and that’s normally not what people should be looking for.
“Can we sue them to get our money back?” doesn’t work very well for frauds. Your legal action can be stayed by a court.
“Plan A”: Try to avoid getting ripped off?
They’re not beneficiaries at all. You have probably looked at the wrong type of trusts.
The Receivership Estate is an Estate, a collection of assets and liabilities. The Receiver is an administrator for that Estate, appointed by a court. He’s technically an extended type of bankruptcy trustee, appointed on a temporary basis.
Net losers will be a type of creditors to the Estate, but a different class of creditors than ordinary trade creditors. They’re not heirs or someone receiving scholarships or other monetary benefits from a charitable trust = they’re NOT beneficiaries.
The individuals in “Johnny Belsome et al” are creditors of the same class as the other net losers, and some of them have filed claims through the claims portal. They are also members of a class action lawsuit against the Estate and Paul Burks.
You are confusing a creditor with a claimant. A person is a claimant prior to approval and a creditor thereafter… but not before. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. I don’t make the rules.
Certainly they are. The Reciever holds the Rex assets in trust for the creditors. The crecitors are beneficiaries of a trust.
To wit
This search took .253 seconds. (that is if you understand what your looking for)
Beneficial Interest
Profits or advantages from property derived from the terms of a trust agreement. ( a constuctive trust in the case of a Receivership) and
beneficial interest n. the right of a party to some profit, distribution, or benefit from a contract or trust. A beneficial interest is distinguished from the rights of someone like a trustee or official who has responsibility to perform and/or title to the assets, but does not share in the benefits
So there it is.
All trusts have beneficiaries.
If you say so. Note the word trustee. Hint Hint. Trustee. Trust. Get it?
The definition of a beneficiary is much broader that this.
They are not part of a class action. The attorney has only suggested that his clients could form the nucleus or be the lead plaintiffs in a class action. There has been no hearing on the suggestion. There has been no attempt to certify a class and as it sits they are no more a class than my dog and cat. You are way way ahead of yourself here. If a class is ever formed, I will let you know.
@Hoss
Check your own logic?
Do the net losers receive profits or advantages? Or do they file claims against an Estate?
They will eventually receive a dividend, a fraction of the money owed to them. That’s another type of dividend than what a beneficiary will receive, so you can’t use “dividend” either as an identifier.
They will not receive any “profit”, so you can’t have used that as an identifier. They will receive a distribution of money, but distribution of money isn’t an unique identifier. They will not receive any benefits, unless you consider a loss to be a benefit.
Your logic seems to be a little flawed. You have probably tested the search result against your own ideas rather than against the realities.
That search took 0.000 seconds. I have already spent too much time looking for details in the Amendments.
I’m not confusing creditor and claimant.
In your theory, it will be the approval process that will make people become creditors, not the money owed to them by the debtor.
Creditor and debtor is about money owed (or other assets). The net losers filed claims as creditors through the claims portal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creditor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor
Approval is part of the claims process, the debtor / administrator will need to verify the claims as valid before paying anything out. (No Wikipedia link here. 🙂 ).
A claimant is the same as plaintiff.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claimant
RECEIVERSHIP
The fourth quarterly report 2013 (ZeekDoc-189.pdf), page 13, section F “Potential Creditors of the Receivership Estate”, should clarify different things about creditors vs. beneficiaries.
The Receiver will try to distribute money to Affiliate investors before starting on the subordinate group “trade creditors”, to save expenses.
Link to court documents:
https://sites.google.com/a/asdupdates.com/files-website/zeek-rewards-sec-case
Yes. If there was no advantage to it no one would file a proof of claim. Tell me you understand this. I am losing faith.
Dividends?! You really are drowning here. Do you even know what a dividend is? Well of course you don’t or you could not possibly write such gibberish. I can assure that the Receivership is not paying out any dividends to anyone. (not that dividends have anything wigh whether one is a beneficiary of a trust to begin with.
Definition of ‘Dividend’
1. A distribution of a portion of a company’s earnings, decided by the board of directors, to a class of its shareholders.
Do you think the Receivership is earning a profit? Or that net losers somehow miraculously will become shareholders?
Project: look up dividend and understand why RVG is not paying dividends.
Its taken you a lifetime to misunderstand so much. I appreciate reading as you click through your mental checklist on these things but really you need to put it together.
Say wuht? If there is not benefit expected why would they bother to file a claim? Why not just go sit on the can?
Really man. This junk make no sense at all.
I am afraid you are, or at least seem unwilling to differentiate between the two. Unless a claimant has perfected his claim, he is not recognized as a creditor. If he’s not recognized as a creditor he is not entitled to a recieve any distribution of estate assets.
You can go stand outside in a snowstorm and tell everyone you meet that you are a creditor of the Rex estate but unless you file a claim and are approved as a creditor you remain a claimant standing in the cold.
Like I said, I don’t make the rules.
You are completely lost here. The fourth quarterly report 2013 (ZeekDoc-189.pdf), page 13, section F “Potential Creditors of the Receivership Estate”, does nothing to “clarify different things about creditors vs. beneficiaries.”
There is not one word concerning the difference between a creditor and a beneficiary.
HOWEVER it does discuss POTENTIAL CREDITORS or “potential non-affiliate creditors.” Why do you suppose a literate man would bother to describe anyone as a potential creditor if as you say one becomes a creditor (actual) simply by losing money to Zeek. You need to reload. you are firing blanks. A potential creditor. Thanks for supplying that little bit of confirmation.
ALL creditors, trade-creditors, affiliate creditors, potential creditors. It does not matter. They all may become beneficiaries of the Receivership estate. Its not like a trade creditor is not and a affiliate creditor is which seems to be your thinking on the matter. No. They ALL are.
It did clarify something? If it didn’t, it’s probably because you tested it against your own ideas, and there it will only add to the existing confusion.
As far as I can see, you’re mixing up two or more different sets of ideas, e.g. replacing bankruptcy terms with inheritance terms.
Most people will normally separate between different uses of the same terms, e.g. “liquidation” of an Estate isn’t a type of criminal offence.
I have identified Rex Venture Group as a “business entity” rather than as a “human entity”, and have tried to keep it straight to that type of logic. It’s a fraudulent business entity under liquidation.
Really. Wow. Nobody’s gonna put one by you. You can tell a business from a human.
Ugh.
As far as you can see. Right.
A dividend is a fraction of something.
You identified ONE of the uses, the shareholders’ fraction of the profit. But we were not discussing shareholders here, your logic would have been more correct if you had identified it to be a fraction of something, without specifying a specific type.
Here’s another use of the term “dividend:
A dividend is simply a fraction of something (in finance), e.g. the fraction the trade creditors potentially may receive, or the fraction the net losers will receive.
I won’t need to look it up if you start to use your brain correctly. You focused on the wrong details when you identified dividends. I needed to look it up to find a source I could quote, but normally that shouldn’t have been needed.
Except in the case of a court appointed receiver for a fraud, it is referred to as either a “distribution” or a “distribution payment” or an “interim distribution”
What you have found may be another / alternative definition of the word “dividend” but that does not mean that definition is applicable when discussing fraud related receiverships.
That’s not an exception? A normal bankruptcy case will use exactly the same terms.
I used the term “dividend” relatively correctly in post #78, when I analysed the potential logic. I even used the term “fraction”. It first became flawed when Hoss applied his own ideas to it, where he assumed dividend only could be about shareholders’ dividends.
Correct argument + flawed ideas = flawed conclusion.
Of course it did.
What was I thinking ??
M-Norway is never wrong, inaccurate or misleading, obtuse or obfuscatory
HeHeHe “RELATIVELY” correctly in the same post as an explanation of why the posters’ insistence on using the correct terminology in specific circumstances is wrong and M_Norway was right.
As I said “HeHeHe”
If I didn’t know better, I could easily believe many of the M_Norway postings are designed to confuse victims and potential victims of fraud, rather than the opposite.
Egads! I just realized you are talking about an arithmetic Dividend
The amount that is divided.
dividend ÷ divisor = quotient
Example: in 12 ÷ 3 = 4, 12 is the dividend. This is third grade basic arithmetic, not finance.
A dividend in finance is a payment made to stock holders out the profits of a corporation.
In any event the Reciever is not going to distribute an arithmetic dividend OR any profits to shareholders. He will however pay a fraction of the estate’s total assets to each creditor. That will be done by dividing total distributable estate assets by an individuals approved claim. The mathematical dividend in this equation is the Total Distributable.
Now I understand what you were trying to say when you wrote:
M_Norway: They will eventually receive a dividend, a fraction of the money owed to them.” I understand it but its totally effed up. Nobody is going recieve either “a” dividend or “the” dividend.
It isn’t applicable
What he’s done is combined some dim remembrance of third grade arithmetic with a third grade understanding that a dividend is a payout by a company. dends. The word dividend does not even belong in the discussion. It completely of of place.
There is no relatively correctly. your statement was dead ass wrong. The Rex reciever is not paying a dividend. I guarantee it, I’d bet my life on it.
Project: retrace third grade arithmetic. Be able to define dividend. Apply your new understanding to the way distributions are calculated in Bankruptcies and Receiverships.
I didn’t understand that logic?
“Relatively correctly used” will allow others to add their own corrections to it if they have other ideas, and it will allow me to accept other ideas.
Methods like that will allow me to make corrections when needed, I can improve my own conclusions. It will also reduce some “personal prestige”, e.g. I can avoid defending flawed ideas.
Correction. That should read “will be done by dividing an individuals approved claim in dollars by the total distributable estate assets in dollars. This calculation produces the percentage of estate assets the creditor is entitled to receive.
Approved amount / Total assets to be distributed = creditor % of whole expressed in a dollars.
Put another way it is the dividend /divisor = quotient. (except for M_Norway)
Nope, I didn’t. You have applied your own ideas once again. I even specified “(in finance)” to identify it more correctly.
That’s one of the areas where dividends are used, but not the only one. I gave you a more relevant example.
I’d like to see you defend correct ideas for a change.
Really, name another one.
Tell us again what a dividend has to do with the distributions made by the Zeek Receiver.
I am all ears.
I can accept that. Your a good guy.
You will need to have a system in place to separate between valid and flawed logic. Or else you won’t be able to recognize the correct ideas when you see them.
We can look at the cornell.edu quote in post #86. It can be used as a logical argument for other uses of the term “dividend” than the one you choosed, a more relevant use to the topic discussed.
“Dividends to creditors”, “dividend checks”, “receive dividends”. The quote is not talking about shareholders, but about dividends to creditors in bankruptcy cases. I used it in a similar way.
The use of the term “dividend” wasn’t flawed before you applied your own flawed ideas.
For goodness’ sake, M_Norway,
a “chapter 7 liquidation case” is NOT a court appointed receiver carrying out a distribution to victims of a criminal scheme.
There is no use of the word “relative” when discussing specific applications of the law or laws in these matters.
That’s is precisely why there is the need for different United States Codes, otherwise there would be one catch-all standard code and definition to cover all eventualities.
It’s simply a METHOD. It won’t make you “good” or “bad”, but it might probably help you feel a little more relaxed in discussions.
I used the term “dividend” relatively correctly, e.g. I didn’t make any claims about other uses. I didn’t have any problem accepting the shareholders’ dividend idea, I only had some trouble accepting the relevance of it.
I used that cornell.edu quote to show a more relevant use of “dividend”, more relevant in the context of the topic being discussed. I didn’t make any additional claims of the type you have applied to it.
I asked one question (or made a statement) in post #88 about the use of certain terms to identify something, pointing out that the same terms are commonly used in all types of bankruptcy cases.
That question / statement should be relatively correct? It was followed up by another question in post #94, when I failed to understand the logic in something.
It won’t make much sense trying to explain it, if you’re adding your own ideas to the explanation. But I can give it a try anyway.
You identified the net losers as “beneficiaries” rather than as “creditors”. My logic is based on the use of “creditors”, rather than on your idea.
LOGIC:
The net losers are CREDITORS to the Receivership Estate, the ones who have valid claims. They will most likely receive only a fraction of their claims = DIVIDENDS.
METHOD:
The logic is plain and simple, but you can’t add some of your own ideas to it.
* You CAN add the claims process as a method to file claims.
* You CAN add the approval process as a method to verify the claims.
* You can NOT replace CREDITORS with your own “Beneficiary” idea.
* You can NOT limit the use of the term DIVIDENDS so it only can be used for shareholders’ dividends.
* And the mathematical use of “dividend” won’t make much sense either.
A stock corporation is 100% owned by the shareholders. If the corporation liquidates under Chapter 7, (follow me here) the share holders are entitled to share in the proceeds of the liquidation. The way they do this is by filing a proof of claim with the Ch 7 Trustee. The basis of their claim is stock ownership.
In this way shareholders are converted to creditors, though the stock itself becomes worthless. Their priority of payment is below all other creditors, but there is a LOT of negotiation between creditor groups in large liquidations. Some want cash, some want stock in a new company, some want more money deferred. Its a circus. If during the course of the liquidation a dividend is negotiated and declared then it would be paid to the prior shareholder class of creditors.
Thus a dividend would be paid to creditors.
This however DOES NOT APPLY to Rex. It never was a stock corporation.It never had shareholders. It will pay no dividends. It was a single member LLC AND its NOT in Bankruptcy. The Cornell stuff does not apply.
That’s right.
Relatively correctly is when you add 1 + 1 and ger 2.000000000000000000000000001 You add 1+1 and get 17. In other words your not even close most of the time.
Net losers will be approved creditors who will benefit from the liquidation of the Rex estate.
The
Receever holds Rex assets in trust for the creditors. A trust is for the benefit of its beneficiaries. Follow?
They will recieve a fraction of their claims. They will not recieve a dividend. This is not a Chapter 7 bankruptcy of a stock corporation. Get it?
Project: look up the word dividend….as many times as you have to so that you understand this.
I can clearly accept the ROC Return of Capital to investors idea. I have only looked at liquidation reports for liquidation bankruptcies, and typically for fraudulent bankruptcies where investors have been involved.
Stock and securities are basically about the same thing, a type of investment in an enterprise. The affiliates will be “Equity interest holders” or something similar.
RVG was shut down for securities fraud, and the affiliates investors will most likely receive a dividend of their principal investment – as part of the liquidation process rather than as part of a bankruptcy process.
Then I have corrected the logic so it only will apply to a certain type of creditors, not to creditors in general, by adding “a certain type”.
We can also limit the scope to a certain type of bankruptcies = Liquidation bankruptcies. Or we can ignore bankruptcies and replace it with Liquidation process.
@Hoss
I checked some other sources, and “dividend” is commonly used for distribution to other types of creditors too, but typically to unsecured creditors.
An Australian source:
http://www.worrells.net.au/InsolvencyResources/FactsheetArticle.aspx?ArticleId=21
A dividend is simply a fraction of something (in finance). It will be incorrect to limit the use of a commonly used term, e.g. to use it as a “reserved term, only applicable to shareholders”.
The term “dividend” was correctly used in post #78, as a general term rather than as a bankruptcy specific term:
It first became flawed when you applied your own ideas, and tried to limit the use of dividend to shareholders, in post #81:
You keep trying (unsuccessfully I might add) to force a square peg into a round hole. It will NEVER fit. Nobody in Zeekler will be receiving a dividend, or a share of the profits of a stock corporation. They will be getting their own money back and certainly not a profit.
The affiliates were never equity holders of Rex Ventures LLC (Burks was sole member) and though they have creditor rights to a distribution from the Receivership, I very much doubt they have an equity ownership interest in the RVG assets.
Equity
The term’s meaning depends very much on the context. In finance, in general, you can think of equity as ownership in any asset after all debts associated with that asset are paid off. For example, a car or house with no outstanding debt is considered the owner’s equity because he or she can readily sell the item for cash. Stocks are equity because they represent ownership in a company.
This only discusses the dynamics of filing a POD by those persons/creditors who claim to be due a dividend. In no way does it confirm that all distributions to all creditors are dividends.
A fraction of something (in finance) could express an allocation between cash and bonds, as between debt to equity , as between, projected or actual, as beteen revenue and expense. All of which are proportional relationships but have NOTHING to do with dividends.
Your sinking. Glub
Lets play twenty questions.
What “something” is a dividend a fraction of?
Drumroll……..
a portion of a company’s earnings, decided on by the board of directors and distributed to a class of its shareholders.
….and this clearly does not apply to a distribution made by the Zeek Receiver. Affiliates are not and never were shareholders.
That post was an attempt to apply parts of your idea. I returned to the initial viewpoint in the next post.
“Dividend” is a general term, so it doesn’t make any sense if we try to limit it to specific areas. It’s NEITHER a “reserved term” for shareholders nor for bankrupty cases. It’s commonly used in both areas, and probably in many others.
The term was relatively correctly used in post #78, but then you applied a flawed idea to it in post #81, causing the discussion to derail into different types of confusion.
You can check that logic yourself?
* Was the term initially used incorrectly, or did you use flawed methods to apply incorrect definitions to it? You seems to have used a definition found in Investopedia.
That’s correct, and it confirmed what I already knew. It was an adequate definition.
@Hoss
Here’s the initial use of the term “dividend” in post #78:
I identified the meaning of the term there.
Here’s when you tried to apply a different meaning to the term in post #81:
Searching for your definition leads to Investopedia as the first search result. Investopedia has 2 very limited definitions for the use of the term.
You ignored the second search hit:
You have clearly applied a METHOD when you tried to interpret the meaning of the term “dividend”.
* You ignored the initial meaning. Why did you do that, when the meaning already had been explained?
* Then you choosed a specific search result supporting your own idea.
* You ignored the search results not supporting your idea
That method is heavily flawed. You can’t expect that method to give any correct results.
Using Google can not replace the use of common sense. You should first have applied common sense to it, and then you could have used Google.
Here you can see the flawed method:
* You’re searching for something to confirm your own ideas.
* When you find something, you see them as “adequate definitions”, more adequate than the opposite type of information.
That method will allow you to construct flawed logical arguments that will support your own ideas, but it will not reflect the reality.
The reality here is that I didn’t use “dividend” as a typical investment term, it was you who applied that idea to it. I used it as a commonly used term, e.g. found in many liquidation reports.
@Hoss
This discussion has derailed completely from the main topic of the article. It has also derailed completely from the “Can we sue someone?” discussion. It’s time to stop this discussion and allow the thread to return back to topic.
I have pointed out a flawed method. “Correctness” will require a neutral viewpoint rather than a biased one, and it may also require the ability to handle multiple viewpoints at the same time.
Blah blah blah, for Gods sake shut up with your pet theories on the subjectivity of reality. Nobody gives a shit and its boring boring boring.
We all have expectations, including you.
No you have asserted an argument that does not hold water.
* I used the term “dividend” in post #78, giving it a specific meaning.
* You applied a different meaning to it in post #81, causing a lengthy discussion about details.
I will consider that method to be flawed. It doesn’t make much sense trying to apply other meanings to something, and then trying to construct theories to support a viewpoint.
That method is flawed because it doesn’t have a reliable system in place to test the relevance of arguments. Arguments will need to support correctness rather than personal viewpoints, but you have clearly preferred the arguments that have supported your own viewpoints.
You could rely on an impartial source, say like wikipedia or investopedia, or any dictionary but of course even though I quoted them it wasn’t good enough. Instead you argue filthy lies that you spin to protect your ego. You are a boring fraud and nothing more.
Please be more specific? “Filthy lies” is a very general term, and will be impossible to identify.
I have pointed to posts #78 and #81, so you should probably try to limit your arguments.
The sources were good enough (but too specialized), but your method wasn’t. It was the METHOD you used that was flawed.
* You filtered the search results so they only supported your own ideas. I have quoted search hit #2 from the same search in post #117.
* You ignored the initial definition of the term. That definition should normally have the highest priority. “They will eventually receive a dividend, a fraction of the money owed to them”.
Using impartial sources doesn’t make much sense if you filter the results to only support your own ideas. Investopedia is too specialized to be used for other purposes than investment related information.
You can’t expect people to accept methods that are heavily biased, where the main purpose is to find information in support of your own ideas. Investopedia’s definition wasn’t the correct type of definition to apply to a general term.
I can rely partly on sources like those when they’re used correctly, but I won’t rely blindly on them. The use of sources should not be allowed to be a replacement for common sense.
Definition 2? Zeek is not “a person adjudged to be bankrupt.”
Zeek is not paying out an arithmetic term. Zeek is not paying a stock dividend.
If you meant that the Receiver’s total distribution will be divided up between the creditors such that each recieves a fraction of the whole then I agree. But such a prorata distribution, by your own chosen definition only applies to the creditor of a person adjudged bankrupt.
Are you claiming that ALL prorata distributions, always and everywhere are properly called dividends? That’s plausible.
Ffs, hoss and norway. Way to hijack this post. Stop it. It’s obnoxious.
oz==
It suits me if you want to truncate this. As bubba points out it has limited interest.
Thx
I do think you two might have exhausted the sidetopic a bit. Let’s leave it at that.
So to see if we can get this train back on the tracks —
Has anyone looked into ATM Global Solutions out of Florida?
They are apparently the processor who handles transfers of the “point” sales from the Kingdom Card to an ATM card where you can withdraw cash from the sale of your “points”.
There are also claims of “Wendy Rothschild” meeting with Ming and her putting the wealth of the Rothschild family behind Kingdom777. I can find nothing linking a Wendy Rothschild with the actual Rothschild family.
I think I will concentrate on ATM Global Solutions for now though, since they are actually listed on the 1and300 site..
M_Norway’s sermons make me want to vomit, and never ever come back here again.
MLM, even lists Kevin Thompson as their attorney.
Here’s their Facebook pimp
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=464332183674477&story_fbid=464335267007502
Their techguy, “Roland Athouris”, apparently came from YTB (i.e. YourTravelBiz, the pyramid scheme chased out of California by Jerry Brown when he was AG)
ATM Global Solutions is “legit” though. They basically provide any card to any corporate customer. They also throw in additional memberships. Here’s link to their video ad:
http://www.atmglobal.grupodouglassilva.com/index.php/en/atmaccount/corporate-solutions
Wait a minute…
ATM Global Solutions was headed by a Marcus Almeida.
Yet we have a “Marco Almeida” here defending TelexFree…
https://behindmlm.com/companies/telexfree-review-spam-the-internet-for-20-a-week/#comment-145788
Probably a coincidence… 🙂
So there’s really no way to get our money back 🙁 ?
Probably not any easy way – and from looking at the ATM Global fee structure, and what people are able to sell their “points” for on Kingdom trade, you will be losing money by the time you close the transaction.
K. Chang – Great finds – I am still digging a bit but have noticed the links between ATM / Telexfree too..
somehow e-walletpay.com and atmglobalsolutions.hk are tied in also. Will have to see..
I don’t think anyone can answer that. I don’t think anyone should try to give you any “legal advice” either.
1. You can get a lot of factual information about the case itself, and that MAY potentially become useful.
2. You can get “personal opinions” and “personal viewpoints”. It will usually have a very limited value.
From my personal viewpoint, there will most likely be SOMETHING you can do. It may be worth the efforts if you can do something to identify it.
You can get a quick overview in few minutes.
* scroll to the top of the article
* click on “WCM777” (right under the headline)
* it will bring up a list of articles
Or you can use this link:
https://behindmlm.com/category/companies/wcm777/
You won’t need to read each and every article. “Quick overview” is about identifying WHERE to find information and vaguely WHAT to find. Looking at the headlines should be enough for that purpose.
A quick overview like that may become useful if you decide to use a lawyer, or decide to contact state AG, or any other similar decisions where you will need to communicate some factual info about the case itself (more than your own part of it).
Thanks 🙂
My upline keeps telling me that they will refund us our money (which I highly, highly doubt) and not to worry. This is the first time I’ve been involved in this sort of thing or have ever heard of “Ponzi” scheme. Never again 🙁
I hope kingdom777 or whatever the shit they call it now burns to the ground.
You should have an “open mind” to that one. It might be true, it might be false, it might be everything in between.
And it depends on how you have paid. I’m not familiar with WCM777, but some other programs have solutions where sponsors can be paid DIRECTLY from the people they recruit. For some sponsors, that method is a calculated risk, a method to keep themselves out of trouble.
I know SOME programs where SOME sponsors potentially will prefer to refund SOME money to SOME people they have recruited, where it will be perfectly rational to do it.
A quick overview for the case itself was only one of the methods that potentially might become useful.
Another method is to record and organize SOME information about your personal investment, all the factual details about WHEN you invested, HOW you paid to WHOM, withdrawals and other relevant details. It’s only about money IN and OUT, not about internal transactions (e.g. payouts to a back office being reinvested).
A tax advisor would have said “Run it like a business, and keep a record of all transactions and work, and the people you’re doing business with. Make sure you’re able to communicate it properly”. That advice came from Howard Kaplan as a general advice, and it was more useful than his specific tax advices for Zeek Rewards affiliates.
“Open mind” might be a third method. The biggest problem is often how people SEE a problem. “I have been scammed, and I will sue someone” will offer few other alternative options. We will normally need to make some corrections to our initial ideas to be able to find solutions.
People like WCM777 give bad name to honest MLM companies. WCM is a pyramid! they all should be behind BAR!!!!!!!
WCM is not MLM. it’s an outright Ponzi scheme with a product disguise.
And I think this is the longest absence of Phil from twitter we have seen to date.
I can imagine authorities are getting angry with the official launch of the trade platform and the point game they have started. Tiger hasn’t been active in weeks and is probably already in the wind along with Carlo Bruno who stepped up for a time then went under as well.
Phil, come out come out wherever you are. People want answers and are getting suspicious.
PPBlog is reporting new information today. The California DBO is requesting people who invested in the scheme to contact the DBO immediately.
http://patrickpretty.com/2014/02/14/bulletin-california-asks-residents-who-bought-into-wcm777-to-contact-department-of-business-oversight-immediately-states-says-thousands-of-locals-bought-into-scam/
Way to keep on top of this stuff Patrick
If you live in California, you have partly got an answer in post #146 = file an online complaint to The California Department of Business Oversight. A complaint like that will only be about your own part of the investment.
It may be possible to find some additional information on the complaint website:
http://www.dbo.ca.gov/Consumers/consumer_services.asp
If this is true why is he still a free man and why did he partner up with the Rothchilds, the second wealthiest family in the UK. Somthing is not adding up here. Can someone Post Legal Documentations on him being a Fraud, scam Artist, Ponzi pyramid Pimp, or is this all just theory, false speculations, or just plane (RUMORS).
ALL I ASK IS FOR SOMEONE TO POST SOME LEGAL DOCUMENTAION BEFORE I PURCHASE ANOTHER 10 UNITS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IM IN A LIBRARY OF NONSENSE
@Red Shield
I like how the first is presented with fact, however the second requires “legal documentation”. As for documentation, I suggest you start with the obvious: WCM777’s business model.
Ponzi schemes aren’t legal, so it’s not quite the “legal documents” you were after, but it’s definitive proof.
Oh and there’s always the California cease and desist, Xu confirming his schemes are illegal in the US and Massachusetts shutting him down.
But uh yeah, Xu ejaculates some bullshit about the Rothchilds into your pie-hole and you’re all too willing to swallow it blind.
If you’re looking for investment advice, you’re not going to find it here. Nor will you find the excuses to invest you’re clearly looking for. Hell, I’d suggest you buy as many units as you can. Mortgage any property, borrow from your friends and family; go the full hog with Xu.
Some people have to learn the hard way…
Red Shield –
For starters..
From Canada –
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/news/news_release.2014.01.0104.html
From the USA – you probably won’t bother to google the documentation from California (Department of Business Oversight), Massachusetts, Colorado or New Hampshire WHICH PHIL SIGNED ADMITTING TO VIOLATIONS AND AGREEING TO STOP IMMEDIATELY.
You probably won’t bother to read this thread where your financial mastermind is looking for information on how to set up an offshore banking account in 2005 (Why didn’t he just go to his high powered business buddies instead of posting in a forum on yahoo)
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/offshoretrust/conversations/topics/192
You probably won’t bother to read through this 2003 thread (remember he was in high finance at this time) from fatwallet where he was selling bootleg DVD’s out of his apartment..
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/offshoretrust/conversations/topics/192
You probably are the type of person who would see an old lady drop a $20 and walk around the corner – If you thought you could get away with it, you would pick it up and take it not even trying to return it. “If he hasn’t gotten shut down yet, I’ll take the gamble.”
Civil / White Collar crimes are a whole lot different than physical crimes against persons. You are aware something is not right with what is going on, but since you are seeing dollar signs, you won’t be making complaints. You will buy into the bullshit that “We are working on the system” and the “we got hacked” message that is probably coming down the pipe next. Until people start complaining, not much will be done.
If you don’t get involved you can’t be a victim, and you can’t have a crime without a victim. If you have been stupid enough to buy in and realize it later, you probably aren’t going to make a complaint right away in hopes you will be able to get back as much as you can, on your own without paying an attorney to help you.
There are plenty of more FACTS which have been exposed through the hard work of Oz, K. Chang and many of the other users here (myself included) who actually don’t want to see people get screwed over by others. We research and show the patterns involved in these types of scams. Our “opinions” when posted are always marked as such and when we make claims, there is relevant documentation which is always posted along with these facts to allow you to see it for yourself.
All of these companies you are “incubating” belong to Phil, and have for years. Is he successful, yes, at ripping people off and getting them to believe there is an easy path to big money. Dullards such as yourself believe the upline claims that people such as the Rothschilds are involved. Notice there has been NOTHING directly from Phil regarding this great development.
I used to live next door to Randy Rothschild when I was a child (he was part of the Rothschild family as well) and they didn’t have a pot to piss in. All we have seen is a picture of a blonde with a nice set of cans smiling with Phil and some of the other douche bags.
I encourage you to go ALL IN! This is the big one, and you are going to come out just fine. This has all been a test of your loyalty to the program. You should immediately get together as much money as you can and purchase as many objects that can exchange to registered stock after company bonds registered stock after company bonds.
I know we won’t be able to get our money back but we can file to SEC…for sure. Take this Scam out soon.
OK let me ask when Kingdomtrade.org response back after update. Please tell me detail.
@Reven
Only Ming Xu knows that. And he’s probably too busy running from the SEC and trying to find out where Tiger Liu went to get back to you just now.
Get ready something big is on its way. It might be good or Bad.
Tears of joy or pain but it’s coming and I have the privilege to be one of the few to know. I’ll post it here soon.
So excited right now, I mean sad & confused.
It’s not that silly MannaSource opp Xu is supposedly dumping all his money into is it?
Cuz well… another ganoderma mushroom MLM company? That’d be a bit ho-hum.
Phil has just come out on twitter to announce he is no longer affiliated with the company – good times to be had for all
I so thought that was going somewhere else for a second…
I’m currently finishing up a review, I’ll have a new article up on WCM777 shortly after. Now that the cat is out of the bag and such. Standby.
My favorite quote from today..
Guess thats why World Capital Market is now also closed..
I guess that would qualify as “something big” that Red Shield alluded to…
Global unity just opened up 20 minutes ago. 😉
Shouldn’t the language options be Spanish/Portugese and English rather than Chinese and English?
Y’know, if Ming Xu is going to pretend he’s not getting a cut anymore and all…
Your right
Lol, just change the name and off he goes. I love this guy.
Why would Spanish-speaking owners clearly not in Hong Kong launch on Hong Kong time?
The following notice is displaying on the wcm777pay(dot)com website: