zeekrewardsSandra Gavel is a Canadian Zeek Rewards net-winner, who after being sued by the Zeek Receiver is up for $89,906.

In response to the Receiver’s lawsuit, Gavel personally filed the following communication with the court:

Your offer to contract is hereby rejected as unacceptable.

I do NOT consent to the jurisdiction of any United States Magistrate, or the jurisdiction of any United States Article III Judge in the United States District Court Western District of North Carolina.

Nobody really knew what the above communication was supposed to be, at least within a legal context, with the Receiver responding by asking the court to clarify the filing.

That clarification came by way of an order passed on September 16th, classifying Gavel’s response for a motion to dismiss and subsequently denying it:

This letter is the only response made by Defendant Gavel.

In light of Gavel’s pro se status, the Receiver seeks clarification as to whether the Court construes the letter as a 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or merely a failure to answer or defend.

The Court hereby construes the letter as a motion to dismiss and denies the same.

Catherine Parker, a fellow Canadian Zeek net-winner who stole $179,656, has also been engaged in a series of hilarious communications with the Clerk of the Court.

Parker, who identifies herself as a “natural person” (as opposed to an unnatural person?), failed to respond to the Zeek Receiver’s clawback lawsuit filed against her.

This saw default judgment for the amount of $213,953 entered against Parker back in January.

Not too happy with stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars and not being able to get away with it, Parker fired off an angry letter to the Court Clerk.

With the default judgement still standing, a trial to reaffirm the Receiver’s case against Canadian net-winners has been scheduled for April 2016.

In the meantime, Parker continues to badger Court staff with written communications, with the latest a September 15th letter to Frank G. Johns:

Dear Frank G. Johns, the following correspondence is for your immediate attention. It is not to be entered into your court filing system.

For clarification purposes, any previous correspondence from me to you, or your Chief Deputy Clerk, are also private correspondence.

I did not request, authorize, or intended any of them to be entered into your court filing system.

If you have entered any of y private correspondence into your court filing system, I am instructing you to remove them without delay and send me confirmation upon their removal.

Mr. Johns, what are your intentions toward me at this time?

It appears you have not acknowledged my reply sent to your on October 10, 2014, which you received on October 16, 2014, confirmed by Canada Post.

Yet, you moved forward with court action against me by filing a Default Judgement two (2) months after receiving my reply.

Why did you do that?

What specific law did you follow to support your actions?

Regarding the topic of my multiple requests for your Oath of Office, detailed lists of your court related bonds, sureties, indemnification, and insurance related policies, as well as your Financial Disclosure Reports since taking office, it is a little unsettling that the custodian of records will not release these public records under a FOIA request.

In face, your Chief Deputy Clerk, Terry T. Leitner, stated, “this office does not release copies of personnel documents.”

Since when is the Oath of Office of a Public Official considered a private personnel document and not open to the public for inspection upon request?

Thank you in advance for your personal response to my questions, which I’ve placed in bold for your convenience.

Parker’s letter has been filed and marked “special, private, priority”. To what end? Who knows… but I’m pretty sure the end result is still going to see Parker up for the money she stole.

Ah sovereign citizens and their scam beliefs, always a reliable source of entertainment…


Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of Judge Mullen’s denial of Sandra Gavel’s Motion to Dismiss and September 15th “Pro Se Letter from Catherine Parker”.


Update 4th March 2016 – As per a March 2nd order by Judge Mullen, the Canadian net-winner trial has been rescheduled for September 6th, 2016.


Update 24th August 2016 – As per an August 15th order, the Canadian net-winner trial has been rescheduled for the February 2017 term.