Berkeley Research Group to defend Zeek Ponzi pimps?
As part of the ongoing litigation against those who stole the most money from Zeek Rewards victims, the defendants have requested a defense expert be appointed to argue their case.
Part of the fees charged by this defense expert are to be footed by victims of the $850 million dollar Ponzi scheme.
As directed by the Western District Court of North Carolina, the net-winner defendants have ‘submitted proposals from three potential defense experts‘.
A court filing dated March 4th reveals that
the Court has reviewed the proposals as well as the Receiver’s comments submitted in letter form.
It appears to the Court that scope of the work as proposed by Berkeley Research Group (“BRG”) is the most appropriate.
Accordingly, Defendants should obtain a rough estimate of the fees and costs from each proposed expert using the scope of work as outlined in BRG’s proposal.
Once obtained, Defendants should submit the new proposals to the Court.
On their website, Berkeley Research Group claim that they
thrive in the midst of tough, high-stakes challenges.
Companies trust our independent thinking and ability to find effective and creative approaches to their most complex, unstructured problems.
The firm is based out of Emeryville, California in the US and headed up by David Teece (Chairman).
In a book published in 2012 titled “Predator Nation: Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America”, author Charles H. Ferguson criticized Berkeley Research Group
for focusing primarily “on helping companies avoid or influence legislation, public debate, regulation, prosecution, class-action lawsuits, antitrust judgments, and taxes.”
Should the firm ultimately wind up defending Zeek’s net-winners, sounds like “helping Ponzi scammers avoid paying back the millions they collectively stole from their victims” might be right up their alley.
Stay tuned…
Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of Judge Mullen’s March 4th order.
Update 30th May 2015 – In an order dated 27th of May 2015, Judge Mullen has approved the appointment of Berkeley Research Group as expert witness for the net-winners.
BRG is therefore directed to proceed with Phase I of their work plan as set forth in their proposal, and the Receivership will bear the expenses.
BRG shall report to the undersigned during the course of their engagement on behalf of the Defendant class.
Doesn’t seem to be a schedule as of yet.
Sanjay Unni [managing director] leads Berkeley Research Group’s Securities practice. He holds a Ph.D. in economics, with a specialty in financial markets.
He has testified in trial and deposition on issues relating to capital markets and securities transactions.
thinkbrg.com/professionals-sanjay-unni.html
If they accept the position and the court-approves, it will certainly be interesting to see what they come up as to why Ponzi net-winners shouldn’t have to pay back stolen funds.
uh, ‘interesting’ would be wildly understated oz.
when is the last time a ponzi/pyramid was ‘tested’ against howey , and you got to watch!!!!
What on earth would make you think the Howey test is going to be involved in the question of whether or not ponzi net winners should be required to pay back their winnings ???
My understanding is that whether or not Zeek Rewards was a Ponzi scheme is not under question. It’s whether or not net-winners in the Ponzi scheme should be required to pay back what they stole.
Exactly.
how on earth do you think the ‘ponzi’ is going to be proved?
1] net winners have to pay only if the ‘ponzi’ is proved
2] hence the SEC action and agreement with burks/rex will be justified
3] and hence the installation of the receiver and his clawback action will be justified.
ques: how does ‘ponzi’ get tested for ‘non financial market investments’? huh?
ans: by using the howey test!!
the SEC/bell and the judge mullen, have all talked about the howey test in their motions and orders regarding zeek. this may be a ‘new and surprising topic’ for LRM, but the court is calmly accepting of it.
LRM seems to have forgotten, that the heart of the question in the zeek litigation, is that: was zeek selling securities and was the SEC action legal?
It doesn’t need to be proved.
The question the expert will be tasked with defending is whether or not net-winners in a Ponzi scheme should be made to return the funds they stole.
This is clawback litigation initiated by Receivership, it’s got nothing to do with whether or not Zeek Rewards was a Ponzi scheme.
The clawback defendants already raised the argument of Zeek not being a Ponzi scheme in their respective motions to dismiss. They were denied.
(highlighting mine)
And that is all he is doing when he asks that net winners return all or part of the money they received from Zeek.
This is clawback litigation initiated by Receivership, it’s got nothing to do with whether or not Zeek Rewards was a Ponzi scheme—oz
when judge mullen denied the initial motion to intervene [trudy gilmond etc], in the receivership, he made it clear that the question of whether zeek was selling securities would be taken up at the time of clawback litigation.
bell, tried to tell judge mullen that he would only be arguing fraudulent transfers, and not the question of ‘securities’ but judge mullen made it CLEAR this question would be taken up on its merits. the trial will address the question of the defendants, about whether zeek sold securities.
motions to dismiss, were denied. that does not mean the question of whether zeek was ponzi, was decided on ‘merits’. the ‘order’ said that defendants do not agree zeek was a ponzi scheme. so that question goes to trial.
there can be no question, whether net winners in a ponzi scheme should be made to return the money they stole. if it was a ponzi scheme, of course they have to pay!
And it did come up, in their respective motions to dismiss. All “Zeek wasn’t a Ponzi scheme!” arguments were dismissed and the motions denied.
Again, the expert will only be arguing that net-winners in a Ponzi scheme shouldn’t be required to pay back their victims.
That’s what makes this so interesting, because the argument(s) raised are bound to be hilarious.
Yet here we are. I think it’s just as absurd as you do, but it has to play out – and then Zeek’s Ponzi pimps will return the funds they stole.
Let them exhaust their legal options in the meantime…
i disagree. (Ozedit: Awesome. Meanwhile in the real world…)
And that’s the whole point.
The defendants have to be allowed to exhaust their legal rights, unless their arguments are completely frivolous or improperly framed.
Which means, if history is any guide, given the necessity to fit in with already clogged court calendars, we can look forward to at least two years worth of completely legal to-ing and fro-ing.
To jump on every appeal as being “the one” which is going to override the fact Zeek was a multi million dollar fraud is nonsense
Shit. I just told the Norwegian net winners that the clawback litigation is about NC UFTA (Fraudulent Transfers). Maybe I should inform them about “alternative theories”?
“Could be taken up”, not “would be taken up”. A court can’t “forward” a legal issue to a hypothetical case in the future.
Your legal theory is primarily based on your own IDEAS, on how you THINK the reality is. So the legal theory will reflect some “reality distortions”.
Well, I’m sure Indians are quite familiar with the bazillion court dates involving SpeakAsia… 😉
It has been my experience that you can get an expert to testify to whatever position you want to justify, as long as the check clears.
And in our legal system, that’s as it should be, Nehra can testify that ASD wasn’t a ponzi scheme, etc… and if you read the details you’ll find some justification, some clarification and some “based upon the information provided to me at the time” kind of stuff so that when its just laughable, the “expert” doesn’t look like he’s too dumb to come in out of the rain.
You pay a guy to defend you, he’s gonna defend you, its why he spent all that money on law school. I get it.
But what some of you aren’t getting here is a very important fact, the defendants here aren’t paying the expert, and he won’t be defending them, the expert is being paid by the court directly at the xpense of both sides and this is one of very few cases in the US system in which an expert is, for lack of a better expression, free to tell the truth as he sees it.
The defendants got to send a list of people they recommend, but still, they didn’t get to submit their brother in law and the firm that ultimately gets the contract is beholden to no one but the Judge.
For all practical purposes here, they only get to choose their method of execution, sort of “Rope, needle or chair?” with no good answers. The Judge isn’t going to pick someone they can influence.
And also, he has only decided to proceed as the firm in question recommended it be done, that isn’t the came as them getting to actually do it, he could pick another firm, even one NOT on the list the defendants submit.
Why is the expert referred to as the “defense expert” in Mullen’s order then?
The term doesn’t exactly imply that they’re going in with an open mind. They’re being paid to defend the defendant’s position that they shouldn’t pay back the money they stole no?
Correct. Without a finding that Zeek was a ponzi/pyramid as the SEC alleges there is no proof the transfers were fraudulent.
Denying a Motion to Dismiss is not a finding in favor of the plaintiff.
Exactly right. Presumably the lowest bidder will be hired to testify on behalf of the defendants.
‘fraudulent transfers’ is bells argument. the defendants are arguing clawback on various theories, the first being that zeek was not selling ‘securities’, hence there was no ponzi, hence they should not face clawback.
the defendants also argue against bells ‘fraudulent transfer’ and ‘constructive trust’ theories.
all these arguments will be tested on ‘merits’ at the trial. on what basis will ‘one primary argument’ ie ‘securities’ be Left Out?
has the question of securities been discussed on merit? has not judge mullen said that, this question of ‘securities’ would be decided on ‘merit’?
why don’t you Trust judge mullen? did judge mullen Tell You that he has Decided not to Address the Question of ‘Securities’ at trial?
shit norway, go and re-inform all those poor norwegians, you’ve been misguiding for free!
No, rather go and explain to the Norwegians that Anjali is constructing theories not based on fact, but based on her limited understanding of the law/s involved.
Orrr, people can just go through all the court documentation, and understand the position of the plaintiff, defendants and the court.
why believe anyone, including norwegians believing in norway? 🙂
I don’t believe we’re talking about the same case here.
I told the Norwegian net winners that the clawback litigation against them was based on NC UFTA (Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). Most likely they haven’t received the lawsuit yet.
Burks did a “no lo contendere” plea with SEC, surrendered the company without a fight and even allowed the receiver to be appointed. Thus, any argument to the contrary is hypothetical and irrelevant.
We’ve already seen lawyers point at Ponzi and said “not ponzi”. You can hire experts to say anything, just about.
I just want to know what law school Anjali graduated from and where she is practicing law.
anjali graduated from the commonsense school of law, which enables students to point out two consecutive errors in federal district court orders, which were not noticed by senior people who stand around asking ‘anjali questions’. or would prefer her not to have an ‘opinion'[!]. or call her a ‘this person'[!].
very nice!
We have (at least I have). And I have found several flaws in your legal theories, e.g. some “unexplained details” where you have accepted your own conclusions before you have properly checked your own logical reasoning.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE
Motion To Intervene was concluded in July 2013. There’s no legal issue “being brought forward” from that action → “Bell v. Disner et al” (if we interpret “being brought forward” as “Ordered by the Court”). You will not be able to find any decision like that in the transcript from the oral hearing.
The MTI had some “unresolved issues”. In reality they were resolved in that legal action (because dismissal is a type of dispute resolution). “The court decides not to rule on those issues” is as good as any other decision. Courts make decisions like that all the time.
The so called “unresolved legal issues” could be raised again (not “would be raised again”) in a future action.
* “could” is conditional, “in case the defendant decides”.
* “would” is unconditional, “the court has ordered it to happen”.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
Since those “unresolved legal issues” were not brought forward in the first decision, there’s no reason to believe they will be “brought forward” now either.
That doesn’t mean they CANNOT be raised again, e.g. based on new evidence. But raising the same legal issue again based on exactly the same factors won’t make any sense.
The jurisdiction issue and other legal issues have already been resolved in Order Denying Motion To Dismiss (90.pdf). There’s no “remaining dispute, to be resolved in the future” in that legal action. There’s nothing to “bring forward to the main trial”.
1] nolo contendre pleas are used in criminal cases, this case is civil
2] the SEC does not offer any nolo contendre, it offers no admit/no deny, which is neutral, and that’s what burks/RGV agreed upon.
3] the settlement with the SEC means dang, in terms of admitting ‘securities violations’, because the court in order 90.pdf, itself noted in footnote 1 :
subject matter jurisdiction, as you know, relates to the existence of ‘securities’ and the ‘role of the SEC’ in the matter.
And, around and around we go, with Anjali discussing irrelevant and inconsequential details based on her limited knowledge of law.
Meanwhile, back in the real world things are progressing exactly as one would expect in the case of an $850 million plus US based fraudulent scheme which was both carried out and stopped in full public view.
calm down LRM, pursuant to people hyperventilating and hypertensioning[!], i have voluntarily retreated form playing ‘devils advocate’ for my ‘pals’ 🙂 trudy gilmond and gang.
but i’ll be buggered, if you don’t allow me a neutral opinion on the status of the case, without prejudice to either party.
feel free to comment on the case, don’t focus on ‘this person’.
You may recall that Gilmond-King were denied the ability to intervene in the SEC v Burks-RVG case because they were “too late.” Accordingly, they had no standing to challenge the court’s jurisdiction.
However, before ruling in this way Mullen confirmed that Gilmond and King) could challenge the court’s jurisdiction over them in the Bell v Disner action.
Burks’ consent, settled the jurisdiction issue as to himself and RVG but he could not consent on behalf of the affiliates. Therefore, the net winners have contested the coiurt’s jurisdiction over them in the Bell v Disner case.
i agree. the MTI was resolved finished completed, with no legal issue being brought forward as ordered by the court.
however the court ‘verbally’ assured defendants that their question about ‘securities’ would be addressed during clawback action. the court further, compelled the SEC/receiver to accede to this.
later on, as expected, the defendants in their ‘motion to dismiss’ the receivers clawback suit, brought up the issue of 1] SEC jurisdiction/securities as their first point of contention.
the MTD also argued the claims of the receiver pertaining to 2] fraudulent transfer under NCUFTA 3] common law fraudulent transfer 4] constructive trust.
in denying the MTD, judge mullen found Against the defendants on all four points.
so, according to you, the ‘case’ has been resolved the court has ‘decided’ on all the claims of both the parties. judge mullen should just make an ‘order’ for defendants to pay, and wrap it all up.
yet we see discovery is being conducted, defendant law firms are being hired in preparation for a trial, etc. but, if everything has been decided, what good is a trial for? maybe everybody will get together and do a hollywood jig in court!
meanwhile bell, in his ‘notification for certification of defendant class action’ says:
what is bell talking about norway? ‘claims’, in my view, will include the defendants claims about the ‘absence of ‘securities’.
If anyone else clogs the blog with irrelevancies and hypotheticls while ignoring the key issue/s, I’ll be sure to focus on them.
The footnote clearly says “the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction”. Why do you interpret it to be about “SEC’s jurisdiction”?
The opening line of the MTI:
“Appointment of a Temporary Receiver” is about an ORDER from the court. “Dissolving it” means “have it reversed / annulled” or “having that Order set aside”.
Questioning SEC’s jurisdiction isn’t enough to set aside that Order. The dispute will need to be about the Court’s jurisdiction, about its legal right to appoint the receiver.
That’s why I gave that long explanation, dividing it up into 2 legal actions. The MTI was concluded in July 2013. It didn’t “bring forward” any legal issue to “Bell v. Disner et al”.
I also gave an interpretation of “bringing forward” = “Order it to be brought up in the other case”.
The primary issue when people file a MTI may be about whether they have the right to intervene, or whether the court can permit that right. If they don’t have that right, any other issues they bring up may be void.
I’m pretty sure you will find denying the MTI to be correct, e.g. in Rule 24(a), Rule 24(b). Any other issues could be handled by the “Harmless error” rule.
Since you like to pontificate on the law, common sense tells me that to do so one must be an attorney, not a wannabe attorney common sense or no common sense.
It was a simple question that anyone with common sense would easily understand why it was asked.
The ending “-onsense” sounded relatively correct. 🙂
The issue of whether the court had jurisdiction over the affiliates absolutely was raised in the Motion to Intervene but Mullen put it off until the Bell v Disner case.
Accordingly, one of many arguments in favor of dismissal in the Disner action was the court’s lack of jurisdiction.
The defendant’s Motion to Dismiss was denied (using Twombly and Iqbal tests) BUT the jurisdictional defense is very much alive and will be tested at trial. It is not “resolved” as you continue to say.
right. however, the court has subject matter jurisdiction, only until the SEC ‘correctly’ has jurisdiction in this matter. the court has ‘accepted’ the agreement of burks/REX/SEC, and acted upon it, by installing the receiver.
the court in footnote 1 of 90.pdf, has clarified, that consent of the parties on SEC jurisdiction, does not automatically translate to consent of the court on it’s jurisdiction.
simply said, this means an affected third party can challenge the jurisdiction of the SEC, by challenging the ‘court’s jurisdiction’.
in their MTD, the defendants are questioning the ‘courts subject matter jurisdiction’ under rule FRCP 12(b)(1):
so, the defendants are arguing that the court should check if it has the jurisdiction in this matter, ie check if the SEC is the right plaintiff to bring this case.
@Hoss
We’re probably talking about 2 different things here. The discussion I had with Anjali (or rather the arguments I posted against her logical reasoning) was about some very specific factors.
It was based on Anjali’s post #28:
I questioned Anjali’s logical reasoning, e.g. why she identified the dispute to be about SEC’s jurisdiction.
* The footnote didn’t say that, it identified the dispute to be about the Court’s own jurisdiction.
* The main text didn’t say that either.
* The only argument supporting her theory was based on another theory. She was using “as you know” to strengthen her own beliefs that the theory was correct.
Her logical reasoning is based on repetition of ideas. Those ideas can have some elements of truth, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. Repetition will only lead to logical flaws being ignored. It will certainly not lead to more correctness.
SEC isn’t the plaintiff in “Bell v. Disner et al”?
That idea simply isn’t true. It won’t become more true if you repeat it either.
You have probably repeated the “SEC’s jurisdiction” idea so many times that it has corrupted your basic understanding of reality.
Correct, but footnotes are usually about “additional information”, e.g. about something related to the same issue or about more in-depth background information. There’s normally a reason for why footnotes are being separated from the main text. So we must first find that reason before we can interpret it correctly.
I mentioned 2 possible “additional information” reasons:
1. “Related issue”, not directly brought up?
2. “More in-depth information”, needed to clarify something?
There’s probably some more potential reasons. My main point was that it would need to be interpreted as “separated from the main text”.
* It doesn’t really look like “more in-depth information”, so I believe we can ignore that theory?
* It CAN be about a “related issue”, i.e. about something not specifically mentioned in the Motion but rather brought up by the Court itself.
correct . permission to rephrase?
the defendants feel the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and hence the clawback action of the receiver should be dismissed, because the receiver was appointed pursuant to a private agreement between SEC/REX/burks, and the defendants are neither party to this agreement, nor do they agree with it, because they feel zeek did not sell securities.
since i am not a certified practicing lawyer, let me quote from 90.pdf directly:
LRM started this discussion when he proclaimed: What on earth would make you think the Howey test is going to be involved in the question of whether or not ponzi net winners should be required to pay back their winnings ???
we have all given our opinions about this, and what emerges is this;
LRM : position stated above
anjali: securities and howey will be part of the trial debate.
hoss: i think hoss agrees with me. he can clarify if he doesn’t.
norway: i’m not sure about norway’s position. he has to state it clearly himself. he seems to be in some disagreement.
to avoid hair splitting, i suggest we call it here.
winner gets to send oz a dinner coupon or a free youtube song.
loser gets to be sad and mope around a bit.
lets wait patiently for an year or so, to know who the winner is !
So, what does that mean in practical terms, Anjali ??
C’mon, commit yourself.
Does it mean Zeek Rewards WASN’T an $850 million+ fraudulent scheme ??
Does it mean common law precedent doesn’t exist and the Zeek Rewards scheme will turn out to be different than the schemes that went before it and not involve the sale of securities ??
What is your expert opinion ??
There’s a 50/50%, 60/40% 90/10% chance securities aren’t involved ?? or are we talking around in circles about a possibility so remote as to be practically insignificant ??
Are “ad packs” materially different than “penny auction bids” or “banners impressions” or “postal reply coupons” ??
Is it an unusual defense for those subject to clawback to challenge the SEC and / or the courts’ authority ??
Does the fact such a defense has been raised automatically make it likely to succeed, and if not, what percentage of such challenges have succeeded when the underlying factor is an $850 million + fraud ??
Is the fact a court appointed receiver seeks clawbacks from net winners unusual ???
Is there no legal precedent for a receiver to do so ???
q- So, what does that mean in practical terms, Anjali ??
a- it means it is a matter pending before the court.
q- C’mon, commit yourself. Does it mean Zeek Rewards WASN’T an $850 million+ fraudulent scheme ??
a- i am committed to the idea that zeek was a fraudulent scheme. i am not fully convinced it should be tried under ponzi scheme/howey. hence i’m glad the question is before the court, and i am willing to humbly accept its finding. courts are there for a reason, why prejudge?
q- Does it mean common law precedent doesn’t exist and the Zeek Rewards scheme will turn out to be different than the schemes that went before it and not involve the sale of securities ??
a- your question is not clear. there is not much ponzi/pyramid/howey case law. what case law there is, varies in different circuits and has a lot of overturning at appeals.
it’s high time a Big Case like zeek gets put through the machine. either the SEC will show everyone who’s the boss, or the law will have to be strengthened, both of which are good outcomes.
huff puff, see ya later alligator.
The Howey test will not be brought up again. The next time someone disputes the court’s jurisdiction based on “no investment contract”, it will need to be based on the defendants proving their claims about a profitable penny auction.
“SEC’s jurisdiction” isn’t an issue in this case. It was a part of the theory initially supporting the MTI, but the MTI itself was about the Court’s authority to appoint a receiver (in a case where the existence of securities hadn’t been proven in court).
Since the SEC doesn’t have the authority to appoint a receiver, it doesn’t have the authority to dissolve the receivership either. It can’t reverse the Court’s Order(s).
Your theories seem to always try to insert “SEC’s jurisdiction” as a part of the equation, even where that issue doesn’t exist in court documents. You’re corrupting your own “sound reasoning” by always inserting your own not-so-sound ideas.
Yes, but you failed to extract some conclusions.
The appointment of a receiver is based on a court Order. It’s not a private agreement between SEC/REX/Burks.
It means the SEC doesn’t have that authority on its own. It could negotiate some conditions, but the decision had to be made by the Court. “Private agreement” means that the parties themselves decide the final conditions.
Law systems are, generally speaking, divided into 3 parts:
* law makers (Congress, etc.)
* law enforcers (government agencies, etc.)
* courts
SEC has the authority to investigate and prepare a case, but it doesn’t have the authority to make certain types of decisions (it can only make administrative decisions).
Courts on the other hand don’t have the authority to investigate and prepare cases. They will need to have prepared cases brought before them.
So the appointment of a receiver was clearly not a “private agreement”. When people see it as a “private agreement”, it’s based on a mis-interpretation of something.
thankyou sir, your stand is clearly and duly noted.
i’m rushed, but i just HAD to bring to your notice, that the defendants have not claimed ANYWHERE, that the penny auctions were profitable, so they don’t have to prove that.
so, defendants will only contest the courts jurisdiction, and hence the SEC’s jurisdiction, and hence the appointment of the receiver, by arguing howey test for investment contracts.
Bell’s authority as a Receiver derives from the court case. It doesn’t derive from a “private agreement” like you seem to believe.
Bell will need to have certain types of decisions decided by the court. He can’t make those decisions himself, but he can move the court for those decisions.
Bell can negotiate settlements with net winners (“prepare the individual cases”), but the decisions will need to be made by the Court.
If there’s any skilled negotiators out there among the net winners, they can do the same (“prepare their own cases, and bring it to the court for a decision”)
@Anjali
Your “footnote 1 issue” can be interpreted in a certain way.
The footnote:
It was initially brought up by the Court itself in the July 23 2013 oral hearing (75-1.pdf), as a response to SEC’s attorney John Bowers argument about subject matter jurisdiction.
Paul Burks could concede to SEC’s administrative jurisdiction, i.e. he could negotiate with SEC about conditions and he could agree or disagree. But he couldn’t concede to the Court’s decision making jurisdiction (“give the Court the right to make decisions”).
The Court will need to find that jurisdiction by itself, in the rules giving it its powers to decide. It can’t accept having it “granted” by someone who doesn’t have the authority to grant it.
None of the parties can do that. They don’t have the authority to “give” the Court its powers to decide.
I mentioned “related issue” as one of the types of footnotes:
It’s actually a more major issue than Trudy Gilmond’s theories. It’s based on facts rather than on vague theories, i.e. Paul Burks and SEC clearly tried to “grant” the Court its subject matter jurisdiction.
The parties didn’t bring up that issue, the Court did. So it doesn’t belong in the main text, but it can be mentioned in a footnote.
INTERPRETATION
The footnote can be a method to tell other judges / lawyers that “There IS actually an issue here, and this Court has looked into it and have found it to have no consequence (‘Harmless error rules’). It’s a different issue than the one brought up by the defendants, so it won’t be analysed here”.
A method like that will prevent other judges (e.g. an appellate court) from bringing it up. It will prevent the parties from using it as an argument in an appeal (“the Court failed to look into that issue”).
It may prevent lay people from successfully bringing it up as an argument against the court (e.g. “That court wasn’t very qualified, it accepted a clear violation of due process rights”).
You now contend that whether or not the court has subject matter jurisdiction is of no consequence? What fluff!
The issue will be tested in Bell v Disner.
You have most likely interpreted something out of context (once again). I tried to explain “Anjali’s footnote issue” to Anjali. I didn’t try to explain anything to you.
If you feel for it, try to provide a different explanation? But your focus will need to be on something that actually makes some sense.
– – – – – – additional detais – – – – – –
“Harmless error rules” is about Rule 61 F.R.C.P.
The Court brought up a different jurisdiction issue “all by itself” in the oral hearing. The footnote tells people (judges, lawyers, other people) that it has looked into that issue and have found it to have caused no harm.
It’s separated from the main text because it hasn’t been brought up by any of the parties. But it IS actually a major issue, something the Court should look into and decide how to handle.
The Court doesn’t have the authority to “introduce” its own legal issues. It will need to focus on the actual case, e.g. it can’t replace Trudy Gilmond’s arguments with its own arguments, and thus it can’t analyse a different legal issue than the one brought up by the parties.
it’s most likely you are OVER interpreting things. keep it simple, cut down on the brain foods.
the footnote.1 just establishes the courts view, which it also expressed in the oral arguments that, consent of parties to jurisdiction, does not translate to a consent of the court on its jurisdiction.
that’s Established Law, it’s not some ‘footnotey secrety codey message’ for lawyers, courts and people to decode. it’s friggin black letter law, as judge mullen correctly and boldly stated. go! judge mullen !!
gilmond, disner, and their highly paid lawyers ALL Know This, which is why, under FRCP 12(b)(1), they have asked the court to check its jurisdiction.
it’s that simple, why write a book about it?
So you believe Hoss interpreted it correctly? He quoted a PART of one paragraph from a relatively long post. I interpreted it to be “out of context”.
Bell and the SEC will have to prove that Zeek was offering securities. If they can’t do that then the SEC will have had no standing to bring the Burks RVG suit in the first place, the court will not have jurisdiction and the cases will be dismissed.
Simplifying it only makes it more difficult to analyse and to understand. To understand details, you will need to identify ENOUGH of the whole to give the details the correct proportions and context.
There hasn’t really been any disputes about that?
I used some different words and expressions, and I identified it into a specific context (“brought up by the court itself”).
Sorry, but the court didn’t analyse THAT issue. The footnote had a conclusion about “no consequences”, so he didn’t analyse it.
He analysed a different jurisdiction issue based on the arguments from Trudy Gilmond and the other defendants about “worked long hours, etc.”
You can be pretty sure SOMEONE would have brought it up in an appeal if he hadn’t addressed that issue. We have all identified it to be a serious issue, “black letter law”.
Alternatively, if Bell and the SEC CAN prove that Zeek was offering securities, the SEC will have standing, and the Court will have jurisdiction.
NO he did not. He confirmed with all present that the Howey issues that Sorkin raised would be addressed on their “merits” in the Bell v Disner case. Go back and read the transcripts.
Bell will need to prove “something” (I don’t know exactly what). I’m not sure about the securities issue, but he will generally need to “prove his case”.
Paul Burks could actually concede to SEC’s “administrative jurisdiction”, to SEC’s right to investigate and prepare the case. He didn’t need to bring it into a court first?
“SEC’s jurisdiction” isn’t really an issue here. It’s more like a “constructed theory” being repeated over and over again.
Quote from the relevant section?
You can’t expect anyone to “see what you see” if you can’t identify it properly.
And please post a logical explanation too, something to make it become more understandable for how you have interpreted it.
Bell is the plaintiff in “Bell v. Disner et al”. I don’t get your idea about “SEC will have standing”?
SEC is a party in “SEC v. Paul Burks and RVG”, but it doesn’t play an active role there. It had a more active role in 2012 and 2013.
Burks did not, could not, contest the SEC’s standing to bring suit, nor was the court under any obligation to enquire if the SEC had standing to do so.
However, once Gilmond King attempted to intervene and raised the “worked long hours” argument which questioned the SEC’s standing to even commence the Burks action, the court could not disregard the implications. The footnote, far from being of no consequence is of the utmost consequence, both for Burks and the affiliate’s.
The SEC not only investigates but is empowered by Congress to sue in its own name. In the lead case here the SEC is the plaintiff.
Congress expressly grants the SEC powers but they are limited. We can be reasonably sure the SEC has Congressional authority to file suit where securities are involved… but no more.
Sorkin has in effect said that the SEC has overstepped its authority because Zeek was not offering securities. I see no way a court can retain subject matter jurisdiction if the plaintiff SEC had no authority to bring suit in the first place. This is what I mean by lack of standing.
….and it should be understood that Bell derives his authority to pursue claw backs from the action instituted by the SEC.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about there, i.e. I don’t remember any such standing disputes from the case.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about there either?
The Motion To Intervene was about dissolvment of the appointment of a receiver, based on the idea “RVG didn’t involve any securities in the form of investment contracts”. The argument “worked long hours” was a part of that idea. But they didn’t really prove anything there, the theories were far too vague to be counted as “substantial facts”.
“No consequence” was one of the conclusions in the footnote. It wasn’t MY conclusion, like you seemed to believe in post #52.
The footnote:
I suggested that the Court had followed the “Harmless error” rule, Rule 61.
What I find truly laughable is that anyone thinks Bell cannot prove in his class action lawsuit that Zeek was selling unregistered securities. That is what these class actions lawsuits are all about. He has sais so repeatedly.
None of the members of Zeek had standing. They were not stockholders in Rex Ventures, and as since they weren’t, they have no standing period.
But the real rib splitter was when Trudy Gilmond and King tried to claim that they had “worked long hours.” I doubt Gilmond and King even know what work is.
I think a couple of posters here need to contact the court and apply for the “defense expert” role to assist the defense in their case.
Of course you don’t. Burks signed an agreement saying he could not dispute anything! Gilmond was not bound by or constrained by Burks agreement and you see the results. She had Sorkin attack the SEC’s standing… which collaterally called into question of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
The theory wasn’t vague. It was crystal clear what Sorkin was trying to do; argue the SEC had no standing/jurisdiction because Zeek was not offering securities….a frontal attack using Howey as the weapon.
What was lacking was facts….or at least admissible evidence from either side…which is why Mullen put off hearing the issue until the clawback litigation when both sides can fully brief the issue, present evidence and call expert witnesses.
OK…. Burks’ consent to jurisdiction is of no consequence. I agree. Jurisdiction is not predicated upon consent, only by operation of law.
Arguable. Trudi Gilmond attempted to intervene in the SEC v Burks-RVG case and was denied on the basis of being “too late.” What if she had been earlier?
The members of Zeek have standing in the Bell v Disner case where they are defendants.
Anyone who has been around the HYIP ponzi scene for more than five minutes recognizes that this is exactly what happens every time one of these frauds is busted.
There’s nothing new.
Nothing that hasn’t happened time after time.
The law isn’t stupid. Changing from “ad packs” to “auction bids” to “banner impressions” to whatever doesn’t do anything but give appeal lawyers more money.
The “I was Working hard to promote a fraud” has been done to death in other courts
To imagine the Zeek case is going to be “the one” that defines once and for all the “securities / not securities” issue is nonsense, ESPECIALLY since it’s none of the main players asking the questions.
yes, and i further agree with his interpretations form post#55 onward, also. i would have responded similarly to your arguments.
i don’t think hoss or any other poster[!], is ‘making a case’ for the defendants. it is just a legal interpretation of how the case stands. i think most readers have graduated from kindergarten, and are able to understand this.
jurisdiction of the SEC and the court, has been questioned, you cannot gloss over that. if there is substantial case law to throw the defendants out, very good!
just imagine when the SEC wins this matter, what implications it has for these schemes over the next ten years at least. plea bargaining and backroom deals will never create the ‘atmosphere’ required to stop fraudsters. a strong judiciary, which can ‘answer’ all their ‘excuses and psuedo arguments’ is a better weapon.
there are no recent ponzi/howey proved cases. case papers all refer to old cases, which were different from how the schemes work now.there are questions about whether the law is ‘clear’.
so, fresh meat case law is needed. which is why i hope trudy/disner gang don’t get cold feet, and will take this to the end. don’t be afraid of their fight. don’t make it a voldemont [that cannot be spoken of]. it will end well, and in public interest.
Absolutely none.
Change the term “bid packs” to “fibrillated sigglestats” or “ad packs” or ‘paid clicks” and we’d be back having the same argument/s all over again
I don’t remember that part?
Paul Burks could agree to SEC’s “administrative jurisdiction” on behalf of himself and RVG, so I don’t see any flaw in that part.
“Administrative jurisdiction” is about the right to investigate and prepare cases. The agency doesn’t need to bring the case in before a court first, “to prove its jurisdiction”, before it can start an investigation.
The lack of “findings of fact, conclusions of law” isn’t a problem either. It’s the normal standard in a consent judgment.
“Granting” the Court jurisdiction IS a problem. None of the parties had that authority. So the court really needed to look into that issue and it have already done it.
I used the word “vague” in the meaning of “lack of any real substance”. The “worked long hours” description was too vague to prove anything of significance.
Sorkin was vague too in his stock theories, e.g. the penny stock auction theory.
you are not ‘getting’ the core matter of this case.
it’s not about bid packs etc.
if the court, through the district trial court and the appeals court, reiterates the strength of howey over an 850 million modern ponzi/pyramid, all ponzi planners will have to go back to their worktables to find new ways to devise their schemes.
ponzi lawyers will have to go back to their law books to devise new ways of psuedo compliance. that should put them all back a bit.
if this case goes unproved, new ponzis using the same models will keep springing up like weeds, because, you know, there are no strong precedents, lets tie up the SEC in lawyer games and make some deal at the end, or the case ends up unresolved with some money returned.
The court agreed it had jurisdiction when it signed off on the original complaint
Others will undoubtedly disagree, but, the way I read things is the court accepted it had jurisdiction and upheld the SEC complaint, while agreeing people had the right to challenge and indicating they should do so at a later date.
On the contrary, it is you who is proposing there IS a singular core issue here, whereas I am saying there is no possibility of a specific law being framed which will overcome the relentless ingenuity of those who seek to foist $850 million dollar fraudulent schemes on the public.
The law as it stands is designed to have sufficiently broad scope to allow for the countless “variations of a theme” securities fraud brings with it.
That IS / WAS the problem. The Court can’t “agree” to have its subject matter jurisdiction “granted” by the parties. It will need to find it itself through facts and laws.
That’s why that issue had to be addressed in that footnote. Neither the SEC nor Paul Burks had the authority to “grant” the Court subject matter jurisdiction.
I quoted the most relevant parts from the oral hearing in post #51.
I’m totally ignoring the side issues of who granted what.
The SEC pointed out the court had jurisdiction within the first few paragraphs of the initial complaint.
If the court didn’t agree it had jurisdiction, THAT was when it would have said so.
Now, either the court accepted it had jurisdiction and proceeded to hear the complaint OR it made a rookie blunder and proceeded when it didn’t have jurisdiction OR it was mistaken.
The argument the court didn’t have jurisdiction is a separate issue not raised by any of the parties at the time and was always to be dealt with at a later date, should the question arise, as Judge Mullen clearly pointed out.
The problem is probably that the Court can’t base its subject matter jurisdiction solely on allegations from a party / consent by the other party.
It isn’t much of a problem in itself (with only 2 defendants), but it will become a problem later when other parties become involved in the case.
The Court has clearly addressed that issue. It wasn’t something it could ignore.
the parties SEC/RVG/burks did not ‘grant’ jurisdiction to the court, but only ‘consented’ to it. they had a deal which needed to be implemented through the court and the parties said,- hey we all agree that this is the right court. since no one objected at that time, the court started work on the agreement.
the court did not have to go into a fact finding mission because burks/RGV ‘waived findings of facts and conclusions of law’. hence ‘for the purpose’ of the agreement the court assumed allegations to be ‘true’
enter gilmond gang, and the scenario changed. since they are directly affected parties, they have asked the court to ‘make a finding of fact and conclusion of law’. and the court said- yes, we will make a finding on ‘merit’.
I see it slightly differently.
The court can’t prevent challenges to its’ jurisdiction – that’s part and parcel of the legal system, and judges know only too well that in cases such as this it is almost guaranteed there will be challenges to its’ jurisdiction.
Having said that, the court can only act on what is in front of it.
The SEC asked for emergency relief, and stated the court had jurisdiction.
The court granted emergency relief and, cognizant of the fact challenges to its’ jurisdiction were (more than) likely, nominated a place where such challenges should be raised
Pure speculation on your part.
anjali: they had a deal
LRM: Pure speculation on your part.
huh.
what.
lol.
@LRM post#45
i have replied to your first 3 questions in post#46.
i hereby declare myself ‘excused’ from answering the rest of your questions, as i find them undeserving and meritless.
for instance ‘what is your expert opinion?’ is plain silly because i am not an expert.
the questions have more ’emotional quotient’ than ‘factual content’, hence rejected.
why clog the blog, as you yourself, perpetually propagate.
Burks was caught dead to rights running a multi million dollar fraud over several years in full public view
Why would the SEC find it necessary to enter some sort of deal and what possible proof they did so have you got ??
There were only ever two questions:
* How long before the SEC and the DoJ move in
* How could he / they be so stupid as to think they were going to get away with it and hang around waiting to be caught ??
uh, the burks/RGV/SEC agreement was the ‘deal’. burks handed over everything, got a 4 million fine and admitted no guilt. the SEC got relief from ‘suing’. this ‘deal’ is the basis of the entire matter.
now there is a third question, pending in court.
I think hoss and anjali need to contact Ira Sorkin and apply for the defense expert role.
Gilmond, et al, would have still been denied standing because they did not own any part of Rex Ventures. They were members of Zeek like everyone else. They have no standing period just like none of the other members in Zeek have any standing.
Now if Trudy wants to claim that she was part-owner, she just opened herself up to being criminally charged like Paul Burks has been charged.
Actually I hope she was a part-owner. She deserves to be in jail right along Paul, Dawn and her step-son. In fact all the big winners should be charged criminally and put in jail because they knew Zeek was a Ponzi.
You don’t know that, it’s pure supposition on your part.
IOW, you made it up.
Which question is that?
what are you talking about LRM? you’re pulling my leg, right?
how can i ‘make up’ an agreement[deal] between the SEC and RGV/burks? are you being crazy today??
i couldn’t find the ‘original agreement’ of SEC/RGV/burks, but this consent of burks, lists all the points of the agreement[deal]:
docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=YXNkdXBkYXRlcy5jb218ZmlsZXMtd2Vic2l0ZXxneDo1OTJjOTdmODRlZDBmZjZj
this question:
@ mr LLE
i cannot contact ira sorkin, as i don’t have a law degree and i’m not a practicing lawyer, so i’m stuck with public participation blogs like behindmlm. thank god no one asks for degrees here!
further the court has not questioned gilmond&gangs ‘standing’.
infact all the unnamed defendants have ‘standing’ alongwith gilmond&gang, and the court, using the highest standards of jurisprudence is giving them a fair hearing.
This may give you the flavor of what Sorkin was getting at. If you have further interest do a search on “standing vs.jurisdiction”
“When a party without standing purports to commence an action, the trial court acquires no subject-matter jurisdiction.” State v. Property at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. 1999)
Standing v jurisdiction : See BOLD highlights in references
NOLink://homeequitytheft-cases-articles.blogspot.com/2009/02/subject-matter-jurisdiction-lack-of.html
standing is a “jurisdictional issue which may be raised by any party or the Court at any time.”
etc.
Easy – you do it all the time.
Paul Burks being caught red handed and being told what was going to happen is not the same as him doing a deal with the SEC.
There was no need for any sort of “agreement” nor is there any proof one existed.
You definitely need to go Don Ryan’s asdupdate website and read Zeek docs 5,6,7,8
“Lack of jurisdiction” is listed among the Defenses in Answer to Complaint from several defendants. But then you have MANY questions, not ONE.
BTW, the dismissal isn’t pending. It was denied in 90.pdf.
Jurisdiction can clearly be brought up again based on new information.
i protest. decency demands you take back such a baseless allegation immediately. it seems all you can do is troll around making personal attacks, while doing nothing to keep yourself updated on the topic of discussion, bringing zero meat to the table, but strut around like a self appointed watchman.
the agreement[deal] between burks/RGV/SEC is the basis of this whole case. read the link i gave you.
To claim the fact Paul Burks was faced with irrefutable evidence and therefore consented to the fact the court had jurisdiction, consented to entry of judgement and agreed to be permanently enjoined and restrained is some sort of “deal” is nonsense.
To claim Burks using his legal right to not admit nor deny guilt as being part of some sort of “deal” is also nonsense.
@LRM post#100
1] the fact that the SEC had irrefutable evidence did not lead them to suing burks, and making a public statement about how they tackle ponzi schemes. burks avoided being found guilty in the civil case.
2] inspite of having irrefutable evidence, the SEC allowed burks to not admit/not deny. this has allowed him to plead ‘not guilty’ in the criminal case.
3] while the SEC manged to avoid ‘suing’ burks by entering the agreement, it is clear that burks and his lawyers have managed to get a good settlement for himself, not compromising his legal status.
when two parties make an agreement which has some benefits for both parties it is a ‘deal’.
I don’t remember Sorkin raising that issue?
Most people have identified the MTI to be about “jurisdiction issues”, based on the theory that “RVG didn’t involve any sale of securities in the form of investment contracts”.
Lack of standing is generally about “not the proper plaintiff”. I don’t remember any such arguments from Ira Sorkin.
Denying a Motion to Dismiss means the judge finds sufficient reason for the case to proceed (it is not dismissed).
In 90.pdf the judge published his reasons why it should proceed but none of those reasons constitute a ruling in favor of one party over another or one position over another.
The question of jurisdiction need not be brought up “again” since it is has not been ruled on to begin with.
Do you think if you keep saying that, it will become true ??
They had no choice, it’s a feature of civil law in the USA
So, tell us, what would be the difference between SEC vs Burks WITH a “deal” and SEC vs Burks WITHOUT a deal
How do you know the SEC didn’t walk into the room, lay out the evidence it had, tell him what penalties it was going to ask the court to impose and his lawyer told him to keep his powder dry, consent to all the penalties, without admitting guilt (as is his right under civil law) and save any fighting for the criminal case
I’m not sure what you’re talking about there?
Order Denying Motion To Dismiss is a type of ruling, a Court Order. And the Court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction, so that particular dispute has been resolved. It’s not “pending, waiting to be resolved”.
The Court ruled in favor of its own jurisdiction. If it hadn’t done that, the case should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
You people really need to read the ASD Cash Generator case as the court ruled who had “standing” and it wasn’t the members. The only one who had “standing” was Andy Bowdoin. All the others who tried to claim they had “standing” and filed in time were denied.
The only one who has “standing” in Rex Ventures is Paul Burks. ASD is no different than Zeek/Rex Ventures except in name only and person running them, and both were Ponzi’s.
You are correct. Sorry
civil and criminal law allow ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ pleas. criminal law also allows no lo contendere, which practically translates to admission of guilt, but it is not of relevance here so no need to explain further.
no admit/no deny is a ‘neutral’ stance [no prejudice to the defendant] allowed by SEC ‘policy’, it is not law. they certainly have a choice to use or not use it, in a particular case.
over the last few years courts have been coming down hard over the SEC, for making these no admit/no deny ‘deals’, because they do not serve public interest, and defendants get off easy. courts are demanding that the SEC force an admission of guilt on civil defendants, OR take them to trial.
last year, under increasing pressure SEC chairman, mary jo white, announced that moving forward, in cases with high public interest involved, they would be demanding admission of guilt.
so your contention that it is a ‘feature of civil law’ is misplaced. it is a policy and choice for the SEC.
Whether the affiliate’s had standing in the SEC v Burks case is moot because they were denied intervention on another basis anyway. Its Bell’s authority to bring clawback suits that is being challenged by the net winners and they certainly have standing to do that.
Yada, yada, yada.
The SEC cannot in practice “force” anyone to plead guilty and the “cases of high public interest” are those involving large corporations i.e. Wall Street firms and banks.
Again I go back to the reason for this line of posts: you have no way of knowing any sort of deal was done between the SEC and Paul Burks which allowed him to neither admit nor deny guilt and to infer a deal was done is misleading and disingenuous
Given Burks is facing criminal charges, any half decent lawyer would advise him a guilty plea in the SEC matter could be catastrophic to his defense and to avoid making one at all costs.
Do you know for certain Burks point blank refused to enter a plea, no matter how much the SEC raised the stakes ???
How could the SEC have asked for more in an effort to force a guilty plea if they knew full well there wasn’t any more to take ??
IOW, you don’t know enough to make the assertion you did.
Todd Disner filed claiming that ASD was not a Pozni, and the Secret Service and the SEC did not have the authority to shut it down.
He wanted to argue ASD’s legality and stop the receiver from doing his court appointed job. His filing was denied. He appealed, it was denied, and he appealed one last time and it was denied.
Think back to Robert Craddock and his BS on how he formed this group that would be representing all members who sent him money to pay for an attorney to represent them all. His claim was he could prove Zeek was not a Ponzi.
He claimed that they were going to file all these motions and not one motion was ever filed. All Robert Craddock wanted was people to pay his attorney fees for him and recover money he had in Zeek he could not get out.
No affiliate in any Ponzi has standing. Only the owner of the program or company involved has standing. As a member it is no longer your money when you send it to the company/program, and you have no control over the money once it is sent.
But you keep on dreaming that Gilmond will be able to prove she has standing and Zeek is not a Ponzi.
as you said, the SEC has irrefutable evidence, that is definitely grounds for a tough negotiation, without acceding even one inch, to the defendant lawyers. you yourself repeat ad nauseam that this was a 850 million fraud.
but you have to agree, that this ‘agreement’ [which i call deal], has some benefits for burks too. he has resolved the civil matter without any prejudice to himself. in an 850 million fraud!
if your’e having a problem using the word ‘deal’ you may call it “fibrillated sigglestats”, but it means what it means.
why won’t an 850 million fraud, which collected money from the ‘public’ NOT be of ‘high public interest’??
they could have proved him guilty in the civil case, severely damaging his criminal case. the criminal charges came much later in this case? i read somewhere [court documents] that burk’s personal bank accounts were not frozen [i am mostly sure of this- i dint understand that order completely, and i don’t have the time to check it out ]
you are really lucky you got to see the ASD fraud unfold in real time.
now the rest of us have an opportunity to watch zeek, telexfree etc go through the court system in real time.
do you mind if we are a bit excited, and wish to discuss it, as it plays out?
don’t be a scolding daddy. let the children play.
That would have required a trial?
SEC doesn’t have the authority to be a trier of facts or to conclude whether someone is guilty or not guilty. So that would automatically have eliminated the consent judgment.
Last two paragraphs of “Legal Process”:
NOLINK://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_decree#Legal_process
No I don’t have to agree and no, you don’t know there was any sort of “agreement”
The SEC could have carefully calculated his exact net worth and framed their complaint so he was stripped of every cent he had and those not directly involved would be none the wiser
All the rest of you defending the indefensible is irrelevant.
You don’t know.
Paul Burks did make a fibrillated sigglestats, e.g. the total civil fine (to all government agencies) was limited to the $4 million he had agreed on. The fibrillated sigglestats kept tax authorities at a distance.
You should repeat that statement to Anjali, but without the question mark.
There are no punitive consequences to a defendant facing SEC civil charges refusing to acknowledge or deny guilt, other than an increase in the financial penalties requested by the SEC.
The SEC can continue to increase the amounts until it is blue in the face, but, if the defendant refuses to consent, there’s little else it can do.
ESPECIALLY in the case of someone like Burks who has limited access to funds, other than those involved in the securities violations for which he is being penalized and who is simultaneously facing criminal charges, the consequences of which are likely to be far more serious than mere fines
This is in complete contrast to the aforementioned “cases of high interest” involving multi billion dollar institutions such as banks and Wall Street corporations.
Those cases are probably about something different, e.g. about corporations consenting to huge fines while the people involved in the wrongdoing can go completely free.
Exactly right.
Which is why I find Anjalis’ attempts to introduce the “cases of high interest” debate into a discussion about Zeek Rewards disingenuous and misleading.
of course it would have required a trial. with irrefutable evidence the SEC should have gone to trial, if burks did not agree to admit guilt. it was an 850 million fraud! none of the clawback drama would have followed, and the criminal case which came later would have been mostly pre-solved in prosecutions favor.
of course there was an ‘agreement’ which is currently under enforcement by the federal district court NC.
since you have now reduced yourself to ‘you don’t know’ arguments, lets call it a day on this subject.
i’m saying burk’s got a good ‘deal’ from the SEC, and only you know what you are saying. goodbye on this.
PS: on the subject of ‘you don’t know’, has mary jo white ‘specifically’ informed you about which cases are ‘public interest’ and which are not, or are you talking through your hat?
@norway
please go through zeek docs 14, 20, 21
its about paul burks personal accounts. what do you make of it?
apparently burk’s fibrillated sigglestats regarding taxation failed, according to doc 20.pdf:
This is not ASD. Get over it.
The Zeek Receiver is pursuing clawbacks. Therefore, Gilmond was on solid ground when she attempted to intervene because she had a bona fide interest in the outcome of the case.
Mullen recognized this and after checking with the SEC and Bell that Gilmond would have the opportunity to defend her interests in the Bell v Disner clawback action avoided the delay an intervention at that stage of the case would generate by ruling she was too late,” NOT that she had no standing as you keep repeating ad nauseum.
Gilmond is a defendant, the Receiver is attempting to deprive her of property. She is entitled to due process. She has standing to defend herself. Try to understand that.
This is not about any dream I have.
don’t make up stuff, based on your opinions. here’s what bloomberg reported:
i think when you talk of fraud, egregious, investor harm, the zeek fraud will make its way to list. such a business has no ‘use for society’ and need not be afforded the grace of no admit/no deny.
however big corporations which are a part of the bulwark of economy, may be excused for a booboo with a high fine and an offer of no admit/no deny.
don’t make up stuff LRM. it’s like lying, it goes to your character. just friendly advice from a retired troll to a working one.
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-06-18/sec-to-seek-guilt-admissions-in-more-cases-chairman-white-says
She failed to prove that “substantial interest”.
Trudy Gilmond didn’t have the right type of interest. Her primary interest was to avoid clawbacks. She didn’t really have any legitimate interest in RVG, e.g. as a shareholder. She only had a “business contract” with an alleged Ponzi scheme.
He probably tried to give some type of “rational explanation”.
without drifting off into side issues, the important relevant question here is: does the gilmond gang have the standing to question the courts jurisdiction, and hence the SEC’s jurisdiction and hence the receivers appointment? the answer to this is yes.
the rest [ownership/shareholder/interest] don’t matter.
Well it wasn’t.
I would like to read it but I cant find 75-1 on Don Ryan’s site.
Neither is it materially different than the squillion other fraudulent ponzi / pyramid schemes that have preceded it.
There’s nothing strange or unusual about any of this, it’s enshrined in common law.
Clawbacks from ponzi / pyramid / fraudulent scheme net winners isn’t unusual.
Clicking on links is work, when such clicking is for fractions of a cent per click.
Clicking on links for 1% a day isn’t “work”
Working hard recruiting for ponzi schemes isn’t a defense – the ponzi schemes themselves are a fiction.
Ad packs, bid packs, banner impressions – none of them exist
It’s all been done before – in spades.
The singer may change but the song remains the same.
I could have done it if the discussion about it had been important. But it isn’t.
Paul Burks have made some type of deal, but that doesn’t mean that people are talking about the same type of deal.
Zeek was under investigation by NC AG from July 6 2012 (IIRC). It was probably under investigation by multiple other agencies, so it was only a question of time before it would have been shut down anyway.
Burks was under heavy pressure, e.g. payments had started to fail for several affiliates (e.g. Shaun). He had a discussion with me about some tax issues (via Troy Dooly).
Banks refused to accept doing business with RVG (e.g. NC Credit Union warned customers about it). He had a sick wife, etc., so all in all he had plenty of motives to terminate the business.
SEC has probably offered him some conditions he could accept, e.g. limiting civil fines, allowing him to pay for legal assistance (he probably paid a retainer fee to cover the expected costs).
He got very reasonable bail conditions, $25,000 unsecured bail. He has managed to stay out of prison for 2.5 years.
A side effect of the shutdown is that creditors will need to deal with the Receiver rather than Burks, i.e. a type of “fence” between him and the creditors. Lawsuits are being stayed (among them some really annoying ones).
So my impression is that he has made some type of “deal”. I’m not talking about a written contract, but about “solutions”. But that impression is based on the case as a whole rather than on the documents.
“Disner et al”, the MTI oral hearing from July 23 2013, the one we all have discussed from time to time. The reference to file and page number was primarily for my own use.
It’s the secondary reason for WHY the MTI should be denied. The primary reason was “untimely filing”.
let me be precise, so that you stop trundling off in several directions, at once.
the SEC agreement with burk’s did not freeze his personal accounts.
on being appointed receiver, bell petitioned the court, asking for the SEC/RGV/burks agreement be amended, to include burks private accounts under the receiver entity.
the court partly allowed and partly denied bells motion.
i did not clearly understand the courts order ie did the court bring burks personal accounts under the receiver, or not.
hence i would like someone to see if they can figure the order out? norway? hoss? LRM? XYZ?
Those taxes are about ordinary taxes. He didn’t try to get exemptions from ordinary income taxes, he only tried to limit civil fines.
He has probably paid taxes, but I doubt that he has paid that “half of $11 million” amount.
Noell P. Tin has probably made a deal there about his own salary, in exchange for his contribution to a highly needed solution. Paul Burks has been properly represented by a qualified lawfirm during the whole case.
That is about the $4 million fine. My understanding is that the amount is “collective amount, to all government agencies”. But it’s only about civil fines, not about other types of claims.
Note the use of “the government” rather than “the SEC” or “the IRS”.
It will be like “I can pay $4 million total, but you will all need to argue with each other about how much each agency should be entitled to receive”.
The problem is that you’re asking for some type of “reflections” of your own ideas. You can’t expect to get that from me. 🙂
I had a quick look at those documents. It looks like the Court has removed all references to Paul Burks, including friends and family. It’s a message to the Receiver that “Paul Burks has made a valid agreement, verified by this Court. You should probably respect that”.
The Receiver probably didn’t believe in the “paid taxes” story either.
The Receiver’s intention seems to have been about an extended investigation / assets freeze. But he was denied it.
I didn’t understand it either, so I simply looked for removed parts (compared to the Motion). I didn’t even TRY to understand it.
My interpretation:
The Court had already decided some of the conditions in the consent decrees. The Receiver didn’t have the authority to question decisions already made by the Court, e.g. he couldn’t reopen an investigation that already had been concluded and adjudged. SEC investigated that part, with hundreds of documents filed under seal.
Did ASD Clawback or not?
Yes.
Hoss:
In regard to whether or not clawbacks were done in the ASD case, no they were not. The reason was the feds were able to freeze the vast majority of ASD assets that enabled the victims who filed claims to be reimbursed 100% of their losses.
But as you know, case law precedents do play a significant role in future legal cases. That is why ASD does have relevance in the Zeek case when it comes to standing since it was adjudicated.
The whole purpose behind the lawsuits is that Bell said you have to give back your winnings as they were from a Ponzi. The winners said no we won’t and prove it was a Ponzi. Bell said I will and sued them.
Actually I am glad they are being sued and will have their day in court. When they lose, and they will, I hope it sets them up for criminal charges which would be poetic justice since most of the winners just go from Ponzi to Ponzi and maybe it would help stop others from doing the same.
There’s one major flaw in one of the arguments in that “hence” logic. SEC isn’t a court. It doesn’t have subject matter jurisdiction.
SEC has “something”, but I don’t know exactly what. It probably has “enforcement authority” and some other powers. But it clearly doesn’t have the function of a court.
I think the flow would be that the SEC is authorized by Congress to 1. investigate securities violations and 2. enforce the regulations by among other devices, suing violators in its own name.
The finding of a violation is necessary for the SEC to maintain its standing. Should the Bell/SEC fail to prove a violation the SEC loses standing and the ancillary jurisdiction the court holds in the Bell v Disner case is severed.
The clawback case would therefore be dismissed.
That’s my best guess.
The answer should of course be “NO”?
You haven’t even mentioned a case, and they can’t have standing without a case.
Hint: 14-cv-00091
thanks for looking at those documents. so you’re saying the court did not release burks personal accounts to the receivership, as the SEC/RGV/burks ‘agreement’ did not freeze those accounts.
so LRM’s contention, that the SEC swaggered into the room and blackmailed burks/burks attorneys, with irrefutable evidence and squeezed him till he was blue in the face, is a bit misplaced. this sounds like a ‘negotiation’ and a ‘deal’.
and it also further sets my own beliefs about ‘law is technical’.
“sigh”
LRMs contention is that the SEC COULD HAVE swaggered into the room and we would have no idea.
Just as we have no idea if a deal was done.
The end result we see today COULD BE a lot more than the SEC ever intended.
Burks COULD HAVE fallen on the floor in a gibbering heap and given up twice as much as the SEC anticipated.
There are countless possibilities to explain what happened.
To infer or imply we know for certain is misleading and disingenuous.
LRMs contention is that the SEC COULD HAVE swaggered into the room and we would have no idea—oh, so its entirely possible they walked all businesslike into the room, and negotiated a deal, with benefits for both parties?
Just as we have no idea if a deal was done—so how did the agreement which has benefits for both parties come about?
The end result we see today COULD BE a lot more than the SEC ever intended—–so, SEC intended taking only half the RGV estate and then burks said – hey guys, don’t squeeze me till i’m blue, take the whole thing!
Burks COULD HAVE fallen on the floor in a gibbering heap and given up twice as much as the SEC anticipated—so burks wanted to keep 22 million in his personal account, but the SEC swaggered and burks fell into a gibbering heap and agreed on only 11 million?
Think of as many possibilities as you can – and there’s your answer.
We don’t know and no one is going to tell us.
To infer or imply otherwise is misleading and disingenuous
Think of as many possibilities as you can —-why? why not apply commonsense? there were two parties in the room and they came to an amicable settlement. there is no space for a gazillion possibilities.
We don’t know and no one is going to tell us—-the ‘agreement’ is a public document. it tells us what the parties decided on. we don’t need anyone to ‘tell us anything’. we can read.
To infer or imply otherwise is misleading and disingenuous—there’s no ‘infer’ or ‘imply’, here.
the agreement says what it says. the court read the agreement, and came to the conclusion that the defendant burks had neither admitted or denied guilt, and the court came to the conclusion that burkswas entitled to keep his personal account funds, under the agreement.
the court was informed by the SEC that they had filed this agreement as a settled case, ie they did not intend to sue. no one is implying or inferring anything, this is the conclusion of the court.
Some relevant information can be found in “Did Zeek Rewards Management Know About The SEC?”.
NOLINK://behindmlm.com/companies/zeek-rewards/did-zeek-rewards-management-know-about-the-sec/
Search result (probably hidden in one of 879 comments):
Paul Burks was got a VPN connection installed on his home computer in early August 2012, to get access to RVG’s internal network.
(from memory)
He was home from work, “caring for his sick wife”, in the days before August 17 (unspecificied number of days). He visited an attorney regularly (one time per week or so?) from June or July.
Implication and inference are powerful weapons, especially when one has reason to suspect the motives of those doing the implying and inferring.
“Disner et al”, but it doesn’t make Anjali’s reasoning more understandable.
To question the appointment of the Receiver, the Gilmond gang will need standing in “SEC v. Burks”.
To question SEC’s jurisdiction, they can simply call SEC, send email, meet up personally or other relevant method. They don’t need a court for that.
the SEC makes these deals day in/day out, with companies who have broken the law, committed fraud etc. this is not an implication, it is a matter of public record. now, the courts have told the SEC to stop/curtail this practice, and they’ll stop it, at least for egregious fraud schemes. good.
it is definitely within the powers of a judge to refuse to enter an agreement, if he feels it is not fair.
judge rakoff and several judges have refused to enter SEC agreements. if this had been judge rakoff’s court, who knows! maybe he’d get pissed – ‘i want admission of guilt, take burks to trial! how dare you leave out his personal accounts!’
anyway, moving forward, i don’t think the SEC will be able to make such a ‘deal’ with ponzi fraud defendants, burks may be the last lucky one.
i agree with you, that HYIP promoters should ‘never get an opportunity’ to say ‘See, it’s not so serious after all’. show ’em. in tightening it’s no admit/no deny policy, the SEC may be gearing up to show ’em.
That is rather a ridiculous suggestion. SEC jurisdiction is a misnomer here. The issue is standing….to bring and maintain the action and it gets complicated because the requirements of standing varies State to State and often differ from Federal requirements.
Rereading the Denial of the Motion to Dismiss it appears to me that the judge has already ruled that Zeek was offering securities and the action now devolves into a determining if if Zeek was an illegal ponzi/pyramid. That of course addresses the fraudulent transfers and and recoverability under the NC UFTA.
I think Howey considerations are over. The judge considered the merits of that already and ruled that Zeek was offering secuties.
Anjali?
@hoss, i have already addressed this issue in post#32.
please read that and see where you agree/disagree.
Section A Discussion is about factual bacground jurisdiction and Howey and the judge states that the affiliates implicity agreed that all but one prong of the Howey test was met, and then he discusses the last prong (efforts of others) and concludes:
Those are the judge’s own words.
I think this is what’s going on but can’t confirm it.
I am guessing that a an Order denying a Motion to Dismiss is an interim order.
Interim Order Legal Definition:
Confirmed.
Interlocutory or Interim Orders are not Final.
An order is not appealable until it is final.
Order Granting Motion To Dismiss is usually very final, e.g. lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction (and of course any other reason).
And if Order Granting MTD is final, then Order Denying MTD will probably be final too. But motions are typically about some limited issues, i.e. they ask for specific orders.
Example; An “Order Finding Preferred Merchant Solution Temporary In Contempt Of Court”. 🙂
Interim = not permanent. Interlocutory have something to do with appeals
We have HERE an Order Denying the Motion to Dismiss which is very different than your example which Grants the Motion.
This is an interlocutory (interim) order. It is not final, therefore is is not appealable. This explains why there is still going to be a trial on the merits.
Only after the trial will a Final Order be issued and at that point Gilmond et al can file their appeal.
If this Denial of the Motion to Dismiss was final and appealable as you suggest you can be damn sure there would have already been an appeal filed…..and there hasn’t been. Additionally, not one bit of evidence has been considered.
….Which is to say that an Order Granting a Motion to Dismiss is final, but an Order Denying a Motion to Dismiss is Interlocutory.
yes, hoss, but the judge has come to similar conclusions about all the other ‘claims’ in the suit.
this just means the court has found enough prima facie evidence [twombly factors] for the case NOT to be dismissed outright, but be proven on merits.
i agree with your find, that this denying of the MTD is a temporary order, and the trial order will be the final order.
receiver bell HIMSELF has informed net winners in his ‘ ‘notification of certification for class action’ that the court has NOT yet decided the merits of the claims , in this suit. what more needs to be said. it’s clear as day.
see, do you think the gilmond gang would keep it’s face shut, if they could appeal the denying of their precious MTD? they would have gone crazy appealing all over the place by now!
That logic isn’t correct, but I don’t have the correct logic either. So I must try to find it.
There’s many vague elements here:
1. Whether the Order Denying MTI is temporary or final?
It clearly is temporary from the perspective of the whole trial, but it’s a final decision from the perspective of the current legal issue “should this case be thrown out or should it be allowed to continue?”.
So it’s both temporary AND final. Which one will depend on from which perspective you’re looking at it.
2. The meaning of Interlocutory and interim, and how they are used in court?
I haven’t identified that part exactly either. I only copied the first 2 paragraphs, but the source elaborated on some factors in the rest of the text.
“Interlocutory” was found when I checked “Appeal” in legal dictionary, so we will need to look at that part too.
(I decided to not check the use of “interim”).
TEMPORARY CONCLUSION
The Order Denying Motion To Dismiss was clearly not an interlocutory Order. Interlocutory has quite different uses.
It wasn’t an Interim Order either. Limitations like that will need to be clearly visible and understandable.
3. To understand it better, we will probably need to look at “Question of fact / Question of Law” and some similar topics.
I appreciate your willingness to research the topic but I believe you have come to the wrong conclusion.
Nolink://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/F/FinalOrder.aspx
let’s not rely on our own logic when lawfirms can give us the answer in a jiffy!
when are judgments final ? with professional guidance from cooper&storm:
1] a final judgment is one that fixes absolutely and finally the rights of the parties to a lawsuit, it is final if it determines the litigation ‘on the merits’ so that, if affirmed, the only thing remaining is to proceed with the execution of the judgment.
2] an order denying summary judgment or a ‘motion to dismiss’ normally is not appealable because such orders are ‘not final judgments’.
3] some cases have multiple claims, and the trial court may dispose of some of those claims before others, for example, on a ‘motion to dismiss’. in these cases, a decision dismissing the claims, is appealable Only if the trial court makes an ‘express written finding, that there is no just reason to delay enforcement’.
so, i was right [ahem], the fact that judge mullen was not ‘acting’ upon his order, shows it’s not ‘final’
as for point 3, we can note that after finding against the defendants on All Four Claims, the court is not ‘enforcing its decision’, but moving to trial to decide the case on its merits. bell has said this too.
what are you arguing for, norway? the court is with hoss and me. we won, go be sad 🙂
That is what I thought too,at first, but
Note that the judge ONLY referred to the use of Twombly IQBAL assumptions in coming to conclusions in Section B. Section A did not (and probably can not)use Twombly/IQBAL assumptions in ruling on matters of jurisdiction.
However it is also self evident that the judge MUST rule that he has jurisdiction or the action is dismissed. This conflict of intentions is resolved by entering an order that is binding on all parties, but not final, i.e. interlocutory.
An excellent find.
If that was addressed to me, I only posted a temporary conclusion + identified new areas to look into.
NOLINK://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interim_order
Types of interim orders:
* restraining order
* directive order
i’m so bloody sure, hoss and i, have won this discussion.
here’s the free youtube song about ‘celebration’ and how hoss and me ‘Love’ judge mullens court, for supporting our side of the discussion.
youtube.com/watch?v=4zIFKyM8Pjg
psst, hoss, you send the dinner coupon.
What exactly did you find?
There’s 3 different questions in the discussion.
1. Is an Order Denying (or granting) MTI final?
2. Is it interim?
3. Is it interlocutory?
There has been some other theories too, e.g. that the jurisdiction issue was “pending”, But we can ignore that.
A QUICK LOOK AT IT
I posted that same conclusion in post #162, in the initial “vague elements to look into”.
I covered both your points #1 and #2 there.
anjali:
2] an order denying summary judgment or a ‘motion to dismiss’ normally is not appealable because such orders are ‘not final judgments’.
But I didn’t cover your third point …
The court can partly grant / partly deny a Motion To Dismiss? “Throw out some of the claims”.
1] the court Denied the ‘motion to dismiss’
2] the court found Against all claims of the defendants of the MTD.
3] inspite of this, the court would like to make a Final Decision on merits, and hence it is moving to trial.
4] the court has not thrown out any claim , pending trial.
I’m not arguing, I’m asking you to identify more clearly what you feel you have found.
* You didn’t identify which question you had tried to look into?
* You didn’t point to the post where you were right about something?
* You didn’t explain WHY you were right, you jumped directly to a conclusion “so, i was right [ahem]” without explaining anything at all?
How can you expect anyone to recognize it as right or wrong when all that information is missing?
….which is why the Order is interlocutory.
Here’s the description from law.com (legal dictionary):
It will delay something from becoming final …
* until specific event
* until specific date
yes, the order dismissing the MTD , is delayed from being final..
* until specific event – ‘the civil trial’
* until specific date- ‘the date of the final order of the civil trial’
note to yourself: the gilmond gang is not divorcing anybody. unless dropping their lawyers can be considered a ‘type of divorce’ 🙂
NO. By restating it this way you are twisting the meaning.
Mullen’s Order is…… ” not intended to be final.”
There is no specific event or date when his Order “will become” final as you have incorrectly written.
Another source:
So it’s a long term temporary order, effective until a specific event or date.
I’m trying to bring in external sources. I don’t use my own theories to back up other theories I have.
We haven’t verified that “Order Denying Motion To Dismiss” is an Interlocutory Order. That theory is still hypothetical. I haven’t found anything supporting that theory.
Your cutting and pasting and then selectively intrpreting the material to protect your ego.. Anjali already cited the exact on point explanation. Go be sad.
None of the claims were “thrown out” None.
I have already analysed those 3 points in Anjali’s post #164. There’s no dispute from my side. I had similar conclusion in post #162.
Correct. I don’t believe any of us have claimed that either. You have read something out of context (ignoring the quote). I analysed those 3 points in that post.
It was correct in the context where it was posted. So there’s no problem there.
Your conclusion in post #162 was:
“The Order Denying Motion To Dismiss was clearly not an interlocutory Order.”
Go be sad.
Absolutely correct. There’s no dispute about that. And I’m still holding that position.
The idea that the Order Denying Motion To Dismiss should be an interlocutory order seems to be completely meaningless.
You accepted that idea because you introduced it yourself (somewhere around post #154 or #155), and found that it matched some other idea you had (“pattern seeking reasoning”).
After that you have ONLY tested new factors against those two ideas, and have ignored “non matches”.
The idea is almost completely unsupported. It isn’t supported by the Order itself, you will not find the word “interlocutory” mentioned anywhere in the Order.
@Hoss
I can accept the general idea that an Order Denying Motion To Dismiss can have an interlocutory function, that it can be seen as a temporary order.
“Function” was used in the meaning of “it usually works that way”.
Motion To Dismiss will normally bring up many legal issues. Most of them will first be resolved completely during the trial.
Order Denying Motion To Dismiss will allow the case to be resolved in a normal way (trial).
Nor does it say Final. Go be sad. An order does not have to be to specifically titled Interlocutory for it to be so any more than a cow must have the word Cow stamped on it to be a cow.
Ok, I’ll bite. I don’t know how the conversation turned to an interlocutory appeal, but an appeal of a non-final order is considered interlocutory.
A defendant seeking review of a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss typically has to obtain leave (permission) from the district court that denied the motion.
This is typically done pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), which allows the district court to certify an opinion for interlocutory appeal if it meets three criteria: there exists a controlling question of law, there is substantial ground for difference of opinion concerning the ruling, and an immediate appeal would materially advance the disposition of the case.
This kind of relief is rare and is exceptionally granted.
As to the use of an expert, it’s likely for several reasons.
They will no doubt fight over whether or not a “security” was involved, but it does not matter in a fraudulent transfer lawsuit.
Here, the relevant question is whether, under North Carolina’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, there was a transfer made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a debtor’s creditor (the victims), and whether the transferee can show they received the transfer in good faith and gave reasonably equivalent value.
Bell will likely contest the good faith question as well as providing reasonably equivalent value.
The difference is that contesting good faith allows Bell to theoretically pursue the entire transfer to each defendant; courts regularly hold that a transferee can give reasonably equivalent value for the amount they are owed by the transferor (their “investment”), but that they cannot give reasonably equivalent value for any profits received.
It is likely the expert will dispute both.
Hope that helps.
I used the term “final” in a specific way there, limited to the current issue (whether the case should be thrown out or be allowed to continue). It was generally used in the meaning of “non appealable” (but there may be some exceptions).
I also used the term “final” for the case as a whole. The final judgment will usually be appealable.
Yes. Thank you. “non-final” is the point we have beat to death and the criteria for an an interlocutory appeal is of interest.
Understood.
Your perspective concerning good faith and reasonably equivalent value is new. Thanks.
If Mullen had called out for pizza it would have been a final order from that perspective.
in the initial MTI, and the later MTD in the clawback action, the defendants have not argued ‘good faith’?
they cannot argue ‘there were no securities, hence our earnings are legal’ and ‘we participated in zeek on good faith hence we shouldn’t be clawbacked’, in the same breath.
‘equivalent value’ is not directly argued, but is covered as a corollary to their argument, that they were paid for their ‘marketing and sales’ efforts.
but, thanks to jordan M for agreeing that ‘securities’ will be fought out, at trial. he may believe it is a meritless argument, but that was not the basis of the discussion.
we were basically trying to establish whether ‘securities’ will be a subject of the trial, or whether or not, judge mullen has ruled finally on this subject.
Thanks for the information. Your post answered some important questions.
“Interlocutory” popped up in post #155 or around that post, so we haven’t been discussing that for a very long time.
It wasn’t directly about appeals, it was more about whether the jurisdiction dispute would pop up again based on those same factors (without bringing in anything new).
ha. if the court which dismisses the MTD, is the court which will check if the non-final order deserves review, i wouldn’t plan a party on winning clearance for a review!
in the case of zeek, we can see that the defendants , the gilmond gang have shown no interest in a review of the order dismissing their MTD, but are carrying along , helping the court with appointment of a lawfirm for their defense in the class action civil trial.
some fresh news about bell vs grimes and bell vs kaplan.
it seems grimes and bell are in the midst of mediation talks.
we may have a settlement coming up.
this came to light because the court recently held the bell vs kaplan case in abeyance, pending the mediation in the bell vs grimes case.
Article updated with news that Berkeley Research Group have been appointed expert witness for the net-winners.
on september 14, 2015, kevin edmundson was appointed class counsel for zeek net winners by the court.
zeeknetwinnerclass.com/index
the SEC shut down zeek as a ‘ponzi’ scheme. but the court noted ‘Ponzi and/or pyramid scheme’. where did that ‘and/or’ come from?
further edmundson notes:
the receivers complaint in bell vs disner says:
judge mullens order dismissing the MTD [motion to dismiss] by disner etc says:
saying ‘ponzi AND pyramid’ scheme is legally different to saying ‘ponzi AND/OR pyramid scheme’.
‘ponzi AND pyramid’ will require showing the presence of securities in the form of ‘investment contracts’ or ‘shares of stock’.
‘ponzi AND/OR pyramid scheme’ could mean zeek was only a pyramid scheme with no external source of income, and the ‘securities’ debate will be out of the ambit.
as the receiver was appointed under the SEC action against RGV/burks, should’nt bell vs disner should continue in the same vein as SEC vs RGV/burks ie that zeek was a ponzi scheme.
the SEC complaint against zeek reads:
^^again ‘ponzi AND pyramid’ NOT ‘ponzi AND/OR pyramid’
this sudden invention of the possibility that zeek was ponzi OR pyramid has stymied me. wherefore has it come from?
Its beyond the ambit of my understandng. Ambit is a nice new word for me. Very shiny. Thanks
while you dance your life away with your new and shiny ‘ambit’ the zeek case is morphing into a strange new creature right before our eyes!
out of those stilettos and into your boots soldier!