zeekrewardsAs late as February 1st, 2016, Trudy Gilmond was still adopting a “if I ignore it, it’ll go away” approach to her upcoming Zeek Rewards trial.

Gilmond was sued by the SEC late last year for her role as a top investor in the Zeek Rewards Ponzi scheme.

An attorney conference had been scheduled for February 1st, with SEC attorneys unable to reach Gilmond on the day.

trudy-gilmond-top-zeek-rewards-promoterA follow-up attempt to contact Gilmond (right) was made on February 3rd, with SEC attorney John Bowers claiming ‘Gilmond was unable or unwilling to respond regarding the issues presented‘.

As such, the SEC alone filed a proposed trial schedule on February 10th.

Judge Mullen signed off on the schedule on February 17th, ordering a five-day trial to kick off on September 11th, 2017.

Perhaps in anticipation of Gilmond’s continued non-cooperation, Mullen stressed in his order that

the deadline indicated on the published trial calendar may not be extended for any reason.

Failure to comply with this deadline WILL result in sanctions.

The second sentence was bolded in the order itself, suggesting Mullen won’t be taking any crap from Gilmond if she tries to delay the trial.

Separately on February 16th, Gilmond filed an amended answer to the SEC’s complaint.

The amended response is properly formatted this time around, as opposed to the one-paragraph response Gilmond filed in January.

The response itself is filled with your typical denials and “I didn’t knows” we’ve seen time and time again from Ponzi insiders.

Of particular note is Gilmond’s response of ignorance regarding Zeek Rewards being a Ponzi scheme:

I would have no knowledge of anything regarding investments or regulators due to the fat that I have never dealt with sales of investments.

I do not have knowledge of what securities are and would not have the knowledge of how to sell them.

Despite claiming she has no “knowledge of what securities are”, Gilmond goes on to claim “I do not agree that I offered securities or sales of securities”.

I’m sure that’ll go down well in court.

Stay tuned…


Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of the SEC’s Attorney Conference report (February 10th), Gilmond’s Amended Response (February 16th) and Judge Mullen’s Pretrial Order and Case Management Plan (February 17th).


Update September 12th, 2017 – Rather than face trial Trudy Gilmond decided to obstruct the SEC’s case against her from going forward.

This resulted in a Final Judgment of $1,752,673.47 in disgorgement, $169.084 in prejudgement interest and a $150,000 civil penalty issued against her in June, 2017.