zeekrewardsCatherine Parker, a Canadian Zeek Rewards affiliate, stole an alleged $179,656 from Zeek Rewards victims.

This earned her a spot in the Receiver’s lawsuit against top Canadian Zeek Rewards affiliates, filed back in November of last year.

Following a lack of response, the Receiver filed for default judgement against Parker in December.

The request was granted in January, with Parker up for a total of $213,953 ($179,656 requested plus $34,297 in interest).

Now, some six months after default judgement was entered against her, Parker has written to the North Carolina District Court… and she sounds pissed.

Grab some popcorn folks…

Parker’s letter to the court starts off by alleging that she sent a 46 page response to the Zeek Receiver’s lawsuit on Friday October 10th, 2014.

The response was sent directly a clerk of the court, with Parker claiming the response ‘has not been acknowledged before your U.S. court’.

I suspect the reason is that the response was likely incorrectly formatted, and/or had to be filed through the court itself. I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t believe a response to a lawsuit can just be mailed to a clerk of the court.

In any event, why it’s taken Parker eight months to address the issue is a mystery. Ditto whether or not Parker sought legal advice on the matter.

After that, things then take a turn towards the bizarre.

Parker, who identifies herself repeatedly as a “natural person”, takes issue with her being titled as “Capitus Diminutio Maxima” in court documents. She also protests the capitalization of her name.

Rather, Parker claims, the correctly styling of her name should always be “Capitus Diminutio Minima and her name itself written as “Catherine Parker”.

And if you’re wondering what Capitus Diminutio Minima (or Maxima) is, it’s

a term used in Roman law, referring to the extinguishing, either in whole or in part, of a person’s former legal capacity.

There were three changes of state or condition attended with different consequences: maxima, media, and minima.

Capitis deminutio minima, consisted of a person ceasing to belong to a particular family, without loss of liberty or citizenship.

What “family” Parker believes she no longer belongs to is unclear, ditto what a facet of Earth Roman law has to do with a lawsuit filed in the United States.

Roman law, within the context of Capitis deminutio minima, ceased to exist around 529 A.D.

Despite being given the required time to properly reply to the Receiver’s lawsuit against her, Parker alleges she has been denied “administrative remedy and “due process of law”.

As such Parker claims that “all judgements” against her are “void ab initio” (“to be treated as invalid from the outset”).

Not only that, but Parker also claims that the clerk who received her initial response and attorneys acting on behalf of the Zeek Rewards receiver have “dishonored the court by (their) actions”.

Parker finishes her communication to the court by demanding that the clerk of the court provide her with “a certified copy” of any oath he might have sworn, prior to taking up his employment.

Parker concludes by declaring that failure to do so “within 30 days” will constitute a “tacit admission to perpetrating fraud”.

How’s that popcorn taste?

Whether or not the court will even acknowledge Parker’s communication, short of acknowledging it was received and filed, remains to be seen.

Quite clearly Parker believes formal court procedure, including adherence to the court’s established rules, does not apply to her personally.

With adequate time to respond to the Receiver’s lawsuit in the correct manner, or at the very least approach the court well before eight months have passed since the lawsuit was filed, I suspect Parker’s attempts to derail the lawsuit will just be ignored.

You’re up for over $200,000 in Ponzi fraud my dear, and it’s time to pay back those you stole from.


Footnote: Our thanks to Don@ASDUpdates for providing a copy of Catherine Parker’s 23rd June filing with the North Carolina District Court.


Update 2nd July 2015 – The court has replied to Catherine Parker’s request for a certified copy of the court clerk’s oath.

In a letter dated July 1st, the Chief Deputy Clerk replied;

In response to your request for a copy of the oath of office form for Frank G. Johns, Clerk, U.S. District Court, this office does not release copies of personnel documents.

This letter will confirm, however, that Frank G. Johns was appointed Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on April 11, 1994.

A copy of the oath of office all Court Clerks swear is attached.

Will it be enough for Parker? Who knows…