zeekrewardsFollowing the denial of motions to dismiss clawback litigation filed against them, Trudy Gilmond and Jerry Napier have ceased co-operating with the court-appointed Receiver.

In response, Zeek Rewards Receiver has now requested the court enter default judgement against both of them.

Gilmond and Napier’s respective motions to dismiss were denied last December.

The duo had also filed a troll’ish counter-claim, demanding the Receiver pay them $947,000.

The counter-claim was also denied by Judge Mullen back in January.

As the clawback case progressed, February saw class-certification granted. This meant that Gilmond and Napier, along with their fellow top Zeek investors, would now represent all of the net-winners in clawback litigation.

In granting the Receiver’s Motion for Class Certification, the Court held that all Named Defendants, including Ms. Gilmond and her company, would need to “provide the Receiver with any and all evidence of their financial status and the location of all net winnings received from ZeekRewards, including deposition testimony as to the same.”

For Trudy Gilmond, here’s how that went down:

The Receiver noticed Defendants’ deposition for April 3, 2015 in Vermont, Ms. Gilmond’s state of residence.

Gilmond’s lawyer withdrew from the case after she was served with notification of the deposition, with the Receiver then ensuring service by personally serving her via email (the address obtained from her former lawyer).

In spite of the Court’s Order and repeated notice, Ms. Gilmond has refused to appear for her noticed deposition.

When the deposition was first noticed, Ms. Gilmond refused to confirm through counsel that she would appear for the deposition.

Then, once her former counsel withdrew from the case, the Receiver attempted on March 18, 2015 to confirm directly with her that she would appear.

On March 23rd, Gilmond sent the Receiver the following response:


In communications with Ms. Gilmond, the Receiver offered to be flexible on the logistics of the deposition if another date was more convenient for Ms. Gilmond.

But, the Receiver further explained to Ms. Gilmond that if she did not appear, the Receiver planned to move the Court for an Entry of Judgment against her and her company for the full amount of her net winnings plus interest.

Ms. Gilmond’s only response was that she would not attend the deposition.

Later on March 23, 2015, the Receiver again offered to conduct the deposition on a different day if it was more convenient for
Ms. Gilmond. Id.

Now, a month later, the Receiver has never even received a response to this March 23 email.

Well gee, I wonder why one of Zeek’s top Ponzi pimps objects to being deposed as to her fraudulently obtained winnings.

Luckily for the interests of justice, whether Trudy Gilmond objects to being deposed is neither here nor there.

In sum, it seems clear that Ms. Gilmond does not intend to appear for a deposition or produce the related requested documents. She has offered no explanation for her refusal to appear or otherwise defend the action.

Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Receiver to move the Court for judgment against Ms. Gilmond and her company and the alternative relief requested.

With Napier and Gilmond working in cahoots, Napier’s situation is pretty much identical to Gilmond’s.

Napier’s lawyer also withdrew from the case after an initial deposition notice was served. The Receiver then attempted to confirm the date of the deposition with Napier himself, with this email the only response received:


Before default judgment is granted, both Gilmond and Napier have been given one last chance to explain themselves.

Proposed orders submitted by the Receiver request the pair appear before the court ‘no later than May 15, 2015 and show cause as to why judgment should not be entered against‘ them.

If Judge Mullen grants the proposal and Gilmond and Napier fail to rock up (or if Mullen just goes ahead and grants default judgement), Gilmond and Napier will have judgement entered against them for the amounts they stole.

When combined with interest, this amounts to $2.12 million for Gilmond and $2.04 million for Napier.

One question I have is what does this mean for the class certification? Both Gilmond and Napier are supposed to be representing the rest of the net-winners who refuse to pay up.

What does them getting steam-rolled in court mean for the other net-winners? Or, with default judgement rendered against them, are Gilmond and Napier simply struck off the class-certification representatives list, leaving those who still believe they can win to fight it out?

Either way you have to wonder what’s going on in the mind’s of these two. Instead of just paying up when they were caught, they now owe an additional 21% over what they stole.

The remaining Zeek Rewards Ponzi heroes would do well to consider that number, as it’s only going to rise the longer they draw this mess out.

Failing Gilmond and Napier making what is bound to be a comical appearance before the North Carolina court, it’s expected that default judgement will be entered against them.

Clawback litigation against the rest of the Zeek Rewards net-winner class continues…


Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of the Zeek Recevier’s 23rd of April requests for default judgement.