David MacGregor’s Zeek Rewards clawback denials
After first reading David MacGregor’s Motion to Dismiss clawback litigation recently filed against him, my reaction was to wait for a decision on the matter to be made.
For those unfamiliar with MacGregor (full name: David Ian MacGregor Fraser), he was recently sued by Receiver Kenneth Bell for stealing $89,722 from Zeek Rewards victims.
Zeek Rewards was an $850 million dollar Ponzi scheme, shut down by the SEC in August of 2012.
Earlier this morning I read an article covering MacGregor’s Motion to Dismiss over at Patrick Pretty.
In it, MacGregor (right) is described as being a Sovereign Citizen. In my own readings, MacGregor’s Zeek username “sovlife” never clicked.
In any event it’s been my experience that whenever the phrase “sovereign citizen” appears in conjunction with MLM, batshit crazy rhetoric typically follows.
Some individuals who may identify with the word “sovereign” have participated in various fraud schemes, have painted their fellow human beings as slaves (see Frederick Mann) government-owned property (see Kenneth Wayne Leaming) and have expressed an irrational belief that laws do not apply to them.
Other “sovereigns” have made wild claims that they hold diplomatic immunity and thus cannot be prosecuted or are answerable only to Jesus Christ.
And so with that in mind I began my own research.
Before we get into what I found, I’ll borrow from Patrick Pretty’s coverage to give you a basic rundown:
David Ian MacGregor Fraser, a New Zealand resident who allegedly used the Zeek Rewards’ username of “sovlife,” has challenged a U.S. Court’s jurisdiction over him in a clawback lawsuit filed in February by Zeek receiver Kenneth D. Bell.
Fraser, through the American law firm, is seeking dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. He also is seeking to quash process in New Zealand, even though he acknowledges he has been served.
Among Fraser’s specific defense claims is that he was an “innocent participant” in Zeek.
Fraser further contends he had “no specific knowledge that ZeekRewards was initiated from the United States.” He also contends he was “unaware that ZeekRewards originated in North Carolina.”
Those three claims (bolded) are of significance as, along with challenges to personal jurisdiction, they form the backbone of MacGregor’s defense.
Those defenses I’d already read myself though in the same document Patrick Pretty referenced. It was this additional research though that caught my eye:
The moniker “sovLife” appears repeatedly on the website theclassifiedsplus.com through which videos play. Some of these videos point to MLM “programs” such as the Empower Network in which “sovLife” is used as the affiliate ID.
Other videos at theclassifiedsplus point to a web entity known as sovereignlife.com. This domain is styled “SovereignLife” and identifies its operator as “David MacGregor.” There is a corresponding YouTube account in that name through which videos viewable through theclassifiedsplus.com play.
One of them with an upload date of July 3, 2013, is titled “My July 4 Message for the America That Was.” In the video, a man (presumptively “David MacGregor”) holds forth that he once was a big supporter of the United States.
That support, however, apparently has evaporated in that the man contends in the video that the United States is “Dare I say it? A force for evil.”
Web records suggest MacGregor Fraser used the shortened name of “David MacGregor” when pitching Zeek online through GetResponse.com, an email service sold in the United States and other countries.
I can’t recall quite how I did it, but I managed to go up a level on the GetResponse email Patrick Pretty found.
This gave me access to over 300 marketing emails MacGregor sent out between August 2011 and September 2014.
We’ll start with the Sovereign Citizens stuff, which MacGregor is obviously big a fan of.
As Patrick Pretty discovered, MacGregor runs the website Sovereign Life, which has its own free structure attached to it.
In one email MacGregor markets Sovereign Life as being for individuals looking to
- Declare your personal independence
- Protect your money via offshore banking
- Buy gold & silver to protect against currency devaluation
- Protect your assets with an offshore trust or company
- Leverage your wealth by investing offshore
- Maximise your freedom with a fully portable occupation and
- Obtain a second residency or passport as “life insurance”
Originally hundreds of dollars was charged for this information, but now it seems to be some sort of cheap reseller deal (you pay a fee for access and then recruit others who pay you for access etc.).
To further elaborate on the type of content MacGregor provides through Sovereign Life, here’s a few snippets pertaining to the selling of passports (May 2012):
When you have a second passport or residency you have a vitally important life option – that of being able to live somewhere else legally.
I have two passports myself, and I certainly urge anyone who sees the value in having such an arrangement to do the same, sooner rather than later.
Quoting a passport service Sovereign Life is affiliated with ($749 for a package), MacGregor continues;
Escape a world where respectable members of a community can now be classified as criminals for violating unknown “laws”.
We even have a bullet proof escape plan to Brazil for those needing to escape permanently with peace of mind. After you arrive in Brazil and go through our program, you will not be extradited back to the country you escaped from.
One of the programs that can not be freely discussed allows certain people (U.S. people are excluded) to escape within six months of application with a passport that has VISA free travel to over 100 countries and costs approx. $16,500 for the basic program.
We’ve seen firsthand what Brazilian based Ponzi masterminds do when the law catches up to them.
In the lead up to the SEC shutting down TelexFree, a $1.8 billion dollar Ponzi scheme, co-founder Carlos Wanzeler fled to Brazil.
Wanzeler has since been indicted on criminal charges in the US, but believes his Brazilian dual-citizenship will see him spared extradition.
Brazilian and US authorities continue to work together, with criminal charges against Wanzeler looming in the US.
My point? By association and marketing of such services, MacGregor seemingly has no problems with Ponzi criminals stealing millions of dollars and then “escaping”.
As far as piecing together MacGregor’s Zeek Rewards related history, he seems to have gotten involved in late 2011.
Prior to that MacGregor was promoting Trivita, but seems to have dropped that once his investment in Zeek started to pay off.
Ditto Wazzub, which MacGregor marketed in December 2011 as being
F*R*E*E Forever (NO FEES) + NO AUTOSHIPS + NO JOBS TO DO + NOTHING TO SELL + NOTHING TO BUY + NOTHING TO DOWNLOAD = THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY
Yes, you will be able to make money from this – with absolutely no cost on your part.
Wazzub of course turned out to be a colossal failure, but the marketing copy above does shed light on what MacGregor was looking for in an MLM opportunity.
And that brings us to Zeek Rewards.
MacGregor initiated “beta testing” of Zeek Rewards towards the end of 2011, with an email update revealing MacGregor by that stage was intimately familiar with Zeek’s compensation plan:
Since I sent out my update on the Rotator promotion yesterday, I did receive an email from a beta test group member asking why I had made it a condition of participating that one had to be a Diamond affiliate.
Leverage is the mechanism by which you accelerate your earnings by referring others. But not everyone wants to refer others – and fair enough.
And in such cases I suggest they simply join at the Silver Level, or if buying a significant amount of sample bids, to perhaps join at the Gold level.
However, if you do intend to refer, then it is most definitely to your advantage to be at the Diamond level.
Why? Because as a Diamond affiliate you earn a greater reward on the sample bid purchases of your referred affiliates, and also those they refer.
You also trigger the matrix commissions once you have referred two people.
By January 2012, MacGregor was claiming his daily Zeek ROI was enough to pay for all of his living expenses:
I’m a great fan of what I call a portable business – an online business that gives you the freedom to live the life you desire, no matter where in the world you are living.
So when evaluating any such business I’m asking questions like: Can anyone really do this? Does it take a high level of skill? Can a realistic income be earned?
Well, I can say with confidence that by the end of January I expect to be earning enough each month to pay all my living expenses, and will have achieved this goal working no more than 30 minutes a day, and within a period of just three months.
Acknowledging that all he did was “work no more than 30 minutes a day”, remember that MacGregor contends today that he was just an “innocent participant in Zeek”.
MacGregor’s marketing of Zeek continued throughout early 2012, running on a platform of “replacing your existing job”:
By the the (sic) start of February I will be drawing an income that is sufficient to pay all my living expenses – and I can tell you, that’s a first as far as my previous experience with affiliate-based business opportunities is concerned.
If you’re looking to make extra money online, or even looking to completely replace your existing job, then I seriously urge you to look at this.
As we barreled towards the August 2012 shutdown of Zeek Rewards, MacGregor’s marketing of Zeek Rewards got even more lucrative:
Sometimes you’ve just gotta share good news!
And the good news is this: after three months of live testing I have proven the viability of a unique online business.
If you’d like to be earning $1,000 – $2,000 a month online – starting 90 days from now and with only 15 minutes work each day – then you really need to take a look at what I’ve discovered.
But there are some conditions…
* You need reliable daily access to the internet
* You need to be competent online and on the computer
* You need to have 15 minutes available every day – 24/7
* You need $5,000 – $10,000 in available working capital
Does that really sound like someone who had no idea Zeek Rewards was a Ponzi investment scheme?
On February 8th, 2012, MacGregor laid out his Zeek Rewards investment strategy:
Make sure to keep an eye out for your cash out balances, as this is your money and you should do something with it.
Of course you can withdraw it immediately if you want, but perhaps a more strategic use of it would be to buy more bids.
By “buying more bids”, MacGregor is of course referring to re-investment back into Zeek Rewards.
When to Start Withdrawing Earnings
This is entirely subjective of course. However, you should have a plan and a goal.
Basically you need to have a bid point balance in mind as your goal, so that when you reach it you turn on the 80% repurchase facility so that each day 20% of your daily profits go to your cash account.
Speeding things up
After you’ve been doing this for a couple of months, and seen how the system works, you will quickly realise how to build up your bid account balance so you can begin earning faster.
And there are really only two ways to do it.
1. Buy more sample bids
2. Refer more people
So if you think your bid account balance is growing too slowly, then give some thought as to how you can use one or both strategies to accelerate things.
1. Invest more funds into Zeek Rewards
2. Recruit more investors
According to MacGregor, those were the “only two ways” to “speed things up” in Zeek Rewards.
Pertaining specifically to MacGregor’s claim he had no idea Zeek Rewards was based out of the US, updates about Zeek Rewards’ compliance issues suggest otherwise.
In early 2012 Zeek stopped providing their customers with email addresses to dump bids onto. This was due to a “legal opinion” citing compliance issues specifically pertaining to regulatory concerns in the US.
Written on February 28th 2012, here was MacGregor’s immediate response to the announcement:
I must say I really can’t make much of the accompanying legal opinion – as it seems hard to tie it in with what Zeek is actually doing.
The obvious conclusion would appear to be that this news is “bad” news for most Zeek affiliates, in the sense it disrupts how they have been acquiring customers – via the 5cc.
Obviously this latest rule change will have a big impact and possibly unintended or unpredictable consequences, and I’m sure I need to dwell on this for a few days before reaching any final conclusions.
MacGregor never posted a followup with his conclusions, but a month later on March 24th he was pushing a third-party company selling email addresses for Zeek affiliates to dump bids onto:
It appears the company that provided customers for the 5CC is now independently offering them via the following website: zcustomers.com
I have not used this company myself, but the website looks legitimate and the service looks to be exactly what some affiliates may be looking for.
Whether MacGregor eventually did sign up for email address selling service to dump bids onto is unclear.
What is clear however is that as Zeek Rewards was going down in flames towards mid-2014, MacGregor began to investigate and pitch different opportunities to his email list.
May 7th 2012 –
As someone on my Zeek team I thought you may be interested to know about another opportunity I’ve recently become involved in.
I’m only telling those of you on this team list, as I have no intention of spreading this far and wide.
Essentially, this can be a 100% hands-free operation – and still be very profitable. But, as with any business model that does not require referrals, you do need some working capital to get started.
How much? Ideally around $1,600 or more – but it is possible to start with as little as $550.
A “100% hands-free operation” that you can get started in with “ideally $1600 or more”? And MacGregor is pitching this specifically to his Zeek Rewards team?
What MacGregor saw Zeek Rewards as should well and truly be crystal clear by now.
The name of the opportunity he’s promoting wasn’t named in the May email, but I had a look at my own archives and found Infinity Money Line reviewed in late April.
For $550, Infinity Money Line affiliates qualified themselves to receive $550 gifting payments from subsequently recruited affiliates.
Infinity Money Line used a 1-up style compensation plan, meaning if an affiliate signed up for two positions ($1600), they could sign up under themselves and “cheat” the system (passing up commissions from their second account to their first).
The only part that doesn’t fit is MacGregor’s claim that the opportunity “does not require referrals”. Otherwise Infinity Money Line is a perfect match.
I can’t say for sure Infinity Money Line was what MacGregor was pitching, but it’s a pretty close match against his sales pitch.
On May 12th, again MacGregor wrote an email update containing information specific to US-based Zeek Rewards affiliates:
As know (sic), for some time now the Compliance Training Course has been a work in progress. But now it’s live, if you don’t already know.
There is some ambiguity as to who HAS to do this, something I trust will be clarified shortly. But currently it is saying that it is mandatory for US-based affiliates.
This compliance course was written by a US based company, to specifically address regulatory compliance in the US.
But again, MacGregor contends he had no idea Zeek Rewards was based out of the US.
MacGregor’s May updates bring us to the end of his Zeek Rewards marketing efforts.
The SEC shut down Zeek Rewards on August 18th 2012. No marketing emails were sent out from MacGregor’s JustResponse account between August 10th and September 17th.
From September, MacGregor focused his efforts on pushing paid memberships to his Soverign Life website.
Just short of a year after Zeek was shut down, MacGregor dropped thousands of dollars to go “all in” in Empower Network:
As you can no doubt probably guess, I’m stoked about EN/BIM.
I see it as the perfect combination – a product range that teaches you HOW to become a badass internet marketer, a pay plan that
enables you to make excellent money while you’re learning the ropes, and a marketing system to die for. What more could you want?What you may or may not know, is that I’ve only been with EN and BIM for two weeks myself, but today I made a decision to “go all in” as the two Daves like saying.
It would be great if anyone from my team could join me, for sure.
MacGregor heavily promoted EN throughout the second half of 2013. In 2014 he published just one Empower Network related email, advertising Vick Strizheus’ Internet Traffic Formula on April 1st.
2013 also saw MacGregor get involved with Smart Media Technologies, a recruitment-driven scheme shut down by regulators in late 2014.
For most of 2014 MacGregor used his email list to publish dozens of emails marketing BitCoin hype, as well as BitBillions.
Preliminary research suggests BitBillions is a BitCoin-based recruitment-driven pyramid scheme. Following payment problems in early 2015, BitBillions now appears to have collapsed.
My question to you is: Reading everything David MacGregor published about Zeek Rewards, knowing his ties to the Sovereign Citizens movement and the types of opportunities he involved himself in after Zeek Rewards;
Was David MacGregor truly an “innocent participant” of Zeek Rewards, an $850 million dollar Ponzi scheme he didn’t know was being run out of the US?
Stay tuned for a decision on MacGregor’s Motion to Dismiss…
Footnote: You can access David MacGregor’s JustResponse marketing email archive here.
The emails are sorted reverse-chronologically, so you have to use the navigation buttons at the bottom of the page (32 pages in total, with ten emails on each page).
macgregors history of ponzi participation clearly shows that he knew the nature of the zeek scheme. he cant bullshit about it, receiver bell can easily disprove his claims.
i don’t think macgregor has included his sovereign citizen defense in his reply to the clawback action. so, that at least is not an issue here.
regarding his knowledge that zeek operated out of north carolina, USA, this is a gray area of international jurisdiction in cyberspace. bell may have to show that macgregor purposely directed contact to NC, USA.
it will be very interesting to read judge mullens opinion on the jurisdiction argument.
amazing fact: regarding the sovereign citizens movement, some of these guys have set up a a brand new country in europe called liberland just last month, in april 2015!!
if macgregor runs, bell will know where to find him ! 🙂
theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/17/taxes-are-optional-and-there-is-no-military-welcome-to-liberland-europes-brand-new-country/
I’m surprised he only managed $89k, for someone as embeded in the world of ponzis as him. Seems small beer in comparison to others who made as much as $500k.
Although he’s got New Zealand citizenship, he was born in UK, which makes him British with dual citizenship.
T Le Mont Silver would talk about ‘Sovereign Man’ Simon Black and how he would buy Silver and Gold all the time. Would explain why he was involved with OneX/QLXchange back in the day.
Also explains why he took all of other peoples money and moved to a different country other than the USA.
I found a purported copy of the Zeek TOS, which contains the following:
As MacGregor would have agreed to the TOS, regardless of whether he bothered reading it or not, his contention that he had “no specific knowledge that ZeekRewards was initiated from the United States (and) he was “unaware that ZeekRewards originated in North Carolina.” is indefensible.
His mealy-mouthed dissembling aside, I have no doubt that he knew exactly what Zeek was, i.e., a ponzi scheme.
Regardless, I’m not sure that professed ignorance of the illegal nature of a scheme is relevant in an action to clawback the ill-gotten gains from that scheme.
I suspect though that if the court gets a whiff of MacGregor’s “sovereign citizen” beliefs, it won’t work in his favour, as these waste of skin parasites and their tendency towards “frivolous” and “vexatious” court actions to defend their “right” to be free-riders in society, while still accepting the benefiots of living in that society, aren’t real popular with judges.
Given his “sovereign citizen” self-serving beliefs, I rather doubt that any of his ill-gotten gains have ever been reported to the New Zealand tax authorities.
Hopefully they’ll get wind of this and put the screws to him as well.
Perfect. There seems to be little doubt that McGregor purposely availed himself of NC law even though he has asserted otherwise.
Or NV law, if you want to maintain Zeek’s legal fiction of “Nevada business”, but there’s no doubt that the transaction was under US law, and he did so repeatedly.
just because a mailing address was provided in the TOS, it does not ‘specifically’ mean the company zeek was conducting it’s business from that address.
we know so many ponzi schemes that have mailing addresses which have nothing to do with where they are actually being run from.
even if macgregor had some idea, that zeek was functioning from NC, USA, this is not sufficient to assume jurisdiction. this conclusion came from the supreme court, USA itself, in Asahi Metal Indus. Co v. Superior Court:
during some earlier discussions about zeek and personal jurisdiction, from whichever direction we approached the subject, it always ended at the door of ‘purposefully directed actions’.
i am doubtful about whether a court outside the US, will recognize the jurisdiction of the district court NC, USA, over their citizens, unless ‘purposefully directed action’ can be proved.
In this case it does. 803 West Center St.
Lexington, NC 27292 USA is the locus. See Google maps
google.com/maps/@35.831419,-80.263806,3a,75y,200.6h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scVAf57zaexpeT59drSEMSQ!2e0
The terms of the TOS disclosed that Rex in NC was actually dba as Zeekler. This completes the nexus between North Carolina, Nevada and the participants. McGregor is wasting his money arguing otherwise.
He was informed via the TOS that ultimately he was purposely directing his actions to that little dumpy building in Lexington, NC.
Not to mention MacGregor had to deposit funds with Zeek, meaning he either sent a check to NC or deposited funds in their US bank account.
according to PPblog mcgregor has stated in his defense that:
if mcgregor frazer actually sent checks or deposited funds in US bank accounts ‘directly’, then he’s naturally fried.
the TOS reveals that rex ventures was dba zeek, and provided a mailing address. that’s it, technically speaking.
the court will not expect people to search google maps. all people are not investigators like mr hoss.
Then why did you bring up a totally irrelevant case involving the (third party) Asahi Metal Industries case ???
The Zeek TOS agreement clearly states the address of the company with whom McGregor was dealing and he had to electronically acknowledge his understanding of said TOS before he could proceed into the site
uh, because supreme court cases set Precedent, which is used in other similar cases? only the SC can change it’s own precedent, and it hasn’t done it till now?
from asahi metal, it is clear that ‘mere awareness’ that your product [or money or communication] can land up someplace, is not enough to satisfy jurisdiction.
the defendant has to ‘purposefully direct some action’ to that particular jurisdiction, which in this case is NC, USA.
Why not ???
It is, after all, a division of the US Federal Court, not some hick town sheriff holding court in the local barbershop
The Terms of Service informed McGregor of the nexus between himself and North Carolina. The conduct of the parties further demonstrated it. Streetview is not required to establish the relationship.
Then you should link to the precedent of a more similar case?
Personal jurisdiction is a “secondary issue”. Similarities between cases will need to be about the primary issue. So you must first identify that to be able to determine the similarities between cases.
Asahi Metal involved a defendant in Taiwan trying to implement a third party in Japan (seeking indemnification for losses related to the lawsuit), in a lawsuit in California.
Neither of them had any specific connection to California. The fact that one of them had been sued in California isn’t that type of “specific connection”.
So you’re looking at the wrong type of case. It’s not similar enough to be relevant as a precedence.
Asahi was marketing its product “to the world.” McGregor signed a contract with a North Carolina company. See the difference?
The TOS identifies the relationship between the parties to be governed by Nevada laws. It doesn’t exactly support personal jurisdiction in North Carolina.
Personal jurisdiction is based on N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-75.4, on the fact that “money or other things of value” were sent from North Carolina to MacGregor at MacGregor’s order or direction (withdrawal requests).
Relevant evidence to prove the “purposefully connection” will be the transactions. The TOS won’t be very relevant, since the dispute isn’t about that.
Sure it does. The TOS disclosed that Zeekler.com was the dba of a North Carolina company. McGregor had actual notice of this when he entered the contract.
Choice of law provisions are not the issue here. McGregor knew or should have known that he was conducting business with a North Carolina company and that is why a NC court has personal jurisdiction over him.
– what i read above is just a mailing address. it does not say ‘rex venture group head office’ or ‘rex venture group branch office’.
a mailing address can be ‘construed’ to be the office address of a company, but unless clearly specified, it cannot be presumed as ‘fact’.
– if asahi metal was sending it’s product out into the world, then an internet payment via alertpay can also be viewed as being sent out to the world.
it could be received in nevada or NC or anywhere else zeek chose to receive it. the defendant did not purposefully direct the money to NC and neither did he purposefully direct NC to send him funds.
– the contract was signed with zeekrewards in nevada. no contract was signed with either zeekrewards of rex ventures in NC.
– without going into the details of the asahi case, the case established the legal conclusion that ‘mere awareness’ is not sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts test. the asahi case is used in cyberspace law. so, it is relevant in this case.
– it doesn’t matter whether a division of the US Federal Court, or some hick town sheriff holding court in the local barbershop, seeks jurisdiction over a foreign national, they will have to satisfy the conditions demanded by the foreign court for permitting jurisdiction.
in internet based cases, there’s barely any agreed upon international law to use as a guide.
The mention of the address being ‘just a mailing address’ doesn’t make sense. It was common knowledge among all member where the business was based.
Their ‘Red Carpet’ days at that office coupled with general public customer queues near the end left no doubt about such a thing.
The TOS proves he knew or should have known that he was contracting with Rex Ventures of NC. Where the contract was signed is immaterial.
common knowledge means squat, legally speaking.
you have to show ‘minimum contacts’ of the defendant with the forum state, for jurisdiction to apply. as i have mentioned several times, mere awareness [or common knowledge], is not enough.
What sort of nonsense is that ??
“without going into details”
It’s all about the “details”
McGregor simply couldn’t have joined Zeek Rewards without electronically acknowledging he had read and understood the TOS agreement which specified he was dealing with a company based in North Carolina.
IOW, he knew or should have known with whom he was dealing.
Your continual reference to the Asashi case only demonstrates your inability to research and find like for like comparisons when dealing with legal matters.
The fact “Anjali” say the Asashi decision is binding in this matter doesn’t make it so.
It should be noted also, The NC court is a federal court, not a state or local court. The fact it is based in North Carolina doesn’t detract from the fact the charges are Federal charges i.e. offences against the United States of America
Mr MacGregor also contends he had no knowledge Zeek operated from within the USA
Explaining away how that came about will be a challenge, even for Anjali
littleroundman, I simply can’t agree. He must have been living in darkmushroomland.
After all, if you’d asked any member where it was based and where physical business was being done there sin’t a single one who’d have said they didn’t know.
So if he has an alibi for that location he might get away with it.
The primary issue of the case is about Fraudulent Transfers (NC UFTA). That’s what the case is based on.
It means that the debtors (Paul Burks and RVG) have transferred money or other things of value “With intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor” (and some similar reasons).
The arguments supporting personal jurisdiction will need to be relevant to that primary issue.
The TOS could have been relevant in a different type of case, e.g. in a contract dispute. But it isn’t very relevant in this case.
it’s the “willful ignorance” defense, i.e. “I guess it could have been illegal, but I didn’t know for sure, so you can’t hold that against me.” (Sure we can…)
the TOS agreement only established that mcgregor had a contract with zeekrewards in nevada.
there was a mailing address provided for rex ventures dba zeek .
how are you ‘Sure’ rex ventures wasn’t run out of brazil or the caymans, or swaziland? was the question of zeek/rex ventures actual physical location ‘specifically’ provided in the TOS?
don’t be daft on public time.
Mc Gregor claims that the Fed Court in NC has no personal jurisdiction over him. If that is in fact so, then it matters not a fig what the NC UFTA says, for McGregor would not be subject to the court’s jurisdiction anyway.
How did you come to that conclusion about “internet based cases”, i.e. why did you identify the Zeek Rewards clawback litigations like that?
Those lawsuits are primarily based on Fraudulent Transfer (NC UFTA), so the correct way to identify them should normally be “fraudulent transfer based cases” or “clawback lawsuits”
The difference is that the transactions were sent to specific people. Specific amounts sent from RVG’s merchant account to specific ewallet accounts.
Asahi didn’t send specific products to specific people.
every case has different details. the underlying question of law may be the same in many cases. when a precedent is set by the supreme court it is used in cases that ask the same kind of question.
in the burnlounge appeal order, we don’t need to go into the details of the actual working of burnlounge, but use the finding of the court that ‘self consumption is commissionable’ as a future reference for cases.
similarly, in asahi metals the ‘principle’ that was established was that ‘mere awareness is not sufficient to satisfy the minimum contacts test’.
so mc gregor being aware that zeek may work from NC or being aware that his payments may come from there, is not enough , unless he has himself directed contact to NC purposefully.
the clawback litigation is for fraudulent transfers [NC UFTA] in an internet based business [zeekrewards], where payments were made and received by internet payment processors like alertpay.
zeek reps who have visited the zeek NC office, have transferred money into zeek bank accounts directly, who have built a downline in NC, will have clear contacts with the forum state.
people who’s transaction were only over the internet, exist in a gray area, its not clear what their position is vis a vis jurisdiction.
i have not seen a case where jurisdiction has been allowed on the basis of internet exchange with no ‘purposeful direction’ to the forum state.
Stuff and nonsense.
You’ve transposed a completely irrelevant court decision into the another case (as usual)
Mac Gregor is not a third party, as was the case with Asahi.
He dealt directly with Zeek in North Carolina (and acknowledged he knew he was doing so)
On top of which, the last time I checked, NC has been within the USA since way before either Mac Gregor or Zeek existed.
Thanks for the legal lesson, as distorted as it is.
However, the operative word is “MAY”
Once again, the Asahi case is not a precedent in this matter and neither is the same question being asked.
Whether or not it is ruled the NC district court has jurisdiction in the matter will have nothing to do with the Asahi decision.
Do you believe that the Receiver will use the TOS as one of the counter arguments against MacGregor’s Motion To Dismiss?
My prediction is that he won’t even mention anything about “signing contracts” or “Terms of Service”, and that the primary counter arguments will be about the transactions.
Do you believe the court will separate legally between different types of transactions?
My prediction is that the court will analyse the different arguments, but it will not identify any significant legal differences between the use of AlertPay and other transaction methods.
That prediction is based on that NC UFTA doesn’t separate between different types of transactions like that.
He should, for it demolishes McGregor’s assertion that he did not know that dba Zeekler was a US company operating out of North Carolina.
On the other hand Bell need not present this evidence since its only necessary to show that McGregor received fraudulent transfers from the North Carolina company to obtain relief and what McGregor knew or did not know is irrelevant.
However, The TOA diclosures may, if placed into the record, show that McGregor knowingly consented to personal jurisdiction of the US courts by entering into the Zeekler contract.
Generally (or so I understand it) knowing or “puposeful” consent is required for New Zealand to enforce a US judgment against one of its citizens, so entering the TOA disclosures into the record at this stage, while not necessary to obtain a US judgment supports the effort to enforce the judgment in New Zealand.
you are so muddled, its difficult to know where to begin.
– there is no concept such as – north carolina is in the US, and the contract was in nevada which is in the US, so US has jurisdiction over foreign defendants. there is no ‘overall general US jurisdiction’.
– the federal court of NC, can have jurisdiction only over persons who have contact with the forum state of NC. just because it is a federal court does not mean it has jurisdiction over a person who has contact with nevada or any other state in the US.
– for a court to have jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants it needs two things
1] statutory authority for jurisdiction over foreign defendants ie long arm statutes.
2] they must satisfy constitutional due process requirements ie minimum contacts [re: international shoe], reasonable anticipation [re:Volkswagen], purposefully directed activities[re:asahi metals] and foreseeable effects[re: calder].
what has bell said in his motion for clawback?
1]
^^this establishes that the court has statutory authority under the long arm statutes and the condition for the long arm statute jurisdiction are met.
2]
^^this is to establish that constitutional due process requirements are met, because defendants established minimum contacts and purposefully directed actions to NC, and defendants could have foreseen being haled to NC because they voluntarily joined zeek which functioned from NC.
mc gregor has replied to bells arguments for jurisdiction by saying:
– he did not have ‘specific’ knowledge that zeek operated from the US or from NC , ie he did not foresee being haled there.
– he did not direct NC to send him payments in either malaysia or newzealand, ie no purposefully directed action
– he sent and received payments through alertpay and never set foot in NC, ie he created no minimum contacts.
the Fact Is that the law is not keeping up with the internet. we are currently in a ‘no mans land’ virtual space with no geographical boundaries, which is seemingly out of the clutch of a world defined by boundaries.
what to do?
Sue everybody everywhere that made money from Zeekler and confirm what works….and what doesn’t.
Oh wait, that’s already being done. The net winners are toast and so is Mcgregor.
Judgments in favor of the estate are virtually a foregone conclusion and the TOA disclosures demonstrate knowledge and specific intent across international boundaries.
Combine the two and it should permit enforcablity of US judgments in foreign courts. It only has to play out over time.
the question is not about ‘transfers’, the question is whether the federal court of NC, has jurisdiction over a guy in newzealand, who was engaged with the online business of zeekrewards.
i agree with that totally. maybe the boundaries of constitutional due process requirements will get expanded to include internet based transactions of the nature of zeek.
my comments are based on the status of the law NOW.
It seems to me that the question of what will satisfy foreign countries to enforce US judgments is the only issue that bears watching…and I think the TOA covers that base, which is to say that anyone who executed a TOA knew or should have known that dba Zeek was in fact Rex in North Carolina.
Bell has completely sidestepped the “internet” issues you bring up by using the NC UFTA to recover fraudulent transfers. Under that Act it does not matter how or where a net winner came into possession of funds.
So long as receipt can be proven the Act provides for recovery of the funds and a US judgment should be the result.
So you don’t predict anything specific?
It will prove that he DIDN’T consent to personal jurisdiction of the North Carolina court. So the TOS isn’t exactly very relevant to use as evidence.
The jurisdiction in question here isn’t a general U.S. jurisdicton, but jurisdiction of the North Carolina court. The lawsuit is based on state laws rather than federal laws.
You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.
correct. it goes without saying that the federal court of NC will find it has jurisdiction over the foreign defendants.
how foreign courts perceive this jurisdiction is the interesting part, and currently the legal ‘climate’ is not conducive. if this case spans over the years, who knows what all will change in the legal space?
‘internet issues’ have to be addressed under the same traditional parameters of jurisdiction ie statutory authority and constitutional due process, which bell has addressed as i pointed out in post#39.
NC UFTA cannot supersede the question of jurisdiction. a foreign court will First Check for Jurisdiction, and only after that address the question of fraudulent transfers.
has there been an UFTA cooperation treaty signed by world nations? countries may have their own versions of UFTA, but Jurisdiction will come first.
You seem to look at it from a lawmaker perspective, rather than from the perspective of a court? Lawmakers can handle questions like that, but a court can’t.
The question about whether a federal court in North Carolina has personal jurisdiction over a guy in New Zealand is a hypothetical issue. Federal trial courts don’t have the authority to hear cases like that.
It doesn’t matter if you include “who was engaged with the online business of zeekrewards” either. It will still be a hypothetical issue. There’s no identifiable legal issue a federal court can resolve in that scenario.
It doesn’t work that way. Courts will recognize judgments from foreign courts based on comity.
If you are talking about how Malaysia, India, the Dominican Republic etc. view the internet of things v. enforceability then maybe yes, but insofar as effecting whether Bell will obtain judgments in favor of the estate the internet could just as well not exist.
Taking into account comity, international treaties and politics the enforeceability of US judgments abroad is a work in progress and the United Nations has never been unanimous on anything.
comity is not only a courtesy or legal reciprocity, but in today’s comingled world is even interpreted as a ‘legal obligation’.
comity, in the context of our discussion, means foreign courts will ‘enforce the judgement’ of a nation based on the principle of comity, even if there are no treaties for ‘enforcement of judgements’ between the nations.
but hoss and norway are sorely mistaken if they think, a foreign judgement will be enforced merely on ‘comity’.
comity comes into force ONLY if the nation seeking to enforce its judgement on a foreigner has JURISDICTION over that person.
Jurisdiction comes First. jurisdiction supercedes UFTA, comity, or as hoss would believe the ‘supremacy’ of a US federal court. jurisdiction is the ‘holy grail’ without which no court has any power, be it in the US, malaysia, india or the dominican republic.
comity does not mean unconditional implementation of a foreign judgement, it only means that after checking for proper Jurisdiction and other factors, a foreign court may implement the judgement without retrying the case.
so, it all balls down to Jursdiction. no escapin’ it. quit fightin’ it.
NO. its a question of law.
there are statutes and constitutional due process requirements which are clearly defined, to help a court establish whether it has jurisdiction over out of state defendants.
I haven’t claimed otherwise. The “comity post” simply offered a correction to your “UFTA treaties” idea. 🙂
Correct enough. “Jurisdiction is the holy grail, without which a court has no power”. But then you should probably check your own ideas?
It seems like you only applied that reasoning to the North Carolina court, but failed to apply it to a New Zealand court. If you apply the same ideas to both courts the reasoning will probably become more correct.
I should probably have said “hypothetical scenario” rather than “hypothetical issue”.
Your scenario was hypothetical with no relevant facts a court could be able to identify.
Here’s your post #42:
There’s no relevant facts there, e.g. the description doesn’t mention anything about the type of contact MacGregor actually had.
If the contact he actually had with the forum state is defined to be irrelevant, then he clearly can’t have had any “minimum contact” either.
McGregor’s assertions that the Federal Court in Charlotte doesn’t have personal jurisdiction over him seem ineffective and futile in a purely US context. They may have some validity in a New Zealand courtroom when enforceblity of a US judgment comes up.
I never said that comity was relavant here. I have no idea what New Zealand law will have to say on the subject. They have their own rules.
I have claimed the opposite. “Relevant facts from the underlying lawsuit will be highly relevant for personal jurisdiction based on minimum contact with the forum state”.
A court can’t make decisions (of the types relevant here) based solely on statutes, precedents and other sources of law.
What are you squabbling about? The NC UFTA claims personal jurisdiction over anyone, anywhere in the universe that has received a fraudulent transfer from a North Carolina entity.
There may be supplemental information provided by Bell, such as McGregor sent multiple withdrawal requests to Rex, but its the receipt of fraudulent transfers alone that provides North Carolina’s personal jurisdiction over net winners not the requests.
Mcgregor’s rock solid and indefeasible defense against North Carolina’s personal jurisciction under the UFTA is to prove that he did not receive any transfers….and yet he has not even bothered to assert that.
Which post did you respond to?
“What are you squabbling about?” indicates that you responded to one of Anjali’s posts. 🙂
“money or other things of value sent from North Carolina to Defendants at their order or direction“.
Withdrawal requests will be relevant in that context.
Paul Burks didn’t randomly send money to MacGregor. MacGregor initiated those transactions himself by sending withdrawal requests.
You do understand the meaning of inter alia don’t you because that is the verbiage used prior to your quoted passage.
You quote only one possible set of criteria that Bell could have used in his complaint, and while applicable because it fits the facts, neither order or direction are requisites to proving jurisdiction or obtaining relief under GS 1-75.4.
We have been over this before by the way. So quit squabling
“A phrase used in Pleading to designate that a particular statute set out therein is only a part of the statute that is relevant to the facts of the lawsuit and not the entire statute”.
Why did you mention that?
I prefer arguments actually used in one of the complaints, rather than arguments he hypothetically could have used. “Applicable because it fits the facts” sounds like a perfectly good idea to me.
I didn’t say anything about required or “only set of criteria”, I said it would be relevant.
I have identified the transactions and the withdrawal requests to be the most “suit related conduct”, based on the whole complaint and the types of evidence we have seen.
I have held that position at least since early January 2015.
One example (post #185 in the “Australia” thread):
behindmlm.com/companies/zeek-rewards/zeek-rewards-receiver-sues-top-australian-net-winners/#comment-328721
Well then I am sorry to say, you miss the point, because even a cursory reading of the applicable statute would inform you that personal jurisdiction is obtained when a defendant recieves something of value fraudulently from a North Carolina entity… not when requesting a money transfer.
Since the squabble was over what provides personal jurisdicton in this matter it is plain that receipt of fraudulent transfers is the requisite condition.
If I wash my dog + recieve a fraudulent transfer I come under the personal jurisdiction of the court even though I made no request for funds.
So either you are discussing what is necessary for jurisdiction or you are discussing what Bell wrote in the Complaint and you are doing the latter.
Please refer to a specific rule / a specific source?
“Applicable statute” can be both the NC UFTA and the NC Gen. §1-75.4.
Rule 5d of the NC Gen seems to be the most relevant one.
I’m not simply repeating Bell’s arguments. Most of my arguments are based on knowledge of the case.
Focus on your own arguments rather than mine. You will need to specify which rule you have looked at.
Your “cursory reading” have probably focused on the wrong rule?
Rule 5e:
i already posted mcgregor’s reply about the kind of contacts he had [or dint have] with zeek in post#40.
yessir correct enough, so no point squabbling further. i haven’t seen any case where jurisdiction has been allowed over a foreign defendant without ‘purposefully directed activities’ and i’m saying mcgregors activities do not amount to ‘purposefully directed activities’. i hope you shall find this correct enough too, sir 🙂
The Receiver has filed a response to Fraser’s lack of jurisdiction motion to dismiss.
In it, Fraser’s scamming is covered in more detail:
In a nutshell, the Receiver addresses the jurisdiction issue by providing a heap of evidence that Fraser had to of known ZR was based in North Carolina, and that this interaction is the basis of jurisdiction.
I’ll wait till Judge Mullen makes a decision on the motion before publishing an article.
My prediction, based on the strength of the Receiver’s arguments versus Frasers’ “I knew nothing!” defense, is that we’re going to see his Motion to Dismiss rejected.
oz, where can we read that? link please!!
the real test will be whether new zealand will enforce the judgement based on ‘fraser had to have known’ that zeek operated out of north carolina and hence he was knowingly directing actions at it.
Don hasn’t uploaded it yet.
The real test will more likely be based on whether Fraser had the necessary relevant contact with the forum state.
Your logical reasoning goes like this:
1. Favorite legal theory (“the one and only true theory”)
2. Does the facts of the case match that theory?
A court works like this:
1. Facts of the case
2. Identify relevant and correct rules or legal theories
3. Apply the rules to the facts.
The difference is “apply theories to facts” versus “apply facts to a favorite theory”.
It will be similar to “if the reality doesn’t match my theory, then the reality must be wrong”.
@Anjali
Here’s one of your previous arguments about jurisdiction:
You have replaced that “favorite theory” now with a new one, but you’re still using exactly the same METHOD. “Find ONE favorite theory and apply it to ALL cases. Don’t question the correctness of that method, just use it blindly”.
You have never questioned your own method. You have only repeated the same method over and over again.
I will be able to prove that courts don’t use that same method. They will carefully try to identify the facts of the case first, and then they will carefully look for relevant rules to apply to those facts. So they will apply different rules to different cases.
the reality is that, for a state to have personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, it has to satisfy minimum contacts. to establish minimum contacts you have to show that the defendant purposefully directed action at the forum state.
this is real law, its not a theory or anything.
the minimum contact should of course be relevant. for instance in an important decision in Pres-Kap Inc. v. System One Direct Access, the appeals court found that merely online financial transaction with the forum state is not enough to allow jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, because he may not even be aware of the location of the computer database and even if he was aware, it ‘would have been of little importance to it [him]’.
it made no difference to fraser whether zeek was located in north carolina or nevada or the bahamas, he was not directing his payments to anywhere in particular, and neither was he directing payment requests to anywhere in particular.
A valid argument could have been that ZeekRewards had a local organizer in New Zealand, or that a local organizer organized all contacts with ZeekRewards.
In “Bell v. Pleym et al” (the Norwegian net winners), one of the defendants is “CMS Huset AS”, a private limited liability company. One of the co-defendants there may have a valid argument against personal jurisdiction.
People may have invested in a local program, e.g. a type of teambuilder program where one central organizer have managed all the individual accounts. Programs like that do exist.
Money invested via a local organizer will only create a contact with that local organizer.
1. fraser did not have any direct contact with NC, ie he did not direct any actions purposefully to NC
2. the correct legal rules as established by caselaw is that fraser should have established minimum contacts with NC in either of the following ways:
1) have direct contact with the state;
2) have a contract with a resident of the state;
3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state;
4) seek to serve residents of the forum state;
5)have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.
from the above only point 1 is relevant to fraser’s case. direct contact can be established only by directing some action to the forum state, which is the same as ‘purposefully directed action’.
3. you can apply the rules to the facts and see what you find?
bells case against fraser about ‘he had to have known’ that zeek was based out of NC is a weak argument. i haven’t read bell’s reply yet, so i don’t know on what basis he has claimed ‘he had to have known’ but i hope its on something solid.
Then point to ONE relevant case where a court have used a similar method?
You’re starting you’re argument with a bold statement “the reality IS”. Now it’s time to prove that it really is so.
You will need to point to a relevant case where the court have ignored the underlying facts of the case, where the court have jumped directly to a “perfect algorithm” or to a “favorite legal theory” and have made a decision based on that.
The reality is that a court can have personal jurisdiction based on relevant North Carolina rules, e.g. the one posted in post #62.
When you have looked for relevant cases, you may have looked at more vague ones where the jurisdiction issue really have needed a decision from a higher court. But that may not be the case here.
Fraser requested withdrawals from the back office to the payment processor? Those transactions didn’t happen spontaneously by themselves without any interaction by Fraser?
That’s your NEW “favorite theory”, i.e. you have replaced your old one. But you haven’t replaced your method, it still revolves around finding “favorite theories that can be applied to ALL cases”.
I questioned that method. I didn’t question the theory, because the theory may be relevant in some cases.
Or to be more specific, I questioned the IDEA that there is some type of “perfect algorithm” that can be applied to each and every case, the idea that your 5 rules will be relevant in each and every case, the idea that you have found some type of “Golden Rules”.
Please point to a relevant case where the Supreme Court identifies it that way? Don’t point to your own ideas, point to an actual case.
1. “Most relevant fact”
In Bell v. MacGregor Fraser, the most relevant fact is that Fraser made frequent withdrawal requests to RVG and received payouts to his ewallet account.
That fact is highly relevant because the lawsuit is about exactly that. Any “supporting facts” will be about other types of connections he had.
Some conflicting facts may exist. Fraser pointed out that he didn’t have any direct connection with RVG in North Carolina, because all withdrawal requests where made through internet based AlertPay. But that isn’t really true.
2. “Most relevant rule”
Then we will need to identify the relevant rule = NC Gen. 75-4 Rule 5d “money or other things of value sent from a resident of North Carolina to the defendant, at the order or direction of the defendant”.
3. “Other rules”
Then we can identify any conflicting rules = “Due process rules”, “general fairness rules”. We can also look at your “favorite rules” and see if they are relevant in this case.
A minimum contact with the forum state IS relevant. The question is whether we should apply YOUR rules (the ones you found in a Supreme Court decision) or the NC Gen 75-4 rules, or BOTH those rules.
4. “Less relevant facts”
Your favorite theory have caused you to bring in factors like “internet based”, based on the reasoning that since “internet based” was relevant in another case it will be relevant here and in ALL other cases.
If only ONE out of FIVE criteria can be said to be relevant, it doesn’t exactly sound like “the most relevant set of rules”?
It’s very far from being a “perfect algorithm”, “the Golden Set of Rules that can be applied directly to each and every jurisdiction dispute and will produce a perfect resolution each and every time”. Yet you seem to believe it is something like that? 🙂
you should take your question to the US supreme court because they were the idiots who laid down the ‘golden rule’ for personal jurisdiction all the way back in 1945 in ‘international shoe’.
the minimum contacts rule is STILL the bedrock of personal jurisdiction,the supreme court has not changed its mind about it yet.
over the years ‘minimum contacts’ has been refined to more clearly define WHAT those minimum contacts are. these refinements through case law establish that for minimum contacts to be satisfied at least one of the following must be shown:
1) have direct contact with the state
2) have a contract with a resident of the state
3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state;
4) seek to serve residents of the forum state;
5)have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.
minimum contacts is now being translated to address transactions on the internet, but courts are having a difficult time with this.
can you show me a case of international jurisdiction where a person has been hauled over continents, for a few internet transactions and No Other Direct Contact?
of course fraser requested withdrawals from zeek via his backoffice.
but how were these withdrawal requests directed at north carolina?
1]yes, its not a perfect algorithm. times keep changing and algorithms have to be tweaked to keep pace. currently we’re figuring how to adapt this algorithm to the internet.
2] well, the supreme court established the ‘golden rule’ of ‘minimum contacts’ and caselaw precedents have established what kind of contacts are necessary for minimum contacts to be fulfilled. you have a problem? take it up with the SC.
3] the golden rules up until now do not say: ‘if you transact online with an online company, you can be haled to the jurisdiction of the online’s company’s physical presence, because you had to have known the physical location of the online company’.
if such a rule actually comes into play, no one is going to transact anything over the net, because god knows where all you’ll get haled.
such a rule will help nab fraser, but will be a disservice to rest of the world.
Having had the benefit of reading the Response, I can say that Bell has responded to all of Anjali’s concerns…and then some.
The crux of Bell’s argument is that the defendant “purposely availed” himself of North Carolina and US law. He then presents the evidence and precedents to back this up and asks the court to apply a common sense interpretation.
“Purposeful availment” is the central concept and Bell notes that New Zealand net losers have obtained the benefit of North Carolina/US law as creditors because of it. So did McGregor.
Shall a court in New Zealand find that McGregor did not purposely avail himself of the protections of US Law but the Net Zealand net losers did? That does not seem likely.
…it is also noteworthy that even though McGregor made multiple requests for withdrawals that is not why North Carolina has jurisdiction.
North Carolina has jurisdiction over Mcgregor for the same reason it has jurisdiction over hundreds of thousands of net losers. All alike availed themselves of the protection of North Carolina law when they signed up on Zeekler.com.
Bell is only showing here that McGregor’s argument that he did not know he was doing it is tenuous (at best)
In “Walden v. Fiore”, personal jurisdiction would be in conflict with Due Process Rules. The alleged minimum contact was simply too constructed to be relevant.
The case was dismissed by the District Court based on lack of personal jurisdiction. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, but the Supreme Court reversed it back again (the case was dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction).
Walden didn’t have enough minimum contact with the forum state of a type relevant to the lawsuit. “For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State”.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-574_8mj9.pdf
1. In Walden v. Fiore, no specific “long arm statute” had been identified. In Bell v. MacGregor Fraser, the NC Gen 75-4 has clearly been identified as relevant.
2. “Relevant rules”, as referred to by Fiore, was identified to be case law Calder v. Jones = “Walden definitely knew, after the seizure but before the false affidavit, that Fiore would be harmed in Nevada”.
3. Walden’s knowledge about the forum state was seen as relevant by the Appeals Court, but it was seen as less relevant by the Supreme Court = we can’t draw any conclusion about how important that type of knowledge really is. It may be relevant in some cases, but less relevant in others.
it comes back to ‘purposefully directed’ activities, and it will be interesting to read how bell has argued this.
Zeekler.com !! is this is the Grand Trick bell has Up His Sleeve? where was zeekler.com registered to?
But one major difference is that the Supreme Court doesn’t try to apply your “5 rules” to each and every case. SC’s “Golden Rule” is much simpler, and it doesn’t try to specify those factors you try to use.
But that doesn’t mean that your “5 rules” is the bedrock?
The bedrock is “minimum contact with the forum state, relevant to the lawsuit”. Calder’s knowledge about the Nevada residency was not seen as very relevant.
Sorry, but there you’re referring to case specific rules, rather than to the general one. So those rules will not be relevant in each and every case.
It’s not “a refinement of the bedrock rule”. That’s just some type of “fancy label” you have applied to it. 🙂
Please point to a relevant source (other than your own ideas) where it has been identified like that?
“Bell v. Parker et al” (Canadian net winners) Most relevant
“Bell v. Australian net winners”
“Bell v. Pleym et al” (Norwegian net winners)
“Bell v. BVI net winners”
“Bell v. UK net winners”
8 other related clawback litigations.
Its no trick at all. The net losers will not dispute North Carolina’s jurisdiction for they benefit from it, and the only net winner to dispute it is Frazer (McGregor) who by all appearances (and the extensive evidence presented) knew or should have known he was conducting business with a NC company.
I dare say the same will hold true for all other foreign and domestic net winners if they dispute the issue.
From the filing:
From Bell’s Response:
try wiki? wiki says the supreme court refined the basic bedrock rule of minimum contacts to establish the ‘5 rules'[actually 6] which you have some beef with?
go punch out wiki:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts
have these cases been decided? are you admitting fraser and others did not have any direct contact with the forum state of NC?
🙂
this info was on the homepage of zeek rewards!
well boys, its a wrap then.
i found this on KS changs page:
so, if zeekler.com was operating under a license from north carolina, and every person who joined zeekrewards also signed up with zeekler.com….they were purposefully availing of NC law.
finis.
bell is king, we are ding a ling.
But what does that source tell you?
It lists 6 different criteria from 4 different cases, plus 2 rules from “International Shoe Co v. Washington.
Primary, general rules:
[1] International Shoe Co. v. Washington
Secondary, case specific rules:
[2] McGee v. International Life Insurance
[3] Gray v. American Radiator
[4] World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson
[5] Calder v. Jones
Elements #2, #3, #4 and #5 were relevant in those 4 cases, but they will not be relevant in ALL cases. They are not a “refinement of the bedrock rule”.
Walden v. Fiore was primarily based on the theory from Calder v. Jones, a case specific rule about “effect of intentional tort”. It was seen as “not very relevant” by the District Court and the Supreme Court.
that source tells me that there is a basic rule about ‘minimum contacts’ for allowing jurisdiction .
that source tells me that
naturally all these refinements were made through actual hearings of actual cases, because that is how law develops.
the supreme court does not sit in a vacuum writing down laws to be followed. they hear cases and keep building and refining on that.
a judgement in a particular ‘type’ of case sets the precedent for other similar cases. of course each case is different, but the basic underlying question of law, may be the same.
anyways norway, we can see that bell has not used any new fangled ideas or new ‘rules’ in arguing his case against foreign defendants. he is using the established argument for jurisdiction ie showing purposefully directed contact with the forum state.
It supported my viewpoint more than it supported yours. You included too much in your “refinement theory”, you applied it to the whole paragraph rather than to that specific sentence.
Here’s some more from that same source.
The personal jurisdiction in “Bell v. MacGregor Fraser” is primarily based on the NC “long arm statute” (NC Gen 1-75.4 Rule 5d), “money or other things of value sent by a resident of North Carolina to the defendant at his order or direction”.
Those transactions gave rise to the claim itself. It should normally be the primary argument in a case specific argumentation.
What Fraser could read on ZeekRewards’ website didn’t give rise to any claim. It should normally be presented as additional information, to show that Fraser had more than the primary type of contact.
notice the phrase “to the defendant at his order or direction”?
the ‘long arm statute’ is overlapping with the constitutional due process requirement that the defendant has ‘purposely directed’ action to the forum state.
to establish jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, a US court requires BOTH , long arm statutes and constitutional due process requirements.
the long arm statute just means the state has signed up, and is eligible, to have jurisdiction over foreign defendants.
It clearly is. There hasn’t been any disputes about that. The dispute has been about whether those case specific rules can be a part of the “bedrock rule” (applicable to ALL cases).
“Case specific” means that it may be relevant in similar types of cases (the underlying lawsuit). Commercial cases may need different criteria than tort cases, those two types of cases are simply not similar enough.
There’s no dispute about that. The dispute is about those case specific criteria you included in your “refinement theory”.
The type of case will need to be based on the underlying lawsuit. “Commercial case” is one type, “tort case” may be a second type, “clawback claim” may be a third type, “contract cases” may be a fourth type, and so on and so forth.
The relevant facts will come from the underlying lawsuit.
The dispute here is about your theory that “ALL jurisdiction cases will be about the same five or six criteria” (“they’re part of the Golden Rule”). That simply isn’t true.
I haven’t looked at that document yet. The document hadn’t been uploaded yet when I tried to check ASDupdates a few hours ago.
From Bell’s response:
Universal Leather. 4th Circuit Case brought in North Carolina.
Decided — December 14, 2014.
leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020141208065/UNIVERSAL%20LEATHER,%20LLC%20v.%20KORO%20AR,%20S.A.
Where is the document available?
I have only read the PPblog version, and the arguments there were clearly based on the facts of the case, e.g. “MacGregor did …” arguments.
I have browsed quickly through that case. It didn’t seem to make much sense using that case in support of an argument.
May 22:
FDCC Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel filed a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court (an Amicus Brief, “friend of court”). So that case hasn’t been decided yet.
unfairtradepracticesnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/FederationOfDefenseAndCorporateCounsel.pdf
Its 4th District, It from North Carolina, its recent and most importantly its the case Bell cited in support of his response.
Has anyone made an amicus brief? Has the the writ of certiori been granted? Has the Supreme Court overturned the ruling?
Not yet… and maybe never.
The decision at District 4 level stands unless overturned…and so for now the decision is binding and Bell rightly cited it and Mullen should take his guidance from it.
The two-prong test there should be this one:
Since I haven’t read that court document (Bell’s response to the MTD), it will be impossible for me to understand the reasoning there. It doesn’t seem to make much difference whether those two prongs are interpreted as 2 prongs or if they are merged into one question.
N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4 (1)d seems to be the wrong type of rule, not very relevant for the clawback litigation.
MacGregor Fraser didn’t have much “local presence or status” in North Carolina when he was served the lawsuit.
Are you really sure you found those citations in your post #94 in the Zeek document?
PPblog referred to quite normal arguments based on the facts of the case, quite relevant arguments.
I gave you a description and a link to that one.
in a case which asks for jurisdiction over a foreign defendant , you have to establish ‘minimum contacts’.
whether the case is commercial, tort, clawback, contract or a fourth type or a fifth type, you bloody better well show minimum contact.
minimum contact can be shown by either of these ways:
1) have direct contact with the state;
2) have a contract with a resident of the state;[2]
3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state;
4) seek to serve residents of the forum state;
5) have satisfied the Calder effects test; or
6) have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.
in internet based cases the direct contact is replaced by ‘purposeful availment’, because a defendant may never establish any physical contact with the state.
purposeful availment means that the defendant has purposefully directed ‘actions’ at the forum state.
from what hoss has revealed of bells reply, the information about zeek being headquartered in NC was just a click away on the homepage, it was easily available information, which menas the defendants were aware who they were doing business with.
but mere awareness may not be enough, as the SC noted in asahi metal, ‘something more’ is needed.
at this point bell revealed his hidden card – all zeekrewards members signed up to zeekler.com which operated under an NC license.
this is the ‘something more’ that ties zeek members directly to the state and jurisdiction of north carolina.
this is quite simple, there is no need to complicate it.
Yes I am sure. Perhaps the document will be available on ASD Updates soon and you can check for yourself.
Perhaps, but it simplifies the question which needs to be answered, namely, was there sufficient minimum contact. If so, then the court should find it has personal jurisdiction.
In addressing the issue of personal jurisdiction, Bell must show sufficient minimum contact which if present shows purposeful availment.
There are several ways to show purposeful availment, the elements cited in (5)(d) are one but Bell has supplied four. Relying solely on 5d would have limited him.
The point of Bell’s response is to establish personal jurisdiction, once that is accomplished a judgment based on the provisions of the NC UFTA may be obtained.
My impression (which you refute) is that the UFTA does not require a creditor to request money in order for the court to order disgorgement. I assert the only requirement for a disgorgment order is that the creditor received a fraudulent transfer.
Therefore requesting funds is one of several proofs that Bell has given the court to show that the net winner availed himself of North Carolina law, but it is not as an act predicate to disgorgment under the NC UFTA.
correct. once jurisdiction is ascertained, based on the ‘purposeful availment’ which establishes ‘minimum contact’, NC UFTA can be applied without any other condition, except that a fraudulent transfer took place.
The link is to a petition for certiori. Its nothing more than a request by the losing party to be heard and contains a preliminary brief of the issues.
The 4th Circuit decision in Universal Leather stands and Mullen must regard it.
The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is petitioned to review each year.
I.E., less than 2% of the petitions submitted to the Supreme Court are heard.
All of those are case specific rules. It means they may be relevant in specific types of cases, but they may be completely meaningless in other types.
So they’re not part of any “refined bedrock rules” or “Golden Rules”.
Most of those criteria will be completely meaningless in clawback litigations. They were relevant in their respective cases and they will probably be relevant in similar cases, but that doesn’t mean they will be relevant in ALL cases.
From the Koro appeal:
The first path is suit related conduct. In “Bell v. Fraser” that should typically be about the transactions.
The second path is general jurisdiction, based on a more general type of contact with the forum state. That’s not very relevant in the clawback litigation against Fraser.
I don’t think we have discussed that at all? “Which you refute” must be about some type of hypothetical scenario.
You’re actually derailing here. I have NOT refuted anything about the NC UFTA, it hasn’t been mentioned in this thread before you brought it up now.
N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4 Rule 5d has “on the defendant’s order or direction” as one of the elements. So the withdrawal request made from Fraser’s back office may be relevant enough for personal jurisdiction.
OK, explain it.
The two-prong test seems to be this one:
If you merge it into one question, that question will be …???
The Court of Appeals identified it like this:
It only made it more vague. The method was probably relevant enough in the Koro case, but I don’t think Judge Mullen will add it to his collection of “favorite legal doctrines”. 🙂
The logical reasoning behind the Koro merging argument starts with this argument:
I identified N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4 Rule 1d in post #100:
“When service of process is made upon such party”. It doesn’t seem to be very relevant in the clawback litigation against MacGregor Fraser.
It isn’t very likely that MacGregor Fraser have engaged in some “substantial activity” in North Carolina in late 2014 / early 2015. He lives in New Zealand and Malaysia, according to himself.
1] bell vs fraser is clawback litigation BUT the defendant has questioned the courts jurisdiction, and at the moment it is first a ‘jurisdiction case’.
2] from whatever hoss has revealed here it is obvious bell’s reply is focused on showing that the court has jurisdiction over fraser, because fraser established ‘minimum contact’ with NC and purposefully availed [purposefully directed actions and benefited] of the forum because:
a] he was directing transactions towards NC, and should have been aware that zeek functioned from NC, as this ‘specific’ information was provided by the company itself, on its website very clearly.
b] he signed up with zeekler.com with the intent to transact there. zeekler.com is licensed to do auctions by NC, and this creates contact between fraser and NC.
as far as i can see, bell has followed the ‘criteria’ of showing that the defendant had contact with the forum and purposefully availed it.
one or more of these ‘criteria’ will be relevant in all jurisdiction cases. if you don’t want to call them ‘golden rules’ you can call them horseshit, but these ‘criteria’ will be the ‘guide’ [is that better?] to establish jurisdiction in all cases.
i don’t know why you are confusing the thread by bringing in some irrelevant nonsense about ‘specific’ jurisdiction and ‘general’ jurisdiction.
this case is about ‘specific’ jurisdiction, relating to defendants activities in a specific matter.
you are hung up on the transactions fraser made with zeek. but those transactions have meaning, only if bell can conclusively show that those transactions were directed at NC, and fraser had contact with the forum at NC.
hence bell has structured his reply around purposeful direction/availment.
The point is, that there is 4th Circuit precedent for merging the two prong test into a single question, which in this instance is; did Frazer have sufficient minimum contact with the forum state for Mullen to find there is personal jurisdiction?
On a prima facie basis the answer to that seems to be yes so if Frazer is to prevail on his MTD he must present compelling evidence to the contrary.
Since it is highly doubtful that he can do so his MTD should be denied.
BTW, it didn’t seem to be very relevant in the Koro appeal either. Koro didn’t have any presence at all in North Carolina at the time of the lawsuit.
The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court failed to explain the relevance of that argument. It referred to the wrong legal rule, and it didn’t “build a bridge” between the wrong rule and a correct one. That “bridge” may of course be hidden somewhere, but it wasn’t visible in the text.
Well purportedly he owes the estate money. Would that be substantial enough?
The primary issue will still be the underlying lawsuit, even if the current issue is about jurisdiction. All the relevant facts will come from the underlying lawsuit.
Point to ONE relevant case where the Supreme Court haven’t looked into the underlying lawsuit for facts? Where it has applied legal rules or criteria directly without analysing the relevance of those rules?
I’m talking about case specific rules here, not the general personal jurisdiction (about minimum contact rather than substantial contact). Simply point to ONE relevant case.
In other words its all tied together. Frazer signed up, executed a TOA, invested money, managed account, made withdrawal requests, received fraudulent transfers and consequently received a demand for repayment and summons to defend a lawsuit in North Carolina in 2014/15.
He is now embroiled in a lawsuit stemming from those activities. In aggregate its hard to imagine that would not be sufficient to warrant the courts personal jurisdiction over him.
I haven’t looked into that document yet, so it will be rather meaningless to discuss it. I have looked into some of Hoss’ arguments and some other sources, but that’s all.
Those 2 points you mentioned seem to be correct.
“Confusing the thread”? I have linked to and quoted from relatively reliable sources.
* Wikipedia (your source) in post #92.
* The Koro appeal in post #107 (link in post #96 Hoss).
They both identify it in a similar way. “There’s 2 paths to personal jurisdiction, a general one and a case specific one”. One will require substantial and general contact with the forum state, the other one will require a minimum but lawsuit related contact.
So there’s nothing “confusing” in my arguments there. You can check the quotes and the sources yourself, they have been made available.
The confusing part here, from my POV, is the Koro appeal. It doesn’t seem to be very relevant for the MacGregor Fraser clawback litigation.
of course all the facts will come from the underlying lawsuit, where else will they come from?
to prove jurisdiction, bell has to test the facts of the underlying case against the ‘6 point guide’ established for ascertaining minimum contacts.
the court will then judge whether the ‘minimum contacts’ he lays out, are sufficient or not, based on the underlying case.
the court will definitely look into the quantity and quality of these minimum contacts to check for jurisdiction. thus each case retains its individuality inspite of being tested against the ‘guide’ established for checking jurisdiction.
Those last factors there are not very relevant for personal jurisdiction.
The defendant will usually need to initiate or maintain the contact himself. Fraser tries to do the opposite, trying to get the lawsuit dismissed. He’s actively trying to avoid that type of contact with the forum state.
The first factors seem to be relevant enough, but the second half will fail.
What you call an “appeal” has absolutely no relevance at all, and God only knows why you keep bringing it up.
What has relevance is the Decision rendered by the 4th District in Koro v Universal Leather which is what Bell cited and what Mullen will almost certainly follow. Forget the “Koro appeal!”
He did. It does not mean he has to continuously maintain substantial activity by, in this case managing his account and making withdrawal requests every single day up until he is served a summons.
The substantial activity occurred and the consequences are ongoing.
Which one(s)?
You have listed 6 criteria.
1) have direct contact with the state;
2) have a contract with a resident of the state;
3) have placed their product into the stream of commerce such that it reaches the forum state;
4) seek to serve residents of the forum state;
5) have satisfied the Calder effects test; or
6) have a non-passive website viewed within the forum state.
Lawsuit against MacGregor Fraser
1. Is direct contact with the forum state relevant?
2. Is contract relevant? Not really
3. Is the stream of commerce relevant? NO
4. Is seek to serve residents relevant? NO
5. Is the Calder effect relevant? NO
6. Is the passive website relevant? NO
Relevance = the lawsuit arises out of that conduct, or the conduct creates a substantial connection to the forum state.
* Some of those criteria seem to be completely irrelevant, e.g. the “stream of commerce”, the “seek to serve residents”, the “passive website”. No factors like those have been identified in the lawsuit.
* The Calder effect is about tort claims, “where the injury reasonably could be expected to be felt and would have most impact”. The lawsuit isn’t about that.
* Contracts will be relevant in lawsuits arising out of contractual relationships. That’s not the case here.
* Personal contact with the forum state may have some relevance. It can clearly be relevant in most cases, but the personal contact shouldn’t be required for personal jurisdiction.
Have you checked the court documents? 🙂
The Receiver can’t bring the defendant in under the NC Court’s jurisdiction based on the argument that he’s trying to bring the defendant in under that jurisdiction.
The lawsuit itself won’t create any meaningful relationship with the forum state relevant to the lawsuit.
Walden v. Fiore:
Fourth Cicuit Court of Appeals is an appellate court, so I identified it quite correctly.
You brought up that case yourself initially. I have only tried to check some of your arguments and the source.
Which part of it will Mullen follow?
The part you quoted referred to a “wrong rule”, not very relevant in the clawback litigation against MacGregor Fraser.
It was identified like this in footnote 3:
MacGregor Fraser isn’t exactly “engaged in substantial activity” in North Carolina?
There must be something you haven’t told yet, e.g. that Fraser recruited a complete downline in North Carolina and held regular recruitment meetings there?
Let’s be charitable and assume the word “substantial” has a different meaning in Norway.
That’s not what I meant and It makes no sense to believe it could make sense. Its an absurd interpretation of what I wrote.
When a defendant purposefully avails himself of NC law by participating in a fraud and voluntarily retains what are allegedly fraudulent transfers of money from a NC corporation then it stands to reason that he may have an obligation to the company.
Frazer’s original actions coupled with his potential obligation to repay RVG are what constitutes the “significant activity” here and its an ongoing and open issue.
Continuous and repeated sign ins on the Zeek website to manage his account and withdraw funds are not required to meet the conditions of (1)(d) The past is connected to the present.
Frazer can not walk away from a relationship that he voluntarily entered. There is unfinished business and the counter party has rights too and both have purposely availed themselves of the protection of NC statutes.
….Up to and including the moment those rights are finally adjudicated.
I can test the “direct contact” argument here. It was the only criterion that could be said to be relevant for the MacGregor Fraser clawback litigation.
* Would it make any difference if Fraser had indirect contact through a friend, family member or others, e.g. “All those withdrawal request were actually made by my mother” or “my personal assistant did all the work”?
The direct contact is clearly not a requirement for personal jurisdiction. It may be relevant, but it will be meaningless to interpret it too literally.
“6 rules”
All those 6 rules may be relevant in the right types of cases, but that doesn’t mean they will be relevant in ALL cases. All 6 arguments may fail to have any relevance in a case.
I haven’t read the document yet. I have read what PPblog posted, and that was quite fact oriented.
I have also read Hoss’ quotes and the arguments he has posted (including links to sources). Most of my posts have been about that.
I pointed out that some of the factors mentioned are not very relevant for personal jurisdiction:
The fact that the Receiver has sued MacGregor Fraser in North Carolina isn’t very relevant. Normally you can’t use the lawsuit itself as an argument, e.g. “the defendant is currently substantially engaged in an ongoing lawsuit against him in this state (this lawsuit), and that lawsuit will create the necessary contact with the forum state”.
That’s what the dispute is about.
* I have claimed that the court will need to identify relevant facts from the case. Then it can identify relevant legal rules or criteria (based on the facts).
* You claim that those “6 rules” always will be relevant, they can be applied directly to the facts (based on the rules, there’s no need to check the relevance first).
So you will ask 6 questions:
1. Did MacGregor have any direct contact with North Carolina?
2. Did MacGregor have a contract with a NC entity or resident?
3. Did MacGregor place his products into the stream of commerce so it could be accessed by residents of North Carolina?
4. Did MacGregor seek to serve NC residents?
5. Did MacGregor’s efforts cause harm primarily in North Carolina?
6. Did MacGregor have a website that could be accessed from North Carolina?
Most of those questions will be completely irrelevant.
And the Supreme Court didn’t ask those questions in Walden v. Fiore, so you can’t claim that courts always will apply those 6 criteria. The Supreme Court only applied criteria from Calder v. Jones (it applied logic from many other cases too, but it didn’t extract 6 rules like that).
Jesus Maria just because you read Walden v Fiore doesn’t mean you have to bring it up everytime jurisdiction is discussed. I can almost guarantee you can not explain why it applies or even if it applies in this case.
I did and there are two yeses and four maybes…which by my measurement says Mullen finds that he has personal jurisdiction in the matter.
There is no way those questions are “completely irrelevant” so I do not even know what you are talking about. Do you?
It may be absurd, but I responded to it as a part of a normal dialogue:
* I pointed out that some arguments had very little relevance.
* You claimed they had relevance (“He did”).
* And then you got a reply.
“He did” was about initiating or maintaining contact wih the forum state.
Zeek was shut down on August 17 2012. It’s not very likely that MacGregor continued to log in and maintain his ZeekRewards account “on a daily basis” after that date, up until the lawsuit in early 2015.
“Potential obligation to repay RVG” will not create any meaningful contact with the forum state?
His daily or weekly contact probably ended on August 17 2012.
Fraser didn’t “walk away”. Zeek was shut down by federal agents, and the website was shut down too, on or around August 17 2012.
His activities up to the date August 17 2012 may be relevant, but “unfinished businesses” isn’t a type of conduct.
There’s nothing indicating that Fraser has “availed himself to the laws of the forum state” after August 17 2012, that he has maintained some type of presence or status in North Carolina after that date.
I think it does, it must, otherwise (1) (d) does not apply. If you have a better explanation, let’s hear it.
Why did Bell cite (1)(d)? Is he stupid? Did he make a mistake or is there something you don’t understand?
Its assumed and pretty obvious that Frazer was not engaging in “significant activity” (at least not in any conventionally understood sense) in the State of North Carolina at the time he received process. So how does (1) (d) apply?
Sure he has. He walked away from a demand for payment from RVG such that RVG has been forced to file suit against him.
He walked away from what a court is very likely to find is his obligation.
I may marry, and in that way avail myself of the benefits of marriage, and even though my wife abandons me or I walk out hoping to never to look back, but I am still married until a court adjudicates the terms of the divorce.
Frazer and RVG are in this sense “married” which to my mind implies that Frazer still has “meaningful contact” with the forum State.
I have already identified it like that (the second part of it). Rule 1d didn’t seem to be very relevant in the lawsuit against Fraser.
All the activity up to August 17 2012 may be relevant, but a potential lawsuit will in itself not create any meaningful contact with the forum state.
I haven’t read that document. PPblog quoted from some parts of it, but that was mostly about relevant contact before August 17 2012.
One possible explanation is that when they listed all contact Fraser actually had with RVG, they may have felt they had enough relevant contact to go for “personal jurisdiction based on substantial contact with the forum state”.
That explanation will make some sense.
* Case specific minimum contact as one option.
* General substantial contact as a second option.
I will need to read that document / read those arguments in context with other arguments.
Correct. A marriage will not end if someone walks away, but other types of relationships may end just like that (by someone terminating the relationship).
In business, you’re not “married” to the people or companies you’re doing business with.
It doesn’t work like that for consumers either, they’re not “married” to the local merchant. You simply can’t expect that type of service from your local butcher, and he can’t expect it from you either. 🙂
You can of course TRY that idea the next time you’re out shopping. But make sure to reserve some time to spend with your family and friends, e.g. each Monday or Thursday, and each second weekend (Friday – Sunday). 🙂
And make sure you pick the right merchant. It should preferrably be one that can afford to support your expensive lifestyle.
You can terminate your relationship with anyone or anything at any time, BUT that does not automatically release you from existing or potential obligations. That is the point I am making and why I believe in a legal sense Frazer is significantly active in the forum state.
Frazer can run off to Malaysia but he transacted business in North Carolina and the relationship he entered three years ago is not over until the court dismisses the case or makes a final disposition on the matters before it.
Its goes without saying that the Court must have personal jurisdiction over Frazer to accomplish this which is why to my way of thinking (1) (d) is the appropriate code section to invoke.
@Anjali
Here’s one additional source that clearly separates between general jurisdiction and case specific jurisdiction.
Walden v. Fiore (Supreme Court), footnote 6 on page 6.
Zeek was shut down by federal agencies on August 17 2012. It didn’t release Fraser from any obligations, but it terminated the existing relationship with RVG (for all affiliates).
Fraser’s relationship with RVG ended there in 2012.
The underlying lawsuit is based on his suit related conduct prior to August 17 2012, to the net profit he received from RVG. He didn’t receive any payouts from RVG after August 17 2012. Accounts were frozen and the website was shut down within few days.
Personal jurisdiction can be based on:
* Minimum contact, based on suit related conduct
* Substantial contact, based on general contact with the forum state
* Both types.
The lawsuit against net winners in New Zealand was filed in early 2015 (January or February 2015).
To put Rule 1d into context, here’s Rule 1 a-b-c-d:
From my POV, Rule 1d will be the wrong type of rule to use here.
* The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals had some different ideas (in Universal Leather LLC v. Koro AR SA).
* Kenneth Bell and Irving Brenner may have some different ideas too.
Here’s the Supreme Court’s entries for that case. Partial info plus a link.
Does this mean the 4th Circuit Appeals Panel decision has been overturned?
Nope, the case seems to be in its initial phases. I simply identified where to find information and what to find there (“nothing of interest”, except for the list of docket entries).
Nice find. Thanks for sharing.
i have already mentioned in post#102 that due to the nature of internet communications instead of ‘direct contact’ the premise of ‘purposefully availed’ is used to check for contact with the forum.
this is because a person may not establish ‘direct contact’ in the sense of visiting the forum state or physically mailing them something, or calling on a landline phone.
so, ‘purposefully availed’ is just a subset of the first point on the ‘6 point criteria’ ie — Did MacGregor have any direct [purposefully availed] contact with North Carolina?
the rest of the 5 criteria are not relevant in this case. it is enough to satisfy just one point of the listed criteria.
for example if a foreign defendant has a ‘contract’ with an entity in the forum, that may be enough to bring him under the jurisdiction of the forum, without any other criteria being satisfied.
you yourself admit in post#131 that in walden vs fiore, the SC used the 5th criteria of the the calder effect.
the court does not stand up in the middle of the room, and do a criteria check list reading, and tick off points. only the relevant criteria is used in the relevant case based on the underlying facts of the case.
Where do these Six questions come from again?
From Wikipedia, e.g. post #90. But I converted them from “6 rules” to “6 questions” when I tested how relevant they would be in the MacGregor Fraser case. Most of them were almost completely irrelevant in that case.
The Supreme Court didn’t use those 6 rules in Walden v. Fiore. It used elements from multiple, relevant cases for two basic rules for “minimum contact”, and elements from Calder v. Jones for the case specific rules (when it analysed the arguments from the initial complaint).
Internet contact can make a difference, or it can be rather irrelevant. It will depend on the facts from the underlying lawsuit.
In ZeekRewards, ALL the affiliates used internet for withdrawal requests from back office to ewallet. So the use of internet was the common method. I don’t think there was any other method?
Direct contact isn’t a required element for personal jurisdiction (the case specific one). The required elements is “certain minimum contacts … so that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”.
It will need to be about some type of meaningful contact relevant to the lawsuit, and it must have been initiated or maintained by the defendant himself.
the SC does not need to use all those six rules in one case.
the SC has relied on the basic ‘minimum contact’ rule to establish the defendants contact with the forum of nevada, and has used the calder vs jones, to see if the effects felt by the nevada plaintiffs is sufficient to warrant jurisdiction.
when the SC or any court tests the arguments of the plaintiffs, they will rely on many other cases in which findings have been made in greater detail ie which kind of minimum contact is sufficient and which isn’t. which kind of ‘effect’ is sufficient to allow jurisdiction?
in examining the ‘quality’ of the ‘minimum contacts’ argued by the plaintiff, the court will rely on many published cases. every case is not the same. every case has details which have to be correctly slotted and examined.
if you have a bundle of clothes you can first slot them as shirts, pants, vests. you can further slot them into white shirts, checked shirts, dato dan shirts.
this is detailing, and when courts study the quality or quantity of contacts, they will naturally rely on many precedent orders, to study the details.
its not like point no 1 says ‘had direct contact’, so if the defendant has attended a wedding in the forum state, it can be said to be direct contact, and so jurisdiction can be granted blindly!
the court will look to some precedent/or create a new precedent, that says – the direct contact should be related to the claim which has been raised. the court will cite this precedent and deny jurisdiction.
so, there are basic guidelines, and then there is the detailing.
i think i have explained this best that i can. we can complicate this to timbucktu and back, and nobody will get any wiser.
i’m just glad that bell has followed my advice and based his argument on the ‘direct contacts’ fraser established, by purposefully directed activities, wherein he purposefully availed of the the forum of north carolina. well done mr bell, send my check soon 🙂
Correct. The Supreme Court doesn’t need to use all those six rules, and neither do we.
The District Court can use N.C.G.S. 1-75.4 (the long arm statute) like it has used in all those lawsuits. There’s no need to analyse “direct contact”, “internet contact”, “stream of commerce” or any other of those six rules there.
But “fairness” may still be relevant, i.e. people can still have valid arguments for a Motion To Dismiss.
You might want to retract this statement
Since the company is still in operation and has never stopped as you can see from the link.
It launched the task network in July which was delayed. The Ad Network they have is delivering over a million ad views a day.
It is not a company that is growing strongly like a hyip because it is not one. Members cannot earn ridiculous amounts for doing basically nothing. They cannot earn if they do nothing.
Alexa rank tanked earlier this year (collapse) and hasn’t recovered.
For a recruitment-driven scheme that’s RIP.
UH OH,
When the serial ponzi pimps and insiders come out from under their rocks to start defending a “program” you just KNOW it’s dead.
This is ESPECIALLY true when said program has already been moved to the “closed, inactive, and offline programs” section of the usual suspect HYIP ponzi forums